How to go to your page

This eBook bundle contains 2 books.

The front matter of each book have their own page numbering
scheme, consisting of a book number and a page number, separated by a colon.

For example, to go to page v of Volume 1, type “Vol1:v” in the "page #" box at the
top of the screen and click "Go."

To go to page “vi” of Book 2, type “Vol2:vi”… and so forth.

Please refer to the eTOC for further clarification.

The Early Medieval World
The Early Medieval
World
FROM THE FALL OF ROME TO THE
TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE

VOLUME ONE: A–K

Michael Frassetto
Copyright 2013 by ABC-CLIO, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a
review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Frassetto, Michael.
The early medieval world : from the fall of Rome to the time of Charlemagne /
Michael Frassetto.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59884-995-0 (hardcopy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-59884-996-7
(ebook) 1. Europe—History—392-814—Encyclopedias. 2. Middle Ages—
Encyclopedias. 3. Civilization, Medieval—Encyclopedias. I. Title.
D114.F83 2013
940.1'2—dc23 2012031995

ISBN: 978-1-59884-995-0
EISBN: 978-1-59884-996-7

17 16 15 14 13 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.

Visit [Link] for details.

ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America
Contents

VOLUME ONE
List of Entries, vii
Guide to Related Topics, xiii
Preface, xix
Acknowledgments, xxi
Introduction, xxiii
Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World, xxxvii
Maps, l
Entries A-K, 1
VOLUME TWO
Entries L-Z, 361
PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
1. Tacitus’s Description of Early Germanic Society, 579
2. An Early Crisis of Church and State: Ambrose of Milan’s
Excommunication of Theodosius, 580
3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople, 582
4. Pope Leo I, the Great, Defends Rome against Attila the Hun, 588
5. Augustine of Hippo’s Definition of a True Commonwealth, 589
6. Augustine of Hippo’s Conversion Experience, 591
7. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England according to Bede, 593
8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works, Including the
Conversion of England, of Pope Gregory I, the Great, 595

v
vi | Contents

9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby, 600

10. Charlemagne’s Letter Promoting Learning in His Empire, 605
11. An Inventory of a Carolingian Royal Estate, 607
12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons, 608
13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne, 612
14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
and the Conversion of Constantine, 623
15. Gildas’s Version of the Conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons, 626
16. A Letter from Pope Gregory III to Charles Martel Seeking
Aid against the Lombards, 628
17. Gregory of Tours: Clovis and the Vase of Soissons, 629
18. Gregory of Tours: The Conversion of Clovis, 630
19. An Account of the Battle of Tours by a Spanish Christian
Chronicler, 631
20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica, 633
21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law, 649
22. Charlemagne and a Painted Mouse Humble a Proud Bishop, 659
23. Paul the Deacon Explains the Name of the Lombard People, 660
24. The Lombards Invade Italy on the Invitation of Narses, 661
25. Priscus’s Description of Attila the Hun and His Court, 662
26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian and
the Character of the Empress Theodora, 664
27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian, 670
28. Procopius’s Description of the Hagia Sophia Following
Its Reconstruction by Justinian, 675
29. Martin of Tours Gives His Cloak to a Poor Beggar, 677
30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint, 678

Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe, 689

Bibliography, 695
Index, 717
List of Entries

Admonitio Generalis Arbogast

Adoptionism Arianism
Aethelberht I of Kent Arnulf of Metz, St.
Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians Asser
Aëtius Astronomer, The
Agobard of Lyons, St. Athanaric
Agriculture Attila the Hun
Aistulf Augustine of Canterbury, St.
Aix-la-Chapelle Augustine of Hippo, St.
Alans Austrasia
Alaric Avars
Alaric II Badon Hill, Battle of
Alboin Balthild, St.
Alcuin of York Barbarian Art
Alemanni Basil the Great, St.
Alfred the Great Bede
Amalaswintha Belisarius
Ambrose of Milan Benedict Biscop
Ammianus Marcellinus Benedict of Aniane
Angilbert, St. Benedict of Nursia, St.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Beowulf
Anglo-Saxons Bernard Hairyfeet
Animals Bernard of Septimania
Antioch Bertrada

vii
viii | List of Entries

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus Clotilda, St.

Boniface, St. Clovis
Bretwalda Coins and Coinage
Breviary of Alaric Columba, St.
Brunhilde Columban, St.
Burgundian Code Comitatus
Burgundians Constantine
Caedwalla Constantinople
Caesarea Corpus Iuris Civilis
Caesarius of Arles Dagobert
Capitulare de Villis Desiderius
Capitularies Dhuoda
Carloman, King of the Franks Diet and Nutrition
Carloman, Mayor of the Palace Donation of Constantine
Caroline Minuscule Donation of Pippin
Carolingian Dynasty Donatism
Carolingian Renaissance Ebroin
Carthage Education and Learning
Cassian, St. John Edwin
Cassiodorus Einhard
Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the Ermoldus Nigellus
Charlemagne Eudes of Aquitaine
Charles Martel Euric
Charles the Bald Family
Charles III, the Fat Fastrada
Charles III, the Simple Fontenoy, Battle of
Childeric III Franks
Chilperic I Fredegar
Chlotar II Fredegund
Chrodegang of Metz Fritigern
Circumcellions Gaiseric
Clothing Galla Placidia
 List of Entries | ix

Galswintha Jews and Judaism

Gelasius, Pope John Scottus Erigena
Genevieve, St. Jordanes
Germanic Religion Judith
Gildas Justinian
Gothic Wars Kells, Book of
Gottschalk of Orbais King Arthur
Gregory I, the Great, Pope Law and Law Codes
Gregory II, Pope Leo I, the Great, Pope
Gregory III, Pope Leo III, Pope
Gregory of Tours Leo III, the Isaurian
Grimoald Leovigild
Gundobad Letter to Baugulf
Guntram Libri Carolini
Hadrian I, Pope Lindisfarne Gospels
Hadrianople, Battle of Liutprand
Heliand Lombards
Hengist and Horsa Lothar
Heptarchy Louis the German
Hermenegild Louis the Pious
Hincmar of Rheims Louis the Stammerer
Honoria Marriage
Honorius Martin of Tours, St.
Huneric Mercia
Huns Merovingian Dynasty
Iconoclastic Controversy Milan
Irene Missi Dominici
Irminsul Monasticism
Isidore of Seville Monte Cassino
Ivories Narses
Jerome Nennius
Jewelry and Gems Neustria
x | List of Entries

Nithard Saxon Capitularies

Northumbrian Renaissance Seville
Notker the Stammerer Sigismund, St.
Odovacar Slaves and Slavery
Offa of Mercia Stilicho, Flavius
Ordinatio Imperii Strasbourg, Oath of
Orestes Sutton Hoo
Ostrogoths Synod of Whitby
Paris Tassilo
Paul the Deacon Tertry, Battle of
Pavia Thegn
Peasants Theoda
Penda Theodora
Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen Theodoric the Great
Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal Theodosian Code
Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short Theodosius the Great
Plectrude Theodulf of Orléans
Procopius Theudelinda
Radegund Tolbiac, Battle of
Ravenna Toledo
Reccared I Totila
Ricimer Tournai
Roderic Tours
Rois Fainéants (Do-Nothing Kings) Tours, Battle of
Rome Ulfilas
Romulus Augustulus Valens
Roncesvalles, Battle of Vandals
Rothari Verdun, Treaty of
Row-Grave Cemeteries Visigoths
Royal Frankish Annals Vita Karoli
Saint-Denis, Abbey of Vortigern
Salic Law Vouillé, Battle of
 List of Entries | xi

Waltharius Witigis
Weapons and Armor Women
Wessex Zachary, St.
Widukind Zeno
Witenagemot
Guide to Related Topics

Barbarian Peoples Asser

and Dynasties Astronomer, The
Alans Augustine of Canterbury, St.
Alemanni Augustine of Hippo, St.
Anglo-Saxons Balthild
Avars Basil the Great
Burgundians Bede
Carolingian Dynasty Benedict Biscop
Franks Benedict of Nursia, St.
Huns Boethius
Jews and Judaism Boniface, St.
Lombards Cassian, John St.
Merovingian Dynasty Cassiodorus
Ostrogoths Caesarius of Arles
Vandals Chrodegang of Metz
Visigoths Columba, St.
Columban, St.
Cultural and Religious Dhuoda
Leaders Einhard
Alcuin of York Ermold Nigellus
Agobard of Lyons, St. Genevieve, St.
Ammianus Marcellinus Gildas
Ambrose of Milan Gottschalk of Orbais
Angilbert Gregory of Tours

xiii
xiv | Guide to Related Topics

Hincmar of Rheims Caedwalla

Isidore of Seville Carloman, King of the Franks
Jerome Carloman, Mayor of the Palace
John Scottus Erigena Charles Martel
Jordanes Charles III, the Fat
Martin of Tours, St. Charles III, the Simple
Nennius Charlemagne
Nithard Charles the Bald
Notker the Stammerer Childeric III
Paul the Deacon Chilperic
Procopius Chlothar II
Radegund Clotilda, St.
Theodulf of Orléans Clovis
Ulfilas Constantine
Dagobert
Emperors, Kings, and Desiderius
Queens Ebroin
Aethelberht I of Kent Edwin
Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians Euric
Aistulf Fastrada
Alaric Fredegund
Alaric II Fritigern
Alboin Gaiseric
Alfred the Great Galla Placidia
Amalaswintha Galswintha
Arbogast Grimoald
Arnulf of Metz Gundobad
Arthur Guntram
Athanaric Hermenegild
Attila the Hun Honoria
Bertrada Honorius
Brunhilde Huneric
 Guide to Related Topics | xv

Irene Carolingian Minuscule

Judith Carolingian Renaissance
Justinian Donation of Constantine
Leo III, the Isaurian Donation of Pippin
Leovigild Heliand
Liutprand Iconoclastic Controversy
Lothar Kells, Book of
Louis the German Letter to Baugulf
Louis the Pious Libri Carolini
Louis the Stammerer Lindisfarne Gospels
Offa of Mercia Northumbrian Renaissance
Penda Royal Frankish Annals
Pippin of Herstal Strasbourg, Oath of
Pippin the Short Synod of Whitby
Plectrude Verdun, Treaty of
Reccared I Vita Karoli
Roderick Waltherius
Romulus Augustulus
Rothari
Laws and Government
Sigismund Admonitio Generalis
Theodora Breviary of Alaric
Theodoric Bretwalda
Theodosius Burgundian Code
Theudelinda Capitularies
Totila Capitulary de Villis
Valens Code of Justinian
Witigis Comitatus
Zeno Heptarchy
Law and Law Codes
Events and Documents Missi Dominici
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Ordinatio Imperii
Beowulf Rois Fainéants (Do-Nothing Kings)
xvi | Guide to Related Topics

Salic Law Places

Saxon Capitularies Aix-la-Chapelle
Thegn Antioch
Theodosian Code Austrasia
Witenagemot Caesarea
Carthage
Military Leaders and Battles
Constantinople
Aëtius
Irminsul
Arbogast
Mercia
Badon Hill, Battle of
Milan
Belisarius
Monte Cassino
Bernard Hairyfeet
Neustria
Bernard of Septimania
Paris
Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the
Pavia
Eudes of Aquitaine
Ravenna
Fontenoy, Battle of
Rome
Gothic Wars
Seville
Hadrianople, Battle of
Toledo
Hengist and Horsa
Tours
Narses
Wessex
Odovacar
Orestes Popes
Ricimer Gelasius
Roncesvalle, Battle of Gregory I, the Great
Stilicho Gregory II
Tassilo Gregory III
Tertry, Battle of Hadrian I
Tolbiac, Battle of Leo I, the Great
Tours, Battle of Leo III
Vortigern Zachary
Vouillé, Battle of
Widukind
 Guide to Related Topics | xvii

Social and Religious History Germanic Religion

Adoptionism Ivories

Agriculture Jewelry and Gems

Animals Marriage

Arianism Monasticism

Barbarian Art Peasants

Circumcellions Row-Grave Cemeteries

Clothing Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Coins and Coinage Slaves and Slavery

Diet and Nutrition Sutton Hoo

Donatists Tournai

Education and Learning Weapons and Armor

Family Women
Preface

Examining an often overlooked and little understood period of history, The Early
Medieval World: From the Fall of Rome to the Time of Charlemagne is an intro-
duction to an important and formative period in European history. Surveying the
period from the fourth to the tenth centuries, this two-volume encyclopedia con-
tains almost 250 entries offering the latest scholarship on a wide range of topics.
The encyclopedia’s alphabetically arranged entries discuss laws, literary works,
religion, intellectual and cultural trends, major battles, and important places and in-
stitutions. The encyclopedia also examines the great political and religious leaders,
influential women, and various peoples who shaped late antique and early medieval
civilization. The entries provide cross-references to other related entries as well as
bibliographies of additional print and electronic information resources specific to
the entry topic.
Written for high school and undergraduate students, as well as for public library
patrons and other nonspecialists interested in the period, The Early Medieval World
includes a variety of useful additional features. A detailed chronology list provides
a ready reference guide to the most important events of the period, and an in-depth
introduction provides useful social, cultural, and historical context for the entries
throughout the two volumes. By using the Guide to Related Topics and following
the entry cross-references, a user can trace a broad theme, such as political leader-
ship, laws and government, major battles and military events, through all its major
events, ideas, and personalities. An extensive and up-to-date general bibliography
provides guidance for further study of this period by listing the most important and
accessible general works. An appendix lists all the major rulers of Europe during the
period. Finally, the encyclopedia includes excerpts from 30 important primary doc-
uments from the period, including works by Bede, Procopius, Einhard, and Saint
Augustine. Each excerpt is preceded by a brief introduction putting the document
into context for readers. A concise but comprehensive work, The Early Medieval
World is intended to bring light to what is traditionally understood as a dark age.

xix
Acknowledgments

The completion of this volume has been a long but often pleasant task, and any
merit the book may claim is the result of the help that I have received along the way
from many sources. I would like to recognize those especially without whom this
work would not have appeared. I would like to thank Joyce Salisbury, who intro-
duced me to the editors at ABC-CLIO and encouraged me to take on the project.
I received further encouragement and great support from my editor, John Wagner,
and Bridget Austiguy-Preschel and Sasikala Rajesh. It has been a great pleasure
working with them and the entire staff of editors and researchers at ABC-CLIO who
have helped bring this project to a timely end. I should thank especially and dedicate
this volume to Jill and Olivia, who have helped me in more ways than they know.

xxi
Introduction

Once defined as the “Dark Ages”—a period of unending savagery and ignorance—
the era in European history from the fall of Rome to the end of the Carolingian age
has now come to be recognized as a time of important social and cultural transfor-
mation. Although the great civilization of the ancient Mediterranean gradually faded
away during this time, it was replaced by a new and dynamic culture. Despite the
very real decline in population, literacy, city life, and economic strength, the leaders
of government and society from the fourth to the tenth centuries created a unique
culture that drew on a legacy that was at once Christian, German, and Roman. This
emerging world laid the foundation for later medieval and modern civilization. In-
deed, great leaders refashioned ideas about law and kingship and provided a model
of Christian government that remained influential into the modern age (see Alfred
the Great; Charlemagne; Justinian). Early medieval rulers also established the
basic outlines of the later medieval and modern nation states (see Verdun, Treaty
of ) as they created new kingdoms out of the former Western Empire. Although suf-
fering plague, invasion, and civil and international war, early medieval Europe en-
joyed important cultural achievements. During late antiquity and the early Middle
Ages, influential thinkers and writers (see Alcuin of York; Augustine of Hippo, St.;
Bede; Boethius) preserved the literary and intellectual traditions of ancient Rome
and shaped the theological traditions of the church. Moreover, important church
institutions, including monasticism and the papacy (see Benedict of Nursia, St.;
Gregory I, the Great, Pope), underwent significant growth in this period. Eur-
ope from the time of Constantine to the age of the Carolingians, therefore, was a
period of important transformation from the ancient to the medieval world, and an
age that laid the foundation for later medieval and modern civilization.

Overview of the Historiography of the Early Medieval World

Writing in the late 18th century, the great historian Edward Gibbon observed, “If
a man were called to fix the period of the history of the world during which the
condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without

xxiii
xxiv | Introduction

hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession
of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute
power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom” (Gibbon, vol. 1, p. 70). Gibbon
then proceeded to outline the subsequent collapse of the Roman Empire, which he
believed was the greatest political structure in human history. Beyond the moral
corruption that afflicted Rome in the period following what he saw as the golden
age, he identified two major causes for the collapse of the empire. One was an in-
ternal revolution brought on by the gradual growth of Christianity and its adoption
by the emperor and people of Rome. No longer were the Romans willing to fight
for the empire because of their adoption of a pacifistic religion that drew them away
from their traditional devotion to the service of the state.
The other significant factor contributing to the collapse of this most magnificent
empire, according to Gibbon, was the invasion of the barbarians. Large numbers
of uncivilized peoples began to put pressure on and then cross over the imperial
frontiers. These barbarians entered the empire and destroyed ancient civilization
because of their illiteracy and hatred of all things Roman (see Franks; Huns;
Vandals; Visigoths). Moreover, the Romans’ inability to provide for their own
defense made it necessary that they enroll large numbers of the same barbarians
that were invading the empire in the defense of the empire. Internal weakness and
the end of traditional civic virtue, along with the invasion of the barbarian peoples,
were, for Gibbon, the main factors in the fall of the Roman Empire and the emer-
gence of the Dark Ages.
As a result of Gibbon’s remarkable prose, wide knowledge of the original sources
in Latin and Greek, and compelling argument, his view of the end of the ancient
world and the Middle Ages remained the standard understanding of this period well
into the 20th century. Indeed, generations of scholars built upon his fundamental
assumption in their studies of Romans and barbarians. In the early 20th century,
for example, the English scholar J. B. Bury and the French historian Ferdinand Lot
refined and elaborated on the principle arguments of Gibbon. They offered me-
ticulous studies of the movements and character of the various barbarian peoples
and the great social and political changes that accompanied the end of the ancient
world. The end of the Roman Empire for Gibbon and his successors signaled not
only the end of a political entity, but also all of ancient civilization. The causes for
this collapse came to be seen as more varied and complex, involving a broad range
of factors (economic, social, political, and military), but the consensus remained
that the combination of internal Roman weakness and the invasion or migration of
peoples led to the demise of the Roman Empire and ancient civilization in the year
476 (see Odovacar).
During the course of the 20th century and into the 21st century, the view once
established by Gibbon was gradually overturned, as scholars brought new meth-
odologies and new insights to the study of ancient and early medieval civilization.
 Introduction | xxv

One of the most obvious observations was that the Roman Empire did not cease to
exist in 476; only the Western Empire succumbed to the movements of the barbar-
ian peoples. The Eastern Empire (now known as the Byzantine Empire, from its
capital of Byzantium, rechristened Constantinople) survived for another thousand
years and fell to the Turks only in 1453. The Byzantine Empire clearly enjoyed a
long and prosperous life after the “fall” in 476, and Constantinople even ruled again,
for a time, over parts of the Western Empire, thanks to the conquests of Justinian
and his generals (see Belisarius; Narses). Moreover, Roman traditions were pre-
served by the Byzantine state even after the so-called fall of Rome, as they were
in the former Western Empire. Indeed, historians have emphasized continuity in
a number of areas in the Germanic successor states that emerged after the end of
Roman political organization in the West. As the language of law and government,
Latin continued, as did economic structures, the machinery of taxation, administra-
tive organization, the religion of the empire—Christianity—and a variety of other
social and cultural traditions.
Rather than a time marked by an abrupt and dramatic end of one civilization and
the appearance of another, historians now regard the period as one of transforma-
tion. The end of the ancient world came gradually, and its continuation can be seen
in a number of areas. In the early the 20th century, the great economic historian,
Henri Pirenne, argued that the ancient world survived until the time of the expan-
sion of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries. Peter Brown also demonstrated
the survival of ancient civilization into the eighth century, but went beyond Pirenne
to consider broader social and cultural developments. Some scholars have even ar-
gued that ancient civilization survived until the year 1000, when slavery, the last
vestige of classical culture, finally disappeared. Although the exact date remains
uncertain, ancient civilization clearly lingered on past the traditional date of its end
in 476 in the form of a number of social, cultural, and economic trends that shaped
the lives and governments of the Germanic successor kings who ruled over the for-
mer Western Empire.
The picture of the “barbarians” also has evolved since the time Gibbon wrote
his classic work. The traditional understanding of the peoples who succeeded the
Romans was that they were savages and barbarians. Drawing from ancient works
by Tacitus, Jordanes, and others, Gibbon and the historians who followed him saw
the Germans and other peoples who entered the empire as uncivilized—the noble
savage of Tacitus or the barbaric and ugly Hun of Jordanes. The barbarians were
seen only as invaders bent on the destruction of the Roman Empire and classical
civilization. Citing the examples of Alaric and Gaiseric, who sacked and pillaged
the city of Rome in 410 and 455, respectively, the older generation of scholars ar-
gued that the intent of the barbarians was destruction of the old order and its re-
placement with new barbarian kingdoms. Indeed, they saw the great movement of
peoples that took place in the fourth and fifth centuries as an invasion of the empire
xxvi | Introduction

by the barbarians, who then created new kingdoms out of the old political order.
The idea that the Germans and other peoples who entered the empire during this
time came as conquerors has received vigorous support in the early 21st century
from a number of scholars, notably Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins. They
have revived the argument that the Huns and Goths entered the Roman Empire with
its conquest as their chief goal. The violent invasions of the Huns and Goths de-
stabilized long-standing economic and political networks that had existed between
Rome and tribal groups along the imperial frontier and caused serious destruction
to much of the Roman world.
Despite the revisionist scholarship of Heather and Ward-Perkins, scholarship in
the 20th and 21st centuries, especially the work of Walter Goffart, has provided a
new perspective on the “barbarians” and their relations with the Roman Empire.
Although the argument that the increased numbers of barbarians or Germans in the
imperial army still carries weight with some scholars, the association of German/
barbarian and Roman is seen in a much more positive light. Long-standing contacts
between Romans and the peoples outside the empire reshaped both the Romans and
the barbarians. There was a gradual transformation on each side, as the Romans
and their neighbors traded with each other and intermarried. Many Germans did
enter the military and imbibed a better appreciation for the empire, and the lead-
ers came to identify with the empire (see Theodoric the Great). Although some
Germanic and barbarian peoples invaded the empire for spoil and territory, others
petitioned for entry into a greater political entity and sought to become part of that
entity (see Attila the Hun; Gaiseric). Furthermore, the traditional identification
of the Germans and barbarians with national or tribal groups has been eroded in
the new understanding of them. The groups are now seen as less nationally dis-
tinct, and there is clear historical discontinuity between the earliest manifestations
of the various tribal groups and the groups that established kingdoms in the former
Western Empire.
The period of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages has also traditionally been
recognized as the “Dark Ages.” Indeed, the entire period from the fall of Rome to
the start of the Italian Renaissance was once understood as a period of little or no
cultural achievement, with the possible exception of the Carolingian Renaissance,
which was deemed the one shining moment of that nearly thousand-year period
(see Carolingian Renaissance). As the 20th century progressed, this view came
to be revised, so that a smaller and smaller portion of the Middle Ages was deemed
“dark.” But the notion that the early Middle Ages (c. 400–1000) was a period of
cultural stagnation persisted for a longer time, even though the period of “darkness”
was narrowed to c. 500–750. Whatever the chronological limits, the “Dark Ages”
that followed the fall of Rome in the West have been traditionally understood as a
period of limited intellectual and cultural productivity. Both city life and the overall
population of Europe had diminished, a decline made all the worse by a devastating
 Introduction | xxvii

plague that swept across the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the age of Justin-
ian (r. 527–565). The great monuments of sculpture and architecture were no longer
produced in the cities, and there was also a decline in literacy among the general
population. Related to the decline in literacy was the near disappearance of the use
of writing in government administration and other public activities. The cultural
decline was, it had been argued, related to the general disdain for ancient civiliza-
tion that many barbarians held, as well as to their own cultural backwardness and
the reluctance of some Christian leaders to adopt classical learning—as Tertullian
once asked, what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
Just as the understanding of the barbarians has undergone a revision, so too has
the view on the period of “Dark Ages.” Although the term itself continues to be
used, the period after the fall of the Roman Empire is seen less as a dark age. Indeed,
even in the period of 500–750, important cultural developments took place and ar-
tistic activity continued. Even though the scale and focus of artistic activity were
reduced, they nevertheless continued, as the metalwork of early medieval artisans
reveals. Moreover, the Germanic peoples who established themselves throughout
the Western Empire are better understood as the heirs of ancient Roman tradition,
and in the early Middle Ages the various social and cultural trends that character-
ized later medieval civilization were taking shape. Important Roman cultural tradi-
tions, particularly in law and language, continued into the so-called “Dark Ages”
and influenced the shape of government and society after 476. Furthermore, Rome’s
political successors also adopted Roman religions, specifically Christianity, which
would form the essence of early medieval culture. The traditions of learning and
letters were preserved by the church, especially in the monasteries. Late antique
and early medieval churchmen produced poetry, literature, history, and theology in
Latin and preserved the works of the ancient Romans. Clearly, Europe of the early
Middle Ages was not the equal of Athens in the fifth-century bc or of Florence
in the 15th century, but historians have come to recognize the important cultural
developments of the period. And although the Carolingian Renaissance continues
to be seen as a great cultural milestone, it is no longer seen as the lone example of
early medieval brilliance, and its roots in the sixth and seventh centuries have been
identified.

A Brief History of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages

The Later Roman Empire
Although the Roman Empire did not “fall” until the late fifth century, it had under-
gone a profound change already in the third century, a change that in some ways
foreshadowed the transformation of the early Middle Ages. Indeed, during the crisis
of the third century, as it is often called, the empire endured many of the difficulties
xxviii | Introduction

it faced again in the fourth and fifth centuries. The empire suffered a dramatic eco-
nomic collapse, decline in population and urban life, military disasters, and for-
eign invasions. The essential strength of Roman civilization and the emergence of
several highly talented and determined emperors, however, enabled the empire to
survive the crisis. The empire that emerged at the end of the third century and the
beginning of the fourth was fundamentally different from the empire of the second
century, which was so highly praised by Gibbon.
The empire of the fourth century was shaped by the reforms of two of the great-
est rulers in Roman history, Diocletian and Constantine (see Constantine). Al-
though in one sense they saved the empire, establishing a foundation upon which
the Western Empire survived nearly 200 years and the Eastern Empire survived over
1,000 years, in another sense Diocletian and Constantine created something new.
Their Rome looked forward to the religious and political structures that character-
ized the early medieval world. Building on the work of his immediate predeces-
sors, who managed to stop the advance of the Goths and stabilize the government
and society, Diocletian reformed the Roman government and military. Organizing
imperial administration into four main divisions and establishing a plan of succes-
sion, Diocletian saved the empire from ruin and foreshadowed the divisions in the
empire that came later, as well as the structure of government and society. He also
launched the last major persecution of the Christian church, which failed to destroy
it. His religious policy, and much of his imperial settlement, was undermined by his
ultimate successor, Constantine.
The first Christian emperor, Constantine seized power in a civil war that followed
Diocletian’s retirement in 305. Although he accepted baptism only on his death-
bed in 337, Constantine legalized the Christian faith in 313 and was the church’s
greatest benefactor throughout his reign. He granted privileges to bishops, allowed
the church to inherit money and property, and made many pious donations of his
own. In true Roman fashion, Constantine shepherded the growth of Christianity
and presided over one of the most important church councils, the council of
Nicaea in 325, which provided the basic definition of the nature of the godhead that
remains the cornerstone of Christian teaching. In this way, Constantine offered a
model of church–state relations (often termed “caesaropapism”) for rulers of later
Rome and the early Middle Ages. The emperor’s other reforms also paved the way
for the future of the Mediterranean basin. His reform of the coinage stabilized the
economy and provided the basic unit of money, the solidus, for generations to come
(see Coins and Coinage). He also established a new imperial capital at Constan-
tinople, the new Christian city that remained the capital of a “Roman” empire for
more than a thousand years.
The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine secured the survival of the empire,
and the fourth century appears, on the surface, to have been a time of renewed vi-
tality. Indeed, some emperors resumed wars of expansion, and despite the usual
 Introduction | xxix

turmoil and dissension in the imperial household, the empire was ably run by
Constantine’s successors. The house of Constantine maintained united rule of the
empire for several generations, and even in the later fourth century cooperation
between the emperors in the Eastern and Western Empire was the rule rather than
the exception. Indeed, Theodosius ruled over the entire empire for a time before
his death in 395; he also protected the empire from the increasing threat from the
barbarians and made Christianity the official religion of the empire.
At the same time, however, the fundamental weaknesses of ancient civilization
became increasingly evident, especially in the Western Empire. There was clear evi-
dence in the decline of city life in the West, most notably the demise of the original
heart of the empire, as Rome was abandoned as the imperial capital and replaced by
Milan. Moreover, the increasingly heavy burden of taxation caused the aristocrats
to flee the cities for their large plantations, where they could avoid the long arm
of government. Flight from paying taxes paralleled the flight from honoring their
traditional participation in government. The aristocrats and their plantations also
prefigured the estates, or manors, of the Middle Ages, where servile labor farmed
as tenants of the lord (see Agriculture).
These important social changes were accompanied, in the Western Empire, by
population and economic decline. The economy remained an agricultural one that
failed to develop an industrial component, and as the soils became exhausted, ag-
ricultural and economic life collapsed. Unlike the Eastern Empire, the Western did
not have long-established urban and commercial traditions to save it in the face of
agricultural decline. As a result of economic and demographic decline as well as
the widespread reluctance to serve the state, the Romans enrolled more and more
Germans in the army. They would defend imperial borders and then retire to farm
imperial lands. The underlying weakness of the Western Empire, therefore, was
already evident in the fourth century and prepared the way for the so-called fall of
Rome in the fifth century.

The Migrations of Peoples

The fall of Rome, or gradual transformation from late antique to early medieval
society, was the result of the internal weaknesses of the Western Empire and the
empire’s inability to respond to the influx of large numbers of Germanic and other
barbarian peoples. These peoples, whose origins are obscure, but who are tradition-
ally held to have come from Scandinavia, had long existed along the frontiers of the
Roman Empire. They had frequent contact with the empire and as early as the first
century had scored great victories against Roman armies, and in the second century
the emperor Marcus Aurelius spent much of his reign fighting the Germans along
the Danube River. In the third century, these peoples again threatened the empire
and violated its frontiers. But the empire survived these repeated threats until the
late fourth century, and the Germans saw the empire as a great power whose peace
xxx | Introduction

and prosperity they desired to share. Indeed, most Germanic peoples sought not to
destroy the empire but to join it, and some did. Germans were enrolled in the army,
and significant numbers of them became Roman soldiers by the reforms of Con-
stantine. They often sought entry into the empire to enjoy the better climate and
farmlands and the strength and stability of Rome.
In the late fourth century, the traditional relationship that existed between Rome
and the peoples on her frontiers was profoundly altered by the entry of a new power,
the Huns (see Huns). These East Asian peoples, for reasons still unknown, began
an aggressive movement west in the fourth century. Their great skill on horseback
and ferociousness in battle enabled them to create a great empire that stretched
across large parts of Europe and Asia. As they moved westward, they absorbed or
displaced the peoples settled in their way and initiated a general westward migra-
tion of peoples. As a result, the tribes long settled along the imperial frontiers now
exerted increasing pressure on the frontiers, in the hopes of entering the empire
to find protection against the Huns. Notably, the Hunnish assault on one group of
Goths caused another group, traditionally known as the Visigoths, to move toward
the empire in the hopes of obtaining protection from the Huns (see Ostrogoths;
Visigoths). The Goths, like other so-called barbarians, came not as conquerors or
invaders, but almost as refugees who sought to join the empire, not to destroy it.
Although many of the tribal groups that entered the empire had great respect for
it and did not seek to destroy it, their movements led to the gradual demise of an
independent Roman state in the West. Fearing the advance of the Huns and with the
permission of the emperor Valens, some 80,000 Goths entered the empire in 376.
The failure of the Romans to accommodate this large body of people led to increas-
ing difficulties for both the Goths and Romans. In 378, war broke out between the
Goths and Romans, a war that led to the destruction of Roman armies and the death
of the emperor and that gave free reign to the Goths, whose movements within the
empire further destabilized the situation (see Hadrianople, Battle of ). The inde-
pendence of the Goths was cut short by the emperor Theodosius, who settled them
in the Balkans, where they remained until the death of the emperor in 395. They re-
sumed the warpath in 395 under a new king, Alaric, who assumed a more aggressive
stance toward the empire (see Alaric). His movements were restricted somewhat by
the general Stilicho, whose murder in 406 opened the way for Alaric (see Stilicho).
In 410, the unthinkable occurred; Alaric and his followers sacked the city of Rome,
the first time it had been sacked in 800 years. This event was a profound shock to
the people of the empire, Christian and pagan, and prefigured worse events to come.

The Fall of Rome and the Germanic Successor States

In the fifth century, the pressures on the Roman frontiers increased even more, and
the internal weakness of the Western Empire and incompetence of a number of fifth-
century emperors made it almost impossible to prevent gradual dismemberment
 Introduction | xxxi

of the Western Empire. Indeed, the Huns, Visigoths, and other peoples contin-
ued to pose a threat to the integrity of the empire, as a series of weak emperors
were propped up by their generals, some of whom were Germans themselves (see
Aëtius; Ricimer; Stilicho). The Visigoths, for example, continued their wander-
ings in the western Roman world after the sack of the city, eventually settling in
Spain and southern France and creating the first of the Germanic successor states.
The Visigoths, however, were not the only people to undermine the imperial
order in the West. The Huns also continued to plague Romans and barbarians alike,
especially under their greatest leader, Attila. Although he was unable to replace it,
Attila seriously weakened the empire, fighting several major battles against an al-
liance of Romans and barbarians and threatening to sack the city of Rome in 453
(see Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the; Leo I, the Great, Pope). At Attila’s death,
however, the Hunnish empire collapsed, as the various subject peoples revolted
against the Huns. While the Huns and Visigoths assaulted the empire, large num-
bers of other German peoples entered the empire seeking territory, and the empire
gradually abandoned its authority in Britain and elsewhere.
Among the other peoples to enter the empire in the fifth century were the Anglo-
Saxons and Vandals, who established important successor kingdoms at opposite
ends of the Western Empire (see Anglo-Saxons; Vandals). As the Roman soldiers
abandoned Britain, the native population sought aid against raids from tribes to the
north and invited the leaders of the Saxons to defend them, an invitation that led to
the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the country (see Hengist and Horsa; King Arthur;
Vortigern). The Vandals also carved a successor kingdom out of the Western Em-
pire, settling in much of North Africa, which remained the base for subsequent ha-
rassment of the empire by the Vandals and their leader Gaiseric, who sacked Rome
for a second time in 455.
The Western Empire was gradually dismembered during the course of the fifth
century, as one province after another was transformed into a Germanic successor
kingdom. For most of the century, however, Italy remained protected from the on-
slaught. Indeed, the policy of many of the imperial military commanders was to
protect the old heart of the empire. In 476, however, Italy, too, fell to a Germanic
conqueror. Leading a mixed band of Germans, the barbarian general Odovacar
deposed the reigning emperor, Romulus Augustulus, and killed the power behind
the throne, the general Orestes (see Orestes; Romulus Augustulus). Instead of
promoting a puppet emperor as Orestes and others had done, Odovacar sent the
imperial insignia and other official seals and symbols back to Zeno, the emperor
in Constantinople, and established an independent kingdom in Italy, which lasted
until 493 and established the framework for later Italian successor kingdoms (see
Zeno). The deposition of Romulus Augustulus by Odovacar thus is traditionally
recognized as the end of the Western Empire, and no emperor reigned in the West
again until the ninth century.
xxxii | Introduction

The Post-Roman World: Theodoric the Great, Justinian, and the Lombards
Although independent imperial rule was brought to a close by Odovacar in 476,
Rome and its influence continued well into the early Middle Ages. Indeed, Odova-
car recognized at least the nominal authority of the emperor in Constantinople over
Italy, and other Germanic leaders respected the empire and its leaders. Furthermore,
Roman traditions were maintained in a number of other areas, including law, re-
ligion, and language. Social, economic, and cultural trends that began as early as
the fourth century were preserved into the sixth century, as city life was gradually
replaced by a more rural society. The institutions of the church that took shape in
late antiquity also continued to evolve in the early Middle Ages. Throughout much
of the former Western Empire, the bishops, especially the bishop of Rome, assumed
many of the administrative duties of the old Roman establishment, as well as re-
sponsibility for social welfare. The traditions of monasticism continued to spread
throughout the old Western Empire, and the various Germanic peoples either con-
verted to Christianity or continued in their adherence to it.
The abolition of the imperial office in the Western Empire in 476 did not, more-
over, end the interest of the emperor in Constantinople in Italian affairs. Indeed,
even though he did not recognize Odovacar’s usurpation, Zeno granted the German
the title of Patricius and remained in uneasy correspondence with him. Zeno also
used the uncertain situation in Italy to his advantage when the great Ostrogothic
leader, Theodoric, became an increasingly difficult figure in the Eastern Empire.
In 488, the emperor commissioned Theodoric to invade Italy and depose Odova-
car, thus resolving two problematic issues for the emperor. Theodoric accepted the
emperor’s offer and led the Ostrogoths to Italy, where they faced strong resistance
from Odovacar. In the early 490s, the two leaders fought to a standstill, and in 493
the two came to terms, which were to be celebrated at a banquet held by Theodoric.
Upon his arrival, Odovacar was murdered by Theodoric’s men, and the Ostrogoth
became the sole ruler in Italy.
Theodoric’s Italian realm was one of the most dynamic and important of the im-
mediate post-Roman kingdoms, and the king himself was the greatest power in the
former Western Empire. Despite his Arianism (a Christian teaching on the godhead
rejected at Nicaea), Theodoric enjoyed good relations with the majority Catholic
Italian population. Although a “barbarian,” Theodoric remained on good terms with
the descendants of the Roman citizens in Italy because of his respect for Roman
traditions and his promotion of them. He was a patron of the arts and culture, and
promoted two of the leading late Roman writers, Boethius and Cassiodorus, to
important court positions (see Boethius; Cassiodorus). He supported Roman tra-
ditions in law and education and was a great builder—as all Roman rulers were.
Despite Theodoric’s early success, the last years of his reign were troubled, as re-
lations with the senatorial aristocracy worsened. His increasing brutality, seen, for
example, in his execution of Boethius, soured relations with the Italian population
and revived the desire for imperial rule. Theodoric’s death in 526, moreover, left the
 Introduction | xxxiii

kingdom in an even more difficult situation for his heir, Athalaric, whose mother,
Amalaswintha, was Theodoric’s daughter. Internal political disputes, in part involv-
ing relations with the Eastern Empire, led to the murder of Amalaswintha, which
opened the door for the invasion of the emperor Justinian.
The legacy of Rome weighed heavily on Justinian, who was born in a Latin-
speaking region of the Eastern Empire and was inspired to rule as a traditional
Roman emperor. His actions as emperor reflect the important influence of Roman
tradition on him. He is remembered for his magnificent construction projects, most
notably the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and his reform of Roman law and
publication of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. A builder and law giver as all Roman rulers
were, Justinian felt a true emperor should rule the city of Rome itself. He believed,
therefore, that it was his responsibility to rule over both the eastern and western
halves of the empire. His conquest of Italy brought about reunification, but at great
cost to both the Eastern Empire and Italy. The Gothic Wars devastated the Italian
countryside, as Justinian’s generals fought great battles against the Ostrogoths for
over two decades, from 535 to the late 550s. Although Justinian was not able to
restore long-term authority over Italy, Byzantine influence in Italy continued into
the eighth century. Indeed, just as the Byzantines under Justinian ended Ostro-
gothic rule in Italy, so the Lombards ended Byzantine control of much of Italy (see
Lombards). In their turn, the Lombards were replaced in the eighth century by the
greatest of the Germanic successors of Rome, the Franks (see Franks).

The Kingdom of the Franks

Unlike most of the other Germanic peoples that established kingdoms in parts of
the former Western Empire, the Franks established a lasting power and came to rule
Gaul and much of post-Roman Europe from the late fifth to the late 10th centuries.
In two great dynasties, the Franks created a substantial kingdom, and triumphed
over several of the other successor peoples to the Romans, and established numer-
ous precedents for later medieval society (see Merovingian Dynasty; Carolingian
Dynasty). The first of the dynasties, the Merovingian, was founded by the great
king Clovis, who was an effective warrior and the first of the barbarian kings to ac-
cept Catholic Christianity (see Clovis). Although none of his heirs were his equal,
many of them were colorful and effective rulers, especially Chlotar II and Dagobert
(see Chlotar II; Dagobert). Others were involved in bitter civil wars that nearly
destroyed the kingdom, and the last of Clovis’s heirs were increasingly less effec-
tive rulers (see Brunhilde; Fredegund; Rois Fainéants). The dynasty, despite its
ultimate demise, managed to secure good relations with the church, protected and
promoted important missionaries, and enjoyed the production of important works
of history and literature (see Gregory of Tours).
The Carolingian dynasty, which replaced the Merovingians in 751, was perhaps
the most important family in the early Middle Ages. Their rise to power is often seen
as a great triumphal march, but neither their success nor Merovingian failure was
xxxiv | Introduction

foreordained. Indeed, they faced numerous setbacks in the seventh and eighth cen-
turies, and even once they secured the royal throne, they were beset by revolts and
turmoil. Nonetheless, the great Carolingian kings Pippin and Charlemagne, and to a
lesser extent Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald, guided the kingdom and empire
of the Franks to great political, military, and cultural heights (see Charlemagne;
Charles the Bald; Louis the Pious; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short). Under
the Carolingian kings, the Frankish state reached its greatest extent, without peer
in the former Western Empire and the rival of the Eastern Empire in territorial
size. The Carolingians were great conquerors, who expanded the boundaries of
the realm into Saxony, Italy, and beyond, and who also spread Christianity into
new regions. They also revived imperial rule in the west when Charlemagne, their
greatest king, was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III (see Leo III, Pope). Although
Charlemagne is the king most associated with the Carolingian Renaissance, all the
Carolingian kings and emperors promoted learning and religious reform through-
out their vast realms. Even though the empire forged by Charlemagne collapsed in
the two generations following his death, it remained one of the great accomplish-
ments of the early Middle Ages and provided important precedents for the later
history of Europe.

The Importance of Early Medieval Europe

Although long recognized as a backward period politically and culturally, early me-
dieval Europe was an important period in history and a critical period in the tran-
sition from ancient Roman civilization to medieval and modern civilization. Long
associated with the “fall” of the Roman Empire, early medieval Europe accom-
plished more than the destruction of ancient civilization. Rather, it adopted aspects
of classical culture and mixed them with Christian and Germanic traditions to create
a unique and impressive new culture. The various kings of the early Middle Ages
provided a wide range of legal and governmental precedents for the future. Indeed,
the greatest of them, Charlemagne, was a model for kings for centuries after his
death, and his empire also provided the highest ideal of government into the 19th
century. The church continued to evolve in this period, as did key ecclesiastical in-
stitutions. Many kings also promoted cultural life, and most monasteries remained
centers of education and learning. Far from being the Dark Ages, the early Middle
Ages were a pivotal period in the history of civilization.

Select Bibliography
Becher, Matthias. Charlemagne. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.
Bois, Guy. The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournand
from Antiquity to Feudalism. Trans. Jean Birrell. Manchester, UK: Manchester University
Press, 1992.
Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity, A.D. 150–750. London: Thames and Hudson,
1971.
 Introduction | xxxv

Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Adversity, A.D. 200–1000.
2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 2003.
Bury, John B. The Invasions of Europe by the Barbarians. 1928. Reprint ed. New York:
W. W. Norton, 1967.
Cameron, Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Europe, 300–1000. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave, 2010.
Costambeys, Marios. The Carolingian World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Fossier, Robert, ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages, 350–950. Vol. 1.
Trans. Janet Sondheimer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 1776. 3 vols. Reprint ed.
New York: Modern Library, 1983.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1981.
Goffart, Walter. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 500–800): Jordanes, Gregory
of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.
Goldsworthy, Adrian. How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2010.
Heather, Peter. Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbar-
ians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Herrin, Judith. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2009.
Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic,
and Administrative Survey. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964.
Laistner, Max Ludwig Wolfram. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900.
2d ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Little, Lester K. Plague and the End of Antiquity: The Pandemic of 541–750. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages.
1931. Reprint ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
McCormick, Michael. Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Com-
merce, A.D. 300–900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
xxxvi | Introduction

Mitchell, Stephen. A History of the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 284–641. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.
Murray, Alexander Callander, ed. After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early
Medieval History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Olson, Lynette. The Early Middle Ages: The Birth of Europe. New York: Palgrave, 2007.
Pirenne, Henri. Mohammed and Charlemagne. Trans. Bernard Miall. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978.
Smith, Julia. Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History, 500–1000. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
Sullivan, Richard. Heirs of the Roman Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, John Michael. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper
and Row, 1962.
Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
Wickham, Christopher. Framing the Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean,
400–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Chronology of the Late Antique
and Early Medieval World

305 With the retirement of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, the
Roman Empire falls again into civil war, which leads to the eventual
triumph of Constantine the Great.
312 Constantine defeats his rival Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian
Bridge and takes control of the Western Empire. Before the battle
Constantine had a vision that led to his conversion to Christianity.
313 The emperors Constantine and Licinius issue the Edict of Milan,
which legalizes Christianity and establishes religious toleration in
the Roman Empire.
325 In the year following a victory over Licinius and reunification of the
empire under one ruler, Constantine calls the Council of Nicaea to re-
solve the great dispute over the nature of Christ’s relationship to God
the Father. The council accepts the Athanasian definition and rejects
the teachings of Arius. Although the former lays the foundation for
later Christian belief, the latter continues to exercise great influence
in the empire and on the barbarians who eventually settle in much of
the Roman world.
330 Constantine founds the new imperial capital of Constantinople on the
straits of the Bosporus. The city will stand as the capital of the Roman
Empire, and its successor the Byzantine Empire for more than 1,000
years before falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Constantine’s city
will be a Christian city and the political and religious heart of the empire.
337 The great emperor Constantine converts to Christianity, accepting
baptism, and dies shortly after on May 22, 337.
341 Ulfilas is consecrated bishop. He will later translate the Bible into the
Gothic language and spread an Arian form of Christianity among the
Goths.
360 St. Martin of Tours establishes the first monastery in Gaul.

xxxvii
xxxviii | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

370 First appearance of the Huns in southeastern Europe. Their arrival

forces further movement of the peoples living along the empire’s
frontier, including movement into the empire.
376 Emperor Valens welcomes a large number of Visigoths into the em-
pire to settle a frontier area, which they will cultivate and help defend.
378 After failing to settle the Visigoths, Emperor Valens leads a major
Roman army against them and is defeated and killed at the Battle of
Hadrianople. The Visigoths are then able to move freely about the
empire until forced to settle by Theodosius the Great.
380 Theodosius the Great issues a decree declaring Catholic Christianity
the official religion of the Roman Empire.
382 Death of Ulfilas, Gothic missionary, bishop, and translator of the
Bible.
391 Alaric I becomes king of the Visigoths.
394 Defeat of Arbogast and the pretender Eugenius by Stilicho, the
Roman military commander.
395 Death of Emperor Theodosius the Great, the last ruler of a united
Roman Empire. He has divided the realm between his two sons,
Honorius and Arcadius. Death of the great Roman historian Ammia-
nus Marcellinus.
402 Stilicho wins major victories over the Visigothic leader Alaric at
Pollentia and Verona.
405/406 Major crossing of the Rhine by large numbers of Alans, Franks,
Visigoths, and other Germanic peoples. The removal of Roman fron-
tier troops to protect the imperial heartland more effectively has led
to this serious breach of the frontier.
406 Burgundians establish kingdom along the Rhine.
408 Murder of Stilicho by Emperor Honorius. Despite questionable rela-
tions with the Gothic king Alaric, Stilicho has managed to keep the
Goths at bay and preserve the well-being of Italy. After his death,
Alaric and the Visigoths invade Italy.
409 Vandals and other barbarian peoples settle in Spain.
410 The city of Rome is sacked by Alaric and the Visigoths. The first
major attack on the city in 800 years, the event profoundly shocks
both pagan and Christian Romans across the Mediterranean. Pagan
Romans blame the Christians for the event, and St. Jerome is so
dismayed that he cannot speak. The sack of Rome, however, will
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xxxix

contribute to the composition of one of the great works of Christian

literature, Augustine’s City of God, a response to pagan criticisms
of Christianity. Roman armies make final withdrawal from Britain.
Death of Alaric.
414 Marriage of the Visigoth king Ataulf and the emperor’s sister Galla
Placidia, who was captured by the Goths during the sack of Rome.
428 Gaiseric becomes king of the Vandals.
429 Picts and Scots raid British territory. Vandals leave Spain and enter
Africa.
430 Death of St. Augustine of Hippo, the year before the city is to fall to
the onslaught of the Vandals.
432 St. Patrick begins the mission to Ireland, where he will remain until
461.
433 Attila the Hun takes the throne.
439 Vandals capture Carthage and strengthen their hold on North Africa.
440 Huns begin raiding in the Balkans.
449/450 Traditional date of first Saxon invasions of England at the invitation
of the British leader Vortigern. The invasions will provide the context
for the origins of the legend of King Arthur.
450 The empress Honoria sends Attila the Hun a ring and possibly a pro-
posal of marriage if the barbarian king would come to her rescue.
451 Aëtius and an army of Roman and barbarian troops win the Battle of
the Catalaunian Plains over Attila and the Huns. Council of Chalce-
don is held to determine important matters of faith and ecclesiastical
organization.
452 Attila the Hun threatens Rome but is persuaded not to sack the city
by Pope Leo I.
453 Attila dies, and by 455 his great empire will collapse.
454 Death of Aëtius.
455 The city of Rome is sacked by Gaiseric and the Vandals. Defeat of
the Huns at the Battle of Nedao and collapse of their empire.
456 Ricimer, Roman military leader of Germanic descent, defeats Vandal
fleet off the coast of Italy.
459 The future Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric, to be known as The-
odoric the Great, arrives in Constantinople as a hostage and remains
there for 10 years.
xl | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

461 Ricimer becomes master of the Western Empire and remains so, rul-
ing in the name of puppet emperors of his creation, until his death in
472.
475 Traditional date of the issuance of one of the most influential bar-
barian law codes, the Codex Euricianus (Code of Euric), by the Vi-
sigothic king Euric, ruler of a large territory in France and northern
Spain.
476 Traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire. Odovacar, Ger-
manic leader serving in the Roman army, deposes the last Roman
emperor in the west, Romulus Augustulus, and rules as king in Italy
until his murder by the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great.
481 Clovis becomes king the Franks and establishes the Merovingian dy-
nasty, which will rule the Franks until 751.
486/487 Victory of Clovis and the Franks over the Roman Syagrius, ruler of
the kingdom of Soissons.
488 Theodoric the Great, after long being a thorn in the side of the eastern
emperor Zeno, invades Italy at the emperor’s behest to deal with the
Germanic king Odovacar.
493 Murder of Odovacar by Theodoric, whose reign in Italy begins.
494/495 According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, date of the invasion of En-
gland by the chieftains Cerdic and Cynric who would found Wessex,
the kingdom of the West Saxons.
496 Traditional date of Clovis’s victory over the Alemanni. According to
Gregory of Tours, Clovis swore that he would abandon the traditional
gods and convert to Christianity if God would grant him victory. Pope
Gelasius dies. Traditional date of the battle of Badon Hill where the
Saxons were defeated by the Britons.
498 Traditional date of the baptism of Clovis as a Catholic Christian by
Archbishop Remigius and subsequent conversion of the king’s fol-
lowers. Clovis is the first of the Germanic successor kings to accept
Catholic Christianity.
506 On February 2, the Visigothic king Alaric II issues the Breviarium
Alaricianum (Breviary of Alaric) as a complement to the Codex Eu-
ricianius issued by his father Euric. The Breviary, also called Lex
Romana Visigothorum (Roman Law of the Visigoths), covers the Ro-
mans living under Visigothic rule.
507 Clovis defeats the Visigoths at the Battle of Vouillé, fought, accord-
ing to Gregory of Tours, by the Catholic king Clovis to expel the
Arian Visigoths from Gaul.
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xli

511 Clovis provides for the succession, dividing the kingdom of the
Franks among his four sons, and dies on November 27.
516 Traditional date of the Battle of Badon Hill, in which King Arthur
turns back the invading Anglo-Saxons.
517 Codification and publication of the Lex Gundobada or Liber consti-
tutionem, which probably appeared in some form already around the
year 500, and the Lex Romana Burgundionum by the Burgundian
king Sigismund.
524 Boethius, the Roman writer and statesman who has served Theodoric
the Great, is executed, having written his great work, The Consola-
tion of Philosophy, while in prison, suspected of having conspired
against Theodoric, during his last year of life.
526 Death of Theodoric the Great, after which the Ostrogothic kingdom
in Italy enters a period of unrest caused by conflict concerning the
succession and the course of royal policy. His daughter, Amalaswin-
tha, becomes regent and focus of discontent.
527 Justinian becomes Byzantine emperor and begins one of the most
important reigns in Byzantine history. During his long reign, which
will last until 565, he will rebuild Constantinople, reconquer much
of the former Western Empire, and codify Roman law.
529 St. Benedict of Nursia founds the great monastery at Monte Cassino.
531 Franks destroy the kingdom of the Thuringians.
532 Justinian, thanks to his empress Theodora, survives the Nika Revolt
and begins construction of the great church, Hagia Sophia.
533 Conquest of the North African kingdom of the Vandals by the great
Byzantine general Belisarius, which will be completed in 534. Jus-
tinian’s codification of Roman law, begun in 527, is completed.
534 Franks, according to Gregory of Tours at the suggestion of Chlotild,
destroy the Burgundian kingdom.
535 Murder of Amalaswintha. Her death provides Justinian the pretext
for invading Italy, and he begins what will later be known as the
Gothic Wars in Italy.
540 Belisarius captures Ravenna in the war against the Ostrogoths in
Italy.
548 Death of the empress Theodora.
550 Death of St. Benedict of Nursia, the father of Western monasticism.
Approximate time of the appearance of the writings of Gildas, an
important writer on the conquest of England by the Anglo-Saxons.
xlii | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

552 Byzantine armies under Narses win the Battle of Busta Gallorum,
defeating the Gothic armies and essentially ending the power of the
Ostrogoths in Italy, and even their independent existence.
555 Last of the Ostrogoths in Italy surrender to the Byzantines.
565 Death of the great Byzantine emperor, Justinian, who is succeeded
by his nephew Justin II.
567 Division of the Frankish kingdom into Austrasia, Neustria, and
Burgundy.
568 The Lombards begin the invasion of Italy; according to one tradi-
tion, they come at the invitation of the disgruntled Byzantine general,
Narses. The Merovingian queen Radegund founds the monastery of
the Holy Cross at Poitiers.
575 Murder of the Merovingian king of the Franks, Sigebert, by Chilperic
I and Fredegund. Brunhilde assumes the regency and continues her
rivalry with Fredegund.
579 Hermenegild revolts against his father, Leovigild, the king of Vi-
sigothic Spain, and converts to Catholic Christianity. The revolt will
fail, and Hermenegild will die shortly after it ends in 584.
580 Lombards sack Benedict of Nursia’s famed monastery of Monte
Cassino.
584 Assassination of King Chilperic I, possibly by his wife Fredegund.
587 Reccared, king of Visigothic Spain, converts to Catholic Christianity
and renounces his former adherence to Arian Christianity.
589 Marriage of the Lombard king Authari with the Bavarian prin-
cess Theudelinda on May 15, which forms an important alliance
against the Franks. Theudelinda will remain an important figure in
the Lombard kingdom until her death in 628. A Catholic in an Arian
kingdom, she will maintain good relations with Pope Gregory the
Great.
590 Gregory I, called the Great, becomes pope; he will reign until 604.
591 Death of King Authari. Theudelinda chooses Agilulf as her new hus-
band and successor to Authari.
594 Death of Gregory of Tours, Frankish bishop and author of an impor-
tant history of the Franks.
595 Gregory the Great sends Augustine of Canterbury on a mission to
England to convert the Anglo-Saxons. Augustine will successfully
introduce Christianity to England two years later.
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xliii

597 Death of the Merovingian queen Fredegund. Aethelberht, king of

Kent, accepts baptism at the hands of Augustine, to whom the king had
granted land in Canterbury. According to tradition, thousands of the
king’s subjects accept baptism on Christmas day in this year.
613 Brunhilde, queen of the Franks, is overthrown and brutally exe-
cuted by Chlotar II, who will reign alone until 622, and with his
son Dagobert until 629. He will then be succeeded by Dagobert,
who will rule until 638. The two kings will represent the high point
of Merovingian kingship after Clovis. At some point following the
overthrow, Pippin of Landen and St. Arnulf of Metz will form a
marriage alliance that lays the foundation for the later Carolingian
dynasty.
614 The Irish missionary St. Columban founds the celebrated monastery
of Bobbio. Columban dies the following year.
616 The Lombard king Agilulf dies, and his son, Adaloald, succeeds to
the throne. Theudelinda, Adaloald’s mother, acts as regent.
629 Visigoths expel the last of the Byzantine armies from Spain.
636 Death of the Spanish prelate and scholar Isidore of Seville, a man of
great learning and the historian of the Visigoths.
643 Edict of Rothari, an important Lombard legal code, is issued.
652 Benedict Biscop, Anglo-Saxon churchman from the kingdom of Nor-
thumbria in northern England, makes his first trip to Rome, where he
acquires many important religious manuscripts. The founder of mon-
asteries at Jarrow and Wearmouth, Benedict exercises great influence
on the religious and cultural life of northern England, and his trips
to Rome will be important in the formation of Northumbrian culture
and learning.
656 Death of the Carolingian mayor of the palace, Grimoald, who at-
tempted to usurp the throne but failed.
657 Death of the Merovingian king Clovis II, who is succeeded by his
young son Chlotar III. Balthild, Chlothar’s mother, assumes the re-
gency and provides wise rule for the kingdom.
664 Synod of Whitby is held, presided over by Oswy, a powerful king in
the north of England, and the Anglo-Saxon church accepts Roman
Christianity over Irish Christianity. Chlotar III assumes his ma-
jority and ends the regency of his mother Balthild, who will die
circa 680.
674 Benedict Biscop founds the monastery at Wearmouth.
xliv | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

681 Benedict Biscop founds the important and influential monastery at

Jarrow.
687 The mayor of the palace, Pippin of Herstal, wins the Battle of Tertry
and establishes Carolingian hegemony in the Frankish kingdom.
688 Caedwalla, king of Wessex, abdicates the throne and departs for
Rome to accept baptism at the hands of the pope.
711 Muslims from North Africa invade and begin the conquest of the Vi-
sigothic kingdom of Spain, which will fall in 725.
712 Liutprand becomes king of the Lombards and rules until his death in
744.
714 Death of Pippin of Herstal. After some conflict over who will assume
the Carolingian mantle, Charles Martel succeeds his father Pippin as
mayor of the palace.
717 Leo III, called the Isaurian, ascends the imperial throne in Constanti-
nople and defends the city against an Arab assault that nearly succeeds.
722 The Anglo-Saxon missionary, Boniface, begins his preaching in Ger-
many. Early in his mission, he destroys the sacred oak of the thunder
god Thor at Geismar.
730 Leo III officially introduces the policy of iconoclasm in the Byzan-
tine Empire, a policy that will be condemned by Pope Gregory III in
the following year.
731 Anglo-Saxon scholar, theologian, and historian Bede, the most fa-
mous beneficiary of the revival of letters in Northumbria started by
Benedict Biscop, completes his important and influential History of
the English Church and People.
732 Charles Martel defeats Muslim invaders from Spain at the Battle of
Poitiers.
735 The great Anglo-Saxon scholar and monk Bede dies.
737 The Merovingian king, Thierry IV, dies, and no new Merovingian
ruler is placed on the throne by Charles Martel, who will rule alone
as mayor of the palace until his death in 741.
739 Liutprand, king of the Lombards, lays siege to the city of Rome, and
Pope Gregory III appeals to the Carolingian mayor of the palace,
Charles Martel, for assistance. Charles is unable to assist because of
an alliance with the Lombards that was necessary to protect the south-
western part of the Frankish realm from Muslim raids from Spain.
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xlv

741 Death of Charles Martel and ascension of Pippin III and Carloman to
the office of mayor of the palace. They will rule without a Merovin-
gian figurehead until 743, when they will be forced to raise Childeric
III to the throne.
747 The Carolingian mayor, Carloman, retires to the monastery of Monte
Cassino, leaving his brother Pippin as the de facto ruler of the Frank-
ish kingdom.
749 Aistulf becomes king of the Lombards and takes up an aggressive
policy against the papacy, which will lead to an alliance between the
papacy and the Franks.
750 Pippin III, called the Short, writes Pope Zachary asking whether the
person with the title or the person with the real power should be king.
The pope answers as Pippin hoped.
751 Deposition of Childeric III, the last Merovingian king, by Pippin,
who is crowned king of the Franks by the bishops of his realm and
founds the Carolingian dynasty. The Lombards, under their king Ais-
tulf, capture the imperial capital in Italy, Ravenna.
753 Pippin welcomes Pope Stephen II to his court and begins negotiations
with the pope, which possibly lead to the Donation of Pippin.
754 Pope Stephen II crowns Pippin king of the Franks. Byzantine Em-
peror Constantine V holds the Council of Hiereia, which supports
his iconoclastic policies. Martyrdom of the Anglo-Saxon missionary
Boniface while evangelizing in Frisia on June 5. The Donation of
Constantine, a forged document giving the papacy great power, ap-
pears around this time.
755 Aistulf, king of the Lombards, lays siege to Rome. Pippin undertakes
his first Italian campaign to protect the papacy against Lombard ad-
vances. Pippin holds an important reform council at Ver.
756 Pippin’s second Lombard campaign. Pippin deposits the so-called
Donation of Pippin on the altar of St. Peter in Rome, helping to cre-
ate the Papal States.
757 Offa becomes king of Mercia and rules until 796. His reign will be
remembered for the famed dyke he ordered built to protect his king-
dom from the Welsh.
763 Publication of the revised version of the Salic Law, a collection of the
laws of the Franks first published under the great Merovingian king
Clovis.
xlvi | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

768 Death of Pippin and succession to the throne of his sons Carloman
and Charlemagne.
771 Death of Carloman, whose reign was characterized by strife with his
brother that nearly led to a disastrous civil war.
772 Charlemagne campaigns for the first time against the Saxons and de-
stroys the great pagan shrine, the Irminsul. Within the next few years,
the campaign will turn into a full-scale effort to conquer and convert
the Saxons that will last until 804. Hadrian becomes pope and will
reign until 795.
774 Pavia falls to Charlemagne, and the Lombard kingdom is incorpo-
rated into the growing Carolingian empire.
778 Charlemagne invades Spain but returns to settle unrest in his own
kingdom. While crossing back into his kingdom, his rear guard, led
by Roland, is attacked and destroyed by the Basques. The incident
will be the foundation for one of the great epics of the Middle Ages,
the Song of Roland.
782 Charlemagne orders the massacre of 4,500 Saxons at Verdun in re-
taliation for Saxon defeat of his armies and harassment of the church.
785 Saxon revolt of Widukind, which is put down by Charlemagne,
though only with the greatest difficulty. Widukind converts to Chris-
tianity, and Charlemagne issues the first Saxon capitulary, a law in-
tended to impose Christianity on the Saxons.
787 Irene and her son Emperor Constantine VI hold the Second Coun-
cil of Nicaea, the seventh ecumenical council, to resolve the icono-
clastic dispute that has raged throughout much of the century in the
Byzantine Empire. Deposition of Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, by Char-
lemagne. The Royal Frankish Annals are first written in this year or
in 788.
789 Charlemagne issues the capitulary Admonitio Generalis, which lays
the foundation for the religious and cultural revival known as the
Carolingian Renaissance. Around the same time, certainly by 800,
Charlemagne issues the Letter to Baugulf, which also encourages
learning and the establishment of schools in his realm.
793 First Viking raid on England.
794 Charlemagne holds the Synod of Frankfurt to address the great ques-
tions facing the Frankish church, including the issues of Adoptionism
and Iconoclasm.
795 Pope Hadrian I dies and is succeeded by Pope Leo III.
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xlvii

796 Charlemagne’s armies destroy the Avar kingdom. King Offa of

Mercia dies.
797 Irene deposes and blinds her son Constantine VI and assumes the
imperial throne. Charlemagne issues the second Saxon capitulary, a
Carolingian law that encouraged conversion to Christianity.
799 Pope Leo III is attacked while on procession in Rome and is res-
cued by Charlemagne’s representatives in Rome. Leo goes to Char-
lemagne’s court to explain the situation.
800 Charlemagne visits Rome to resolve the dispute involving Pope Leo
III and presides over a council at which the pope swears his inno-
cence. On December 25, Leo crowns Charlemagne emperor of the
Romans during Christmas mass. First Viking raids on the continent
of Europe.
802 Empress Irene is overthrown by Nikephoros I. Charlemagne issues
important reform capitulary and uses his official imperial title.
804 Death of the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin of York, one of Charlemagne’s
most important advisors and court scholars.
806 Charlemagne introduces succession plan that divides the realm
among his sons but does not pass on the imperial title.
811 Charlemagne completes creation of the Spanish March, a militarized
border region including territory on the Spanish side of the Pyrenees.
813 Coronation of Louis the Pious as emperor by Charlemagne at a great
assembly in Aix-la-Chapelle (modern Aachen, Germany).
814 Death of Charlemagne on January 28 and succession to the throne of
his son Louis the Pious.
816 Louis the Pious crowned emperor by Pope Stephen IV. Agobard, a
Carolingian scholar and ecclesiastic from Spain, made archbishop of
Lyons.
817 Louis the Pious nearly killed in an accident while crossing a bridge.
Louis holds a great council and issues his Ordinatio Imperii, which
provides for the succession to the imperial title by Louis’s oldest
son, Lothar, and settlement of the other two, Louis the German and
Pippin, as kings under the emperor’s authority. Louis also issues the
Pactum Ludovicianum, prepared the previous year, codifying Caro-
lingian relations with the papacy. He promulgates important religious
reforms, with the advice of the Visigothic monk and reformer Bene-
dict of Aniane. Revolt of Louis’s nephew, Bernard, king of Italy.
823 Birth of Charles the Bald to Louis and his second wife, Judith.
xlviii | Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World

824 Lothar issues the Constitutio Romana, which further defines Caro-
lingian relations with Rome.
825 Ecghberht, king of Wessex, defeats the Mercians at the Battle of
Ellendum and lays the foundation for the resurgence of the power of
Wessex throughout England.
827 Louis the Pious alters his succession plan to include his son Charles
the Bald, to the dismay of his older sons.
830 Revolt of Lothar, Louis the German, and Pippin against their father
Louis the Pious. Einhard writes The Life of Charlemagne, though
some historians think it appeared as early as 817. Nennius writes the
Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons), though it may have ap-
peared as early as 800.
833 Meeting at the “Field of Lies,” between Louis the Pious and his
sons at which Louis’s troops dessert, and beginning of second revolt
against Louis the Pious, who is deposed and imprisoned.
834 Restoration of Louis the Pious and disgrace of Lothar, the leader of
the revolt.
840 Death of Louis the Pious, succession of Charles the Bald, Lothar, and
Louis the German, and beginning of civil war between the three sons
of Louis.
841 Battle of Fontenoy on June 25 between Lothar and his brothers Louis
the German and Charles the Bald.
842 Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and their followers subscribe to
the Oath of Strasbourg, which makes the two leaders allies and which
contains the first written examples of early Romance languages and
of early Germanic languages.
843 Restoration of the practice of the veneration of icons in the Byzantine
Empire. The Carolingian rulers, Charles the Bald, Lothar, and Louis
the German, agree to the Treaty of Verdun, which divides the empire
equally between them.
845 Vikings attack Paris.
848 Gottschalk of Orbais called before a council at Mainz to defend
his views on predestination, starting a controversy that will involve
Hincmar of Rheims, John Scottus Erigena, and other leading Caro-
lingian ecclesiastics.
853 Alfred the Great of England makes his first pilgrimage to Rome.
 Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World | xlix

855 Alfred the Great makes his second pilgrimage to Rome and on the
return marries Judith, the daughter of Charles the Bald. Emperor Lo-
thar dies and his realm is divided between his two sons.
871 Alfred the Great ascends the throne in the kingdom of Wessex.
875 Death of Emperor Louis II on August 12; imperial coronation of
Charles the Bald on December 25.
876 Death of Louis the German on August 28.
877 Death of Charles the Bald on October 6.
878 Danes force Alfred the Great from the kingdom of Wessex to the
island of Athelney. Alfred marshals his forces and is able to win a
major victory over the Danes at the Battle of Eddington. The Danes
withdraw from England.
882 Death of Hincmar of Rheims on December 21.
884 Charles the Fat reunites the Carolingian empire under one ruler.
885 Alfred the Great takes London from the Danes.
888 Death of Charles the Fat, the last Carolingian to rule a united empire,
who was deposed from the throne in 887.
890 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle first appears in or around this year.
892 Danes invade England again.
896 Alfred finally expels the Danes after 4 years of fighting.
899 Death of Alfred the Great on October 26.
909 Death of Asser, biographer of Alfred the Great.
911 Charles the Simple grants Normandy to the Viking Rollo. Death of
Louis the Child, the last Carolingian to rule in the East Frankish
kingdom.
987 Carolingian dynasty replaced by the Capetian dynasty in France.
1000 The sole surviving manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf is
written.
l
li
lii
liii
liv
A
Aachen. See Aix-la-Chapelle

Admonitio Generalis

The capitulary promulgated by Charlemagne in 789 that established the founda-

tion for the Carolingian Renaissance by announcing the educational and religious
goals and ideals of the great Frankish ruler. The Admonitio Generalis (General
Admonition) consists of 82 chapters. Although 59 of the chapters borrow heavily
from the canon law collection, the Dionysio-Hadriana, that Charlemagne received
from Pope Hadrian I, the capitulary is truly a creation of the king and his advisors.
Its extensive use of quotations from Holy Scripture reveals the level of cultural
sophistication achieved at Charlemagne’s court and points to the greater goals the
court sought to achieve.
In this capitulary, Charlemagne asserted his belief that he was a new Josiah, the
ancient Hebrew king who reformed Jewish belief and practice, with the respon-
sibility to rule over God’s new chosen people and the duty to reform their moral
and spiritual lives so that they would be able to achieve salvation. To fulfill his role
as the new Josiah, and to create peace and harmony among the Christian people,
Charlemagne included chapters concerning the moral reform and discipline of
the priesthood in the Admonitio. The capitulary also emphasizes the responsibil-
ity of the priests in Charlemagne’s kingdom to preach “rightly and honestly” and
to avoid innovation and teachings contrary to the laws of the church. Priests are
expected to live moral lives; they are to teach their flocks to follow the example
they set. The priests themselves are to be guided in the performance of their du-
ties by the bishops, who are instructed to obey the accepted beliefs and practices
of the church.
Perhaps the most important section of the Admonitio is chapter 72, which lays
out Charlemagne’s program of education. This chapter asserts the responsibility
of the bishops and monks of his kingdom to establish schools to teach the psalms,
music and singing, and grammar. The schools, in other words, are to teach boys to
read and write so that they can help spread the faith of Christianity. The chapter calls
on the leaders of the church to set up schools so that those who wish to pray may do
so in the proper fashion. Indeed, it was one of Charlemagne’s great hopes that all

1
2 | Adoptionism

his people would be able to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed. The
Admonitio was intended to contribute to that goal by mandating that the schools be
established; another purpose was to provide for the correction of books important
to the faith. The Admonitio Generalis established the religious reform program of
Charlemagne’s reign, and, with the Letter to Baugulf (Epistola de litteris colendis)
it promoted the revival of learning associated with his broader reform program.
See also: Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne

Bibliography
Brown, Giles. “Introduction: the Carolingian Renaissance.” In Carolingian Culture:
Emulation and Innovation, ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895.
London: Longman, 1977.

Adoptionism

A heresy that emerged in Spain in the eighth century, Adoptionism sought to pro-
vide a new understanding of the nature of the godhead. The key figures in the her-
esy were Felix, bishop of Urgel and Elipandus, bishop of Toledo. Despite providing
a simpler explanation of the relationship between God the Father and God the
Son, Adoptionism was opposed by Pope Hadrian I and leading Carolingian theo-
logians, notably Alcuin of York, and was formally condemned by the great council
of Frankfurt in 794.
Possibly in response to the establishment of Islam throughout the Iberian Pen-
insula in the eighth century, Adoptionism circulated among the clergy of Spain
and may have developed a popular following even though an earlier version of
the doctrine had been condemned by a church council in the late seventh century.
Elipandus of Toledo revived the teaching of Adoptionism, which could have proved
less offensive to Muslim sensibilities, in the early 780s. Although misrepresented
by his rivals who asserted that Elipandus taught that Jesus was born human and be-
came the Son of God by his virtue and devotion to God, Elipandus and later Felix
of Urgel maintained that Jesus was the incarnate Word. God had sent the Word to
the world of humans, but as the Word the fully divine Son emptied himself of his
divinity so that he could become fully human all the while remaining fully consub-
stantial with the Father. As the human Jesus, the son had all the limitations of hu-
manity, except sin, and in this way was able to offer himself as a way to salvation.
He was also, in his humanity, the first of the adoptive sons of God and consequently
the brother of all of God’s adopted children, that is, those who were saved.
 Aethelberht I of Kent | 3

The teaching of Elipandus and Felix would have remained a Spanish matter
had not the bishopric of Urgel come under Carolingian control as Charlemagne
established the Spanish March and extended his authority across the Pyrenees. In
part a response to attacks by Beatus of Liebana, an influential Spanish writer, and
Charlemagne’s own interest in the defense of orthodoxy, Carolingian ecclesiastics
turned their attention to Adoptionism in the early 790s. In 793, Felix was ordered by
Charlemagne to attend a council at Regensburg, where he was forced to renounce
his teachings and go to Rome for a hearing from Pope Hadrian. Adoptionism was
officially condemned by Charlemagne’s great church council of Frankfurt in 794,
and the churchman, Paulinus of Aquilia wrote a treatise against the heresy. Felix,
however, began teaching Adoptionism again in 796, and he seemed to generate a
following among Spanish clergy. In response, Alcuin, one of Charlemagne’s most
important advisors, composed two works against Adoptionism in 797–798 and 800,
which he sent to Elipanus, and in 799 he debated Felix at Charlemagne’s palace at
Aix-la-Chapelle. Felix again recanted and was then sent to Lyons where he died
in 818 and despite numerous repudiations of Adoptionism seems to have never
abandoned this teaching. Other critiques of Adoptionism were written by Benedict
of Aniane and Agobard of Lyons, and the teaching of Adoptionism did not long
survive the death of its chief advocates, Felix and Elipandus.
See also: Agobard of Lyons, St.; Alcuin of York; Benedict of Aniane; Charlemagne;
Carolingian Dynasty; Hadrian I, Pope

Bibliography
Cavadini, J. C. The Last Christology of the West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul,
785–820. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Chazelle, Celia. The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era: Theology and Art of Christ’s
Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Aethelberht I of Kent (d. 616)

A powerful and important king of Kent, in southern England. Aethelberht was

identified by Bede as one of the bretwaldas ruling over the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms
of England. As a king, Aethelberht established important contacts with the Con-
tinent, most notably through his marriage to a Merovingian princess. Of greater
significance was the king’s relationship with Rome and his contact with Pope
Gregory I and the pope’s representative St. Augustine of Canterbury who preached
4 | Aethelberht I of Kent

to Aethelberht who became first king in England to convert to Christianity. He was

also the first Anglo-Saxon king to issue a legal code.
Aethelberht was king of the most sophisticated and most populous kingdom of
England in the late sixth and early seventh century. Although Bede says that he ruled
from 560 to 616, it is more likely that he assumed the throne at some time between
589 and 593 and was born in 560. He was the most powerful ruler of his time, ex-
tending his authority across most of southern England, and is identified by Bede as
the third king to rule all of England south of the Humber. Perhaps in recognition of
his status in England or possibly as a result of his own desires to associate himself
with the most powerful family of the continent, Aethelberht married at some point
before 588 Bertha, the niece of the Merovingian king Chilperic and the daughter
of Charipert, king of Paris. Even though Frankish chroniclers made little of the
marriage, it was an important alliance for Aethelberht, and his association with the
Frankish dynasty shaped the remainder of his reign.
The closeness of Aethelberht with the Merovingians is, perhaps, revealed in the
two great accomplishments of his reign. His most important achievement was his
conversion to Christianity. In 595, after having seen angelic boys from England
sold as slaves in the market place at Rome, Pope Gregory the Great—who bought
and freed them—sent an evangelical mission to England led by St. Augustine of
Canterbury. Aethelberht welcomed the mission, although with some hesitation at
first, since he feared that they were practitioners of the magical arts who would
try to deceive and control him. But after meeting the missionaries, the king gave
them permission to preach in his kingdom, and, as Bede notes, Aethelberht was so
impressed by their preaching and miracles that he converted and accepted baptism
from them. Although he would not compel his subjects to convert, the king did
favor Christians in his kingdom and built a number of churches for the missionar-
ies, including St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and a church in Rochester. He also
allowed them to settle in Canterbury, which later became the most important epis-
copal see in England.
The king’s conversion restored the connection with Rome that had been sev-
ered by the invasions of the fifth century. This connection was further confirmed
by letters that Aethelberht received from the pope, including one in which Gregory
praised the king, compared him with Constantine, and encouraged him to spread the
faith throughout his kingdom. Although his son Eadbald (616–640) at first turned
his back on Christianity, giving it a temporary setback, Eadbald later converted to
the faith and furthered the process of conversion of his people.
Aethelberht’s other great achievement was the codification of the law, which was
completed between 597 and 616. Although the codification may not have been a
thorough one, the king’s legal reforms were important nonetheless. His publication
of Anglo-Saxon laws reveals the influence of the Merovingians once again, because
it recalls the famous codification of the Salic law by Clovis (r. 481–511), the first
 Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians | 5

great Merovingian king. It also suggests Christian or Roman influence, because

the great Christian emperor Justinian had codified Roman law a generation be-
fore Aethelberht’s code. Indeed, the king not only demonstrated the importance he
attached to his continental connections with the code but also revealed the sophis-
tication his kingdom had achieved. The code was unique in one regard: unlike the
codes of Clovis and the other Germanic kings, which were in Latin, Aethelberht’s
code was in the Anglo-Saxon tongue making it the earliest code written in any
Germanic language and the oldest written work in Old English.
The code did not reflect any advanced legal theory, but it did define the laws of
the land and relations among the king’s subjects. The code, among other things,
established the scale of payment owed for injury, such as the payments (called
wergeld) due for killing men and women of various social ranks and for other
violations of person and property. The code also established the preeminent place
of the king in Kentish society, as well as the important place of the bishops in the
kingdom. The laws further established the legal rights and status of the clergy in
the kingdom, issued penalties for crimes against the church and clergy, and gave
legal expression to the king’s new faith. Although Aethelberht is less well known
than some other Anglo-Saxon kings, his importance is no less than theirs, as he
was the first to reform the law and to convert to Christianity.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Bede; Chilperic I; Clovis;
Constantine; Gregory the Great; Justinian; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Attenborough, Frederick L., ed. and trans. The Laws of the Earliest English Kings.
Felinfach, Wales: Llanerch Publishers, 2000.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-
Price. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Classics, 1968.
Kirby, David P. The Earliest English Kings. London: Unwin Hyman, 1991.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Seaby,
1990.

Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians (d. 918)

Daughter of King Alfred, traditionally known as the Great, and wife of the power-
ful ealdorman (or lord) of Mercia, Ethelred. Although she was described by later
historians as too weak to endure the pains of childbirth more than once, despite the
powerful motivation of having borne no male heir, Æthelflæd was a strong partner
6 | Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians

for her husband while he lived and a leader against Viking attacks after his death.
After 911, she was recognized as “lady of the Mercians,” but not “queen,” and was
the dominant figure of the kingdom in the first decades of the 10th century. Her
marriage forged an important alliance between her native Wessex and Mercia dur-
ing the critical period of the Viking invasions.
Æthelflæd’s career in Mercia began by the end of 889, with her marriage to
Ethelred to solidify an alliance between her father and her new husband, an alliance
that was to be important in the face of increased Viking pressure. During her entire
married life, Æthelflæd exerted influence on her husband’s rule, and at least by 900,
her name was associated with his in charters confirming grants of land. But it was
after her husband’s death in 911 that Æthelflæd left her greatest mark as a warrior
queen. She assumed control of the kingdom in 911 and was able to keep the loy-
alty of her husband’s vassals. Joining with her brother, King Edward, she led the
campaign against the Vikings and enabled her brother to make significant progress
against the Danish Vikings in the south. She led her armies personally and achieved
smashing victories over the Vikings, victories that enabled her to retake Derby and
Leicester. Her victories forced Viking settlers and Welsh kings to recognize her
authority. She also built or rebuilt a number of important fortifications, inspired
perhaps by her father’s example, at places like Stafford and Tamsworth. With her
husband, she fortified Worcester. After 911, she embarked on a deliberate program
of building to strengthen the defenses of Mercia. She built as many as 10 fortresses,
which limited the effectiveness of Viking attacks and allowed her to send out armies
against her enemies with increasing success.
She ruled in her own name until her death in 918. She had one daughter, Ælfwyn,
who inherited the loyalty of the Mercian nobility. Unfortunately, family ties were
not so strong, and her uncle, King Edward, marched into Mercia, seized his niece,
and took control of Mercia. Edward, thus, unified Mercia and Wessex. Although
Mercia was absorbed by Wessex and the queen failed to secure her daughter’s suc-
cession to the throne, Æthelflæd was an important figure in Anglo-Saxon England
and had a great impact on the struggle against the Vikings.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Mercia; Wessex

Bibliography
Jewell, Helen. Women in Medieval England. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1996.
Leyser, Henrietta. Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England, 450–1500.
New York: St. Martin’s, 1995.
Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines, and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the Early
Middle Ages. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.
 Aëtius | 7

Aelfric. See Anglo-Saxons

Aëtius (d. 454)

Called “the last of the Romans” by the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius,
Aëtius was the servant of the emperor Valentinian III, the rival of the empress
Galla Placidia, and the military commander who preserved Roman control over
Gaul but lost Africa. Like Stilicho before him and Orestes after, Aëtius was the
power behind the throne. He maintained the integrity of Western Roman imperial
authority in the face of the turmoil and tumult brought on by the Hunnish inva-
sions and movement of various Germanic tribes. A contemporary chronicler called
him “the great safety of the western republic” (Marcellinus, Chronicle, quoted in
Bury 1959, 300) and it can be said that Aëtius’s death was a grave misfortune for
the Western Empire.
Born in Lower Moesia, a Roman territory in the Balkans, to an Italian mother and
Gaudentius, a Roman military commander who served Theodosius, Aëtius was sent
as a hostage to Alaric and also to the Huns. His family background and experiences
among the Visigoths and Huns were to be of great importance for his future. He
learned military techniques from the barbarians that would benefit him in later life
and found an ally in the Huns, who helped him gain and hold power once he was an
adult. According to Gregory of Tours, Aëtius was described by one contemporary
in a panegyric as being of “middle height, of manly condition, well shaped, so that
his body was neither too weak nor too weighty, active in mind, vigorous in limb”
(Gregory of Tours 1974, 119). The panegyrist notes that he was a skilled horse-
man and deadly with both an arrow and spear. An “excellent warrior and famous
in the arts of peace” (119), Aëtius, our panegyrist continues, was hardworking,
able to endure the hardships of the military life, free from greed, and intellectually
gifted. Even though it was intended to praise Aëtius, the panegyric offers a good
assessment of the Roman leader, as his career would prove.
Aëtius first came to prominence in the 420s during the usurpation of the imperial
throne in Ravenna by the civil servant John. At the death of the emperor Honorius in
423, John was elevated to the throne but was opposed by the emperor in Constanti-
nople, Theodosius II, as well as by the widow and son of Honorius, Galla Placidia,
and Valentinian III. Aëtius, a rising soldier, recognized the authority of John and
went to recruit an army from the Huns to support John. The pretender, however,
was captured and executed before Aëtius could return with an army numbering
60,000 Hunnish soldiers. The army was a crucial bargaining chip for Aëtius, who
was able to avoid the fate of John and demand a position of authority. Reluctantly,
Galla Placidia came in terms with Aëtius and his army. Aëtius was pardoned by the
empress and was given the title of count and military command in Gaul.
8 | Aëtius

Although he rose to prominence in an act of rebellion against the Western

Empire, Aëtius spent much of his career defending the empire against its various
barbarian foes. His command in Gaul brought him great prestige, and the contin-
ued enmity of Galla Placidia and her allies. Aëtius’s prestige came from his great
success in Gaul against the barbarian armies that threatened the empire’s hold on
the province. He fought a series of successful battles against the Franks, includ-
ing the one in 428 against one of the first-known kings of the Franks, Chlodio.
He also engaged King Theodoric I (419–451) and the Visigoths during his time in
Gaul and prevented them from taking the important city of Arles, often using both
Frankish and Hunnish allies against the Visigoths. His success brought Aëtius the
enthusiastic support of the Roman nobility in Gaul and promotion to the high rank
of Master of Both Services (magister utriusque militum).
Aëtius’s success also brought him the increasing hostility of Galla Placidia,
especially after he orchestrated the deposition of her favorite Felix. With her sup-
port, Boniface, the military commander of Africa and count, challenged Aëtius in
a great battle in Ariminum in 432. Although Aëtius lost the battle and took refuge
with his allies, the Huns, he won the contest because Boniface died shortly after
their engagement, possibly from wounds he received in the battle. Once again with
support from the Hunnish mercenaries, Aëtius was able to reestablish his authority
in 433 and remained the most important figure in the Western Empire until his
death in 454. The empress now resigned herself to the success of Aëtius, who had
defeated her favorites, held important military and civilian rank, and gained great
influence over her son Valentinian.
As the real power in the Western Empire, Aëtius took charge of its defense and
waged a series of successful and unsuccessful struggles with various barbarian
peoples. One of his greatest failures was his inability or unwillingness to prevent
Gaiseric and the Vandals from taking control of Roman Africa in the early 430s.
The loss of Africa, which was formalized in a treaty of 442 that was cemented by a
marriage alliance between the Vandal king and Roman emperor, occurred for sev-
eral reasons: Aëtius’s distaste for the region as the base of power of his vanquished
rival Boniface, his lack of an adequate fleet to defeat the Vandals, and his strate-
gic decision to put his efforts toward preserving control of Gaul, an area equally
under pressure from barbarian armies during the time of the Vandal invasion. In
436, Aëtius sent an army of Huns against the Burgundian kingdom of Worms. In
an event celebrated in the German medieval epic poem the Nibelungenlied, the
kingdom was destroyed, and as many as 20,000 Burgundians were killed, includ-
ing the king Gundahar. But the Burgundians themselves were not wiped out and
were resettled near modern Geneva, where they remained important allies of the
empire. Aëtius also continued his struggle against the Visigoths, who sought to
extend their influence into Gaul and who were seen as the greatest threat to the
Western Empire. In the late 430s he stopped them at Toulouse, preserving the
 Aëtius | 9

imperial hold on southern Gaul and restricting the Goths to territories ceded to
them by a treaty in 418.
Perhaps his most disappointing struggle with a barbarian people was his war
with his long-time allies the Huns. During his rise to power, the Huns were without
a king ruling over them, and many of the Huns found employment as mercenaries
in the service of Aëtius and the Romans. Changes within the Hunnish nation in
the 430s led to the emergence of a king who was eventually succeeded by Attila,
the greatest of the Huns who initiated an aggressive policy toward the empire.
The invasion of Attila forced Aëtius to respond in the 440s and 450s. Attila’s drive
into the Western Empire was of great concern to Aëtius, who needed to find new
allies to stop his old allies. Somewhat surprised by the Hunnish king’s assault,
Aëtius mobilized an army of Franks, Burgundians, and Romans and negotiated
an alliance with his former enemies, the Visigoths. It was this mixed army that
stopped Attila at Orléans and limited his success at Troyes. It was also this army
that Aëtius led against Attila at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (somewhere
between Châlons and Troyes, France). This bloody battle was a near disaster for
Attila, who prepared for his own suicide during the fight. Although he defeated
them, Aëtius allowed the Huns to leave the battlefield without destroying them,
and, according to one tradition, even prevented one of his allies from pursuing the
defeated Huns. Aëtius’s concerns over the Visigoths and the Huns’s earlier service
as his allies may have inspired the general to allow their withdrawal. Aëtius was
less successful, however, at stopping Attila when he invaded Italy, but the death of
the king of the Huns ended their threat to the empire and allowed Aëtius to turn
his attention to other problems.
Aëtius, however, had little time to attend to the remaining problems of the empire.
Although he faithfully defended the Western Empire and its emperor, Aëtius fell
under the suspicion of that emperor, Valentinian III. Perhaps angered by Aëtius’s
success and attempt to marry his family into the imperial line or influenced by one
of Aëtius’s rivals, Valentinian ordered the murder of his faithful general. Whatever
the case, Aëtius fell to imperial treachery on September 24, 454, when Valentin-
ian accused him of treason and had him killed immediately. After the murder a
contemporary is supposed to have said to the emperor, “You have cut off your
right hand with your left” (Bury 1959, 299). In fact, the emperor signed his own
death warrant, for the following March, loyal followers of Aëtius murdered the
emperor. These murders left the Western Empire without a legitimate successor
to the throne and, perhaps even worse, without one of its greatest defenders and
one who deserved the title of “last of the Romans,” at a time when his talents were
needed more than ever.
See also: Alans; Alaric; Attila the Hun; Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the; Gaiseric; Galla
Placidia; Huns; Procopius; Ravenna; Rome; Stilicho, Flavius; Theodosius; Vandals;
Visigoths
10 | Agobard of Lyons, St.

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages.
New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
a.d. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Agobard of Lyons, St. (769–840)

Carolingian bishop and religious leader. Agobard’s life and career reflect the impor-
tance of ecclesiastics in the Frankish kingdom, as well as the tumult that occurred
there in the ninth century. As bishop he struggled against clerical abuse and igno-
rance as well as against the ignorance of the laity. He also strove to enforce cleri-
cal discipline and criticized royal abuse of power over the church. Agobard further
rejected a number of pious practices approved by the Carolingian church and was
a vocal critic of Louis the Pious’s policy toward the Jews. He played an impor-
tant role in the civil wars that shook the reign of Louis, supporting Louis’s sons
against the emperor, whom he denounced for opposing God’s will by violating the
Ordinatio Imperii (Disposition of the Empire) of 817. His support for the rebels
led to his removal from involvement in the daily affairs of his bishopric, although
he was eventually restored to his full authority as bishop and resumed his duties
for the emperor.
Agobard was probably born in Spain and moved into the Frankish kingdom in
782 at the age of 13. Upon his arrival in Lyons, if not before, Agobard began his ec-
clesiastical career by joining a monastery near Narbonne. He later moved to Lyons,
where he received holy orders and, in 804, was consecrated as a suffragan bishop.
In 816 he was elevated to the position of archbishop of Lyons, where he remained,
with the exception of a period of exile in the 830s, until his death. As archbishop,
he played an important role in the religious and political life of the empire and
challenged the emperor, Louis the Pious, on several occasions. He also supported
the general reform initiatives of Louis, and he transformed Lyons into one of the
centers of learning in the Carolingian world.
In the realm of politics, Agobard remained a staunch supporter of the unity of
the empire and believed in its sacrosanct nature. He was an ardent proponent of
the Ordinatio Imperii of 817, which was Louis’s plan of succession. The Ordinatio
was seen by some, especially in the church, as establishing the essential unity of
the empire under God and his divinely appointed ruler. The plan also enhanced
 Agobard of Lyons, St. | 11

the power and status of the church, which could be seen as a guarantor of God’s
blessings on the realm. Agobard was one of the most adamant supporters of this
plan and challenged the emperor for his efforts to undermine the Ordinatio, espe-
cially when Louis restructured the plan to include Charles the Bald, his youngest
son, who was born in 823. Gradually, a group of churchman came to form a sort
of “imperialist” party, which advocated the preservation of the original settlement
and came to oppose the emperor to the point of rebellion. Indeed, in 830 many
churchmen joined the rebellion against the emperor led by his sons. Agobard,
however, did not participate in the revolt but remained neutral, even though he had
written a letter to Louis the previous year in support of the Ordinatio and against
Louis’s violation of it.
In the mid-830s, however, Agobard underwent a change of heart in regard to
Louis. In 833, when Lothar again revolted against his father, Agobard joined with
the rebellion. He was among the bishops who called for Louis’s abdication, and
he wrote in defense of the rebellion. He criticized Judith, the emperor’s second
wife and the mother of Charles the Bald, and denounced Louis for abandoning
his obligations as a Christian emperor and for allowing war and injustice to occur
in the empire. Unlike Lothar, Agobard did not flee the empire when Louis was
restored to power. He was subsequently stripped of his responsibilities as bishop
by a church council in 835. He regained the emperor’s favor and was restored to
his position in Lyons in 838. He was able to return, in part, because of the un-
orthodox reforms implemented by his successor. Agobard remained loyal to the
empire in his remaining years and died while performing a diplomatic mission
for the emperor.
Agobard was also an influential critic of contemporary religious policy and
practice. In the Carolingian Empire religion and politics were often mixed, as
Louis’s succession plan demonstrates, and Agobard frequently called for the proper
administration of justice. He criticized secular and religious judges for taking bribes
and bending justice to favor the rich over the poor. He was also a harsh critic of the
practice of trial by ordeal and the judicial duel. As archbishop, Agobard ruled on
more traditional religious issues and participated in debate over religious policy in
the empire. He was an active crusader against corruptions of the faith, including
ignorance and impiety among the clergy and superstition and pagan practices among
the laity. He supported the iconoclastic thinker, Claudius of Turin (d. 827), who
rejected the veneration of images in the church. Agobard, Claudius’s bishop, wrote
a rebuttal to Carolingian thinkers who had attacked Claudius. Agobard also wrote
a series of treatises criticizing Louis’s Jewish policy. The emperor had favored and
protected the Jews, which Agobard thought undermined the unity and integrity of
the Christian empire of the Carolingians. Indeed, as with so many other things,
Agobard’s hostility to the Jews was part of a broader agenda that sought the proper
ordering of Christian society.
12 | Agriculture

See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Franks; Jews and Judaism; Judith; Lothar;
Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Ordinatio Imperii

Bibliography
Cabaniss, Allen. Agobard of Lyons: Churchman and Critic. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1953.
Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
Laistner, Max Ludwig Wolfram. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900.
2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 951–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Agriculture

In the early Middle Ages the vast majority of the population of Europe was dedi-
cated in some fashion or other to food production, which invariably involved agri-
culture. In early medieval Europe, as well as in later medieval and modern Europe,
agriculture involved both crop farming and animal husbandry—a unique combi-
nation compared with agriculture in other parts of the world. In the economy of
barbarian Europe, farming and animal husbandry existed in a symbiotic arrange-
ment, in which specific crops were cultivated for animals, which in turn provided
food and fertilizer. Despite the attention to agriculture, and the labor put into it,
crop yields were generally small—the result of limited technology—and thus the
vast majority of the population lived barely at the subsistence level.
In the agricultural villages of early medieval Europe, the agricultural practices
of the ancient Romans and their barbarian invaders came together to form the
uniquely European agricultural tradition. One aspect of this, perhaps the result of
the more pastoral nature of the barbarians who settled in much of the old Western
Roman Empire, was animal husbandry. A number of different animals were bred,
although not selectively as they were in Roman times, by early medieval peasants.
The animals—including cows, oxen, horses, and pigs—provided a supply of both
food and ready labor. Although little meat was eaten by the peasants, it was a wel-
come addition to an otherwise meager diet. But perhaps more important was the
labor animals provided in the fields where various cereals were grown. Oxen and,
eventually, horses were used to pull the plows that tilled the soil in early medieval
villages. Peasants also grew oats specifically for the horses when the horse came
 Agriculture | 13

into widespread use as a draught animal at the very end of the early medieval pe-
riod. Cattle were often allowed to graze on the stubble found in the fields after the
harvest, and their manure helped revitalize the fields. Also, hay and various grasses
grew in the meadows of the villages, and the animals were allowed to wander in
those meadows to eat the grasses.
Although animal husbandry was a significant practice of the peasants in barbar-
ian Europe, it was far less important, and provided a much smaller amount of food,
than farming. Some distinctive crops were produced in different parts of Europe
because of climatic differences. Notably, grapes were grown in the warmer climates
but were seldom found in the cooler climate of northern Europe. Despite this variety,
the fundamental food crop was some type of cereal, which was often consumed in
the form of bread and beer. Various types of wheat were grown in the village fields,
as were barley, oats, rye, and spelt. The crop yields were quite poor, averaging a
yield of between 2.5 to 1 to 3 to 1 to seeds planted. There were often times when
this meager yield was even smaller, and thus famine was not an uncommon phe-
nomenon; hunger was almost constant for the peasants. One means to make up for
the poor production of the grains in the fields, however, was to plant small gardens
near the home. These gardens often supplied foods that added valuable vitamins
and minerals to the diet; the peasants grew root vegetables, peas, beans, and other
legumes in their gardens. Thus, even though early medieval peasants spent much
of their time cultivating grain, they also found time to grow a variety of vegetables
to bring to the table.
Along with hunger, the greatest problem the peasant farmers of the early Mid-
dle Ages faced was soil depletion. To produce even the minimal yields they did,
the peasants had to find some way to revitalize the fields they planted. One so-
lution, of course, was to manure the fields, which they accomplished by allow-
ing their livestock to graze in the fields and fertilize it while feeding. The early
medieval peasant also collected manure from stables and spread it on the fields.
But dependence on manure for fertilizer was an inadequate solution because of
the smaller size of most farm animals during this period and because most animals
were sold or slaughtered every fall (since the peasants did not have enough food
to keep the animals through the winter). The most effective way to allow the
soil to replenish itself was to let it lie fallow. Peasants in barbarian Europe were
forced to leave part of their fields unplanted each year so that the soil could be
revitalized and continue to return at least the small harvests that the peasants
needed to survive.
Because of the need to let some fields lie fallow each year, the peasants prac-
ticed a regimen of crop rotation as well as rotation of fields to be planted. In the
drier climates and even in the wetter north the standard practice until the ninth
century was a two-field system of crop rotation. In this approach, half of the
available land was plowed and half was left fallow, and in the following year
14 | Agriculture

the situation was reversed. Although this practice enabled the soil to replenish
itself, it did leave much of the farmland uncultivated, which worsened the already
difficult problem of food production. A series of Carolingian documents from
around the time of Charlemagne (surveys of the great estates called polyptychs)
reveal a new three-field rotation system emerging at that time. Even before then,
and even in the drier regions, a second planting sometimes occurred; beginning
in the ninth century, the new practice of dividing the fields into thirds became
more widespread.
The most obvious advantage of this system was that it brought more land under
cultivation each year, thus increasing the productivity of the fields; it also enabled
the peasants to plant different crops. In this approach one-third of the field was
left fallow, another third was planted with winter wheat, and the other third was
planted with a spring crop, generally oats or barley and sometimes legumes. The
new system of planting did not completely replace the old two-field practice and
was used mostly in northern Europe, where the soil was moister and the climate
wetter. Although it was not introduced universally, the new three-field planting regi-
men was a great benefit to those who used it, and they enjoyed better yields of seed
to crop than those who did not.
Peasants used a variety of tools in their daily farm labors, but for much of the pe-
riod were hindered by the simplicity of design and the materials used to make them.
The farmer’s tools were often made of wood, which was a less durable material
than metal. Iron came into more general use only later in the early medieval period;
when it did, it offered a great improvement in the quality of farming tools. The most
important of all farm implements was perhaps the plow. The most common plow
used by peasants in the post-Roman world of Western Europe was the Roman or
scratch plow. It was a simple, light tool that could be easily operated by the farmer
with a small team of oxen, generally two. The scratch plow, as the name suggests,
did little more than break the surface of the soil without turning it over. In areas like
Italy where the soil is dry or sandy, this plow was often sufficient for the farmer’s
needs, but in northern Europe where the soil is moist and heavy, this plow alone
was inadequate. Often digging by hand was necessary to supplement the furrow
made by the scratch plow.
Probably in the Carolingian age, a new more efficient plow appeared, better
suited to till the soil in northern Europe. This plow, known as the carruca in con-
temporary documents, was a wheeled plow that was fitted with a moldboard and
needed as many as eight oxen to work it. It was a more complex and expensive
tool, but it also was furrowed and turned the soil over, thus aerating the soil and
making it more fertile. Although a technological improvement, the carruca did not
immediately replace the scratch plow even in the north; nevertheless, its gradual
spread improved agricultural productivity.
 Agriculture | 15

The peasant farmers of early medieval Europe used a number of other tools
as well. By the Carolingian period, water and wind mills were coming into more
general use to grind the grain that was such an important part of the diet. Even be-
fore these mills appeared, hand-operated mills, which were much more labor inten-
sive to operate, enjoyed widespread use by early medieval farmers. Finally, there
were several handheld tools that were generally found on early medieval farms,
including spades (a useful supplement to the plow for digging in the fields), axes,
hoes, sickles, and scythes.
The tools and practices medieval farmers used, especially the plow, dictated the
way they farmed and the shape of their fields. Most fields in early medieval villages
were long narrow strips because of the difficulty of plowing them, especially when
the carruca came into more widespread use. It was a difficult and time-consuming
job to turn the team of oxen and plow around and so, to accommodate the new plow,
the fields were long and narrow instead of short and wide. Also, medieval farmers
fenced in their fields or sometimes built wide ditches to manage the livestock that
were allowed to graze on the fields. The fences and ditches were intended both to
keep livestock in and out so that they would not overgraze some fields or wander
off to another village.
Agriculture in the early Middle Ages, therefore, was focused primarily on
farming various grains. Peasants also practiced animal husbandry and planted small
gardens where they grew beans and leafy vegetables. The level of farming was
barely above subsistence and hunger was not unknown. The early medieval peas-
ant, nonetheless, survived in the face of various difficulties through cooperation
with other peasants and various techniques developed during that time. Use of
animal fertilizer was not uncommon as was the use of animals, especially horses
and oxen, as draft animals. Early medieval farmers also gradually developed a

Peasant farmers ploughing in the month of January, from an English calendar, ca. 1025–
1050. (The British Library Board)
16 | Aistulf

heavy plow for the rich soils of northern Europe, and they also practiced crop and
field rotation.
See also: Animals; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Diet and Nutrition

Bibliography
Bloch, Marc. French Rural History: An Essay on Its Basic Characteristics. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
Duby, Georges. Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Trans. Cynthia
Postan. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968.
Duby, Georges. The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants
from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979.
Finberg, Herbert P. R., ed. Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. 1. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Harvey, John. Mediaeval Gardens. Beaverton, OR: Timber, 1981.
Lewit, Tamara. Agricultural Production in the Roman Economy, A.D. 200–400. Oxford:
Tempus Reparatum, 1991.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. 1978. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
4th Reprint, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Slicher van Bath, Bernard H. The Agrarian History of Western Europe: A.D. 500–1850.
Trans. Olive Ordish. London: Arnold, 1963.
White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1964.

Aistulf (d. 756)

Penultimate Lombard king (r. 749–756), and one of the most ruthless and blood-
thirsty to wear the iron crown of the Lombard monarchy. Like all the Lombard
kings, Aistulf sought to extend his authority over the important central Italian pos-
sessions of the papacy and the Byzantine Empire and thereby establish Lombard
power over the entire Italian peninsula. Successful against the Byzantines, Aistulf
met his match in the protector of the pope, Pippin, king of the Franks. Indeed,
it was Aistulf’s aggression and repeated violation of diplomatic agreements that
forced Pope Stephen II to seek aid from the great power in the north. Stephen’s
revolutionary act led to the final split between Rome and Constantinople, which
in turn led to the formation of the independent papal state, and also brought about
the important alliance of the papacy and the kings and, eventually, emperors of
the Franks. Aistulf’s threats and Stephen’s response also provided the conditions
in Rome that led to the creation of the greatest forgery of the Middle Ages, the
Donation of Constantine.
 Aistulf | 17

Aistulf’s reign was a difficult time for the papacy because he was determined
to unify the Italian peninsula under his authority. Italian unity, however, could be
accomplished only at the expense of the pope’s vast estates in central Italy, and
therefore the official biography of Pope Stephen II contains a very negative pic-
ture of the Lombard king. According to the Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis),
Aistulf was a “shameless Lombard king” who was “contaminated by the Ancient
Enemy’s cunning” (Davis 1992, 94.6, 55). He was accused of “pernicious sav-
agery” (Davis 1992, 94.5, 55) and cruelty. Stephen’s biographer describes him
as an “atrocious king . . . [who] boiled over with mighty rage and, roaring like a
lion, kept sending pestilential threats to the Romans” (Davis 1992, 94.10, 56–62).
Clearly this account is biased, but other contemporary accounts reveal that Aistulf
was a treacherous and ambitious ruler who was not unwilling to violate treaties
in pursuit of his goal. And although he was a Catholic king, Aistulf did not let his
religion get in the way of conquest.
Aistulf became king in 749 after the death of Liutprand, whose threats to Roman
territory and security had already caused the pope to seek Frankish aid. Liutprand,
however, was respectful of St. Peter and a less ruthless and duplicitous adversary
than Aistulf. From the very outset of his short and terrible reign, Aistulf took the
initiative against his rivals in Italy. Within two years of his ascension to the throne,
Aistulf captured Ravenna, the imperial stronghold in Italy and seat of the Byzantine
emperor’s representative in the Latin West, and had begun to issue royal proclama-
tions from the city. The exarch of Ravenna, as the emperor’s representative, had
been the protector of the pope, and the loss of the imperial city was a blow not
only to Constantinople’s prestige but also to the safety of Rome and its estates in
central Italy.
The Lombard king’s success against imperial Italy encouraged him to increase
the pressure on papal Italy. Rome was now without its protector and powerless to
prevent the expansion of Aistulf, who, according to the Book of the Popes (Liber
Pontificalis), instituted “a great persecution” of Rome (Davis 1992, 94.5, 54).
He invaded Roman territory, capturing cities in the northern part of the duchy
and increasing pressure on Rome itself. Pope Stephen, following the practice
his predecessors had used with other Lombard kings, sought to negotiate peace
with Aistulf. Stephen sent his brother and other high-ranking papal officials,
along with many gifts, to Aistulf to sign a peace treaty in June 752. Although
Aistulf agreed to a peace of 40 years, he violated the treaty in only four months.
Tearing up the treaty, Aistulf imposed a heavy tribute on Rome, piled insults on
the pope, threatened the Roman people, and claimed that the city was under his
jurisdiction.
The difficult position Stephen faced was further complicated by imperial de-
mands that the pope negotiate the return of Ravenna and other imperial territories
18 | Aistulf

seized by Aistulf. Shortly after the Lombard resumed hostilities toward Rome,
Stephen received an envoy form Emperor Constantine V ordering the pope to secure
the return of imperial territory. Stephen now faced the prospect of pleading for his
safety and that of the emperor’s lands in Italy in the face of a most unfriendly foe.
In the summer and fall of 753, Stephen sought to come to terms with his enemy. He
had also contacted Pippin, the recently crowned king of the Franks, who had sent
his own ambassadors to meet with the pope. Aistulf refused to meet with the pope
or begin discussions over lands he had conquered.
In October 753, Stephen began a journey that was to have revolutionary conse-
quences for the papacy, Franks, and Lombards. Contemporary accounts note that
his departure was marked by heavenly signs, including a fireball that rose in the
sky from the north—over the Frankish kingdom—and set to the south—over the
Lombard kingdom. He met Aistulf at the king’s residence in the royal capital of
Pavia, but the pope’s advances were rejected by the king, who demanded that the
pope return to Rome rather than continue his trip north. Nevertheless, protection
from Frankish allies guaranteed that Stephen could continue to meet the Frankish
king in his residence in Ponthion. The meeting was decisive for Frankish-papal
relations and was the beginning of the end of Aistulf’s dream to unite Italy under
his authority.
The fall and winter of 753–754 was spent forging an alliance between Pippin
and Stephen. The creation of the alliance was quickened by Aistulf’s miscalcu-
lation. He sent Pippin’s brother, Carloman, who had retired to the monastery of
Monte Cassino, to intervene on Aistulf’s behalf and convince Pippin not to ally
with the pope. Carloman’s pleas were rejected, and he was not allowed to return
to Italy. At the same time, Pippin grew closer to the pope, who may have used the
claims of the Donation of Constantine to support his position. Although it is un-
likely that the Donation had been written (most scholars believe it was composed
sometime after 755), the basic ideas of the forgery were in evidence in Rome and
may have played a role in the negotiations. Stephen confirmed the alliance by
crowning Pippin king of the Franks for a second time and bestowing on him the
imperial title of Patrician, thus providing the king with the right to intervene in
Italy. The discussions between the king and pope did yield a donation from Pippin,
one that promised that the lands of St. Peter would be returned to the pope. Pippin
agreed to guarantee the return of the lands by an invasion of Italy if necessary and
sent repeated demands to Aistulf to return St. Peter’s patrimony.
Aistulf refused to submit to Pippin’s demands and forced the Frankish king to
invade Italy. After convincing the Frankish nobility of the wisdom of his policy,
Pippin invaded in the spring of 755 to defend the interests of St. Peter—a focus of
Carolingian devotion—and his representative, the pope. Aistulf moved north to stop
the advancing Frankish armies, but he was defeated and his army put in disarray.
Pippin then laid siege to the Lombard capital of Pavia, and Aistulf sued for peace.
He agreed to send hostages to the Frankish court, return cities seized from Rome
 Aistulf | 19

and Ravenna, and keep the peace, an agreement he broke shortly after Pippin left
Italy. Once again Aistulf invaded Roman territory and with three separate armies
laid siege to the city of Rome. He violated the cemeteries outside the city by digging
up the graves and threatened to kill all the Romans by a single sword if they failed
to submit to his authority.
Stephen again sent a letter to the king of the Franks seeking aid in the name of
St. Peter. Upon learning of the pope’s appeal, Aistulf remarked, “Let the Franks
come and get you out of my hands now.” In the spring of 756 Pippin did just
that, invading Italy, with little of the difficulty from Frankish nobles his first in-
vasion occasioned, and overwhelming Aistulf. The Lombard king was forced
to lift his siege and to accept another treaty at the hands of the Frankish king.
A list of 22 cities was compiled that were to be returned to the pope, and Pippin’s
representatives, including Abbot Fulrad, were sent to each of these cities to en-
sure that Aistulf honored the terms of the treaty. Fulrad accepted the keys of the
cities and symbolically laid them on the altar of St. Peter in Rome as a sign of
Rome’s power.
It is likely that Aistulf would have violated the treaty yet again had he not
died in a hunting accident in December 756. He was succeeded by Desiderius,
the duke of Tuscany. His repeated assaults on Rome and treaty violations played
an important role in the revolution of the eighth century. Aistulf’s aggression
forced the pope finally to sever ties with the emperor in Constantinople and find
a more reliable protector. Stephen’s alliance with Pippin and his dynasty had
far-reaching repercussions throughout the rest of the Middle Ages and laid the
foundation for the creation of a new Western empire. Aistulf’s reign was impor-
tant too because his attempted conquest of Rome helped create the papal states
and established the conditions that contributed to the composition of the Dona-
tion of Constantine.
See also: Carloman, Mayor of the Palace; Carolingian Dynasty; Desiderius; Donation of
Constantine; Liutprand; Lombards; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Ravenna; Rome

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
20 | Aix-la-Chapelle

Aix-la-Chapelle

Located in North-Rhine Westphalia in modern Germany, Aix-la-Chapelle (mod-

ern Aachen, Germany) was located in the old heartland of the Carolingian em-
pire in the early Middle Ages. Attracted by its famous hot springs, Charlemagne
built a great palace complex there. It would be his primary residence during the
latter part of his reign and was the site of his tomb (his relics were later moved to
Cologne). It has been regarded by many modern scholars as the capital of his em-
pire. Charlemagne described Aix-la-Chapelle as a “New Rome,” and the town came
to represent the cultural, political, and religious program of the great Carolingian
ruler. Later Carolingian rulers vied for control of the town, recognizing it as a means

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel (center), now the

central element of Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle)
Cathedral in Germany, is the finest surviving example
of Carolingian architecture. Charlemagne began
construction on his chapel in 786. Construction con-
tinued for more than a millennium to form today’s
Aachen Cathedral. ( Jaime Pharr)
 Aix-la-Chapelle | 21

to confirm their own imperial authority. Aix-la-Chapelle retained its importance

throughout the Middle Ages for German rulers as some 38 German kings were
crowned there between 813 and 1531.
Although Aix-la-Chapelle’s significance during the Middle Ages emerged only
with the arrival of Charlemagne in the 790s, it was a center of modest importance as
early as Roman times. Like Charlemagne, the Romans were attracted to the region
because of its hot springs, and the modern name itself is derived from the Roman
name for the region, Aqua Grani (waters of Granus, reference to the warm baths and
a Celtic deity worshipped there). Aix-la-Chapelle formed part of the Roman mili-
tary and communication structure and was a favorite resort of Roman soldiers who
enjoyed the hot springs and the Roman bath built there. By late antiquity, the town
had become a Christian center. Remnants of an early church have been identified
that was built either by late Gallo-Romans or the Merovingians who took control
of the region after the fall of Rome. The Merovingians built a small villa there that
was inherited in turn by the Carolingians when they took power. Charlemagne’s
father Pippin had what contemporary sources call a villa and a palatium at Aix-la-
Chapelle that he visited on occasion and certainly spent Christmas there with his
son in 767.
It was Charlemagne, however, who transformed Aix-la-Chapelle into a town of
real cultural and political importance. He was attracted to the region for several
reasons, not the least of which according to Charlemagne’s biographer Einard, was
its hot springs. Once he had built his residence there, Charlemagne would frequent
the baths often and even invited friends to join him while bathing. Charlemagne
was attracted to the area for more practical reasons, however, including access to
Roman roads, Aix-la-Chapelle’s proximity to other royal palaces, and its location
in the Carolingian heartland of Austrasia. Aix-la-Chapelle also was surrounded
by the Ardennes forest, which provided a ready source of game for the royal ban-
quet table.
Along with a series of other building projects, Charlemagne began work on a
major palace complex in the 790s, a project that would continue after his death
and reach completion in the 820s. The centerpiece of the complex was an octago-
nal chapel, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, that was completed in 796 and may have
been dedicated by Pope Leo III, possibly during his visit in 799 or in 804. The
sole remaining part of the complex built by Charlemagne, the chapel was lavishly
decorated and suggests that the other building were equally elaborately decorated
with mosaics and paintings depicting scenes from the Bible. Built over an exist-
ing church, the chapel of Mary was built in two levels, with Charlemagne’s throne,
built on the model of King Solomon’s throne with stone from the Holy Land, on the
second level. There was an altar on the first floor dedicated to the Virgin and another
altar on the second dedicated to Christ that was directly across from the Carolingian
king’s throne. The dome covering the chapel was some 110 feet above the main
22 | Aix-la-Chapelle

floor and contained a mosaic of Christ in Majesty surrounded by the four symbols
of the Evangelists and the 24 elders of the Apocalypse. The chapel was joined by a
two-story apse on the east side and on the west side by a three-story entrance that
was flanked by semicircular towers on either side. The entrance included a forecourt
whose design recalled a Roman triumphal arch.
The chapel gave expression to Charlemagne’s main goals as king. It was the focal
point of the liturgical reforms Charlemagne promoted during his reign and also an-
nounced his political program. The church itself boasted columns from Italy and
statues from Rome and was modeled after San Vitale of Ravenna, a church built by
the Byzantine emperor Justinian. In this way, the chapel proclaimed the imperial
vision of Charlemagne and his advisors. The church also revealed Charlemagne’s
views on his own place in the divine plan. His throne was placed on the second
floor, halfway between the main floor where his subjects worshipped and the dome
above, which contained a mosaic of Christ in Majesty. In this way, the great king
demonstrated his understanding of his role as an intermediary between God and
humankind and expressed his sense of responsibility for the salvation of the souls
of his subjects.
Along with his royal chapel, Charlemagne built a number of other structures at
Aix-la-Chapelle. There was a two-story great hall that was connected to the cha-
pel by a long covered passageway and a private residence that was situated mid-
way between the great hall and the chapel. Nothing remains of these structures,
but literary evidence and the surviving chapel give some indication about the
nature of these structures. The great hall, which was inspired by the late Roman
great hall in Trier, was used for royal business, receptions of foreign dignitaries
and the Carolingian aristocracy, and banquets, and was hundred feet by seventy
feet. Literary accounts note that it was decorated with scenes of recent history,
including Charlemagne’s wars in Spain, and representations of the seven liberal
arts. The private residence included Charlemagne’s personal chamber, a waiting
room for his advisors, and, possibly, a solarium. There were, or course, the baths,
including a number of pools, the largest of which could hold a hundred bathers.
There was also a large courtyard with a statue of the Gothic king Theodoric the
Great, which came from Italy, a park with animals, and two basilicas connected
to the chapel of the Virgin. The entire complex was surrounded by a wall with
four gates.
Aix-la-Chapelle emerged as one of the great centers of administration and is often
identified as Charlemagne’s capital in the final part of his reign. As such, it was
the location of important assemblies in 797, 802–803, and 809, and Charlemagne
issued a number of major capitularies from the town. In 813, Charlemagne crowned
his son Louis the Pious emperor and designated him heir before a great assembly of
the leading spiritual and secular leaders of the realm. Attracted by Charlemagne,
many of his key advisors built homes outside the great complex and contributed to
 Alans | 23

the growth of the town. Among those who built homes there was Charlemagne’s
biographer, Einhard, whose residence was large enough to include a chapel of its
own. By the 820s, Aix-la-Chapelle had a growing population, thriving economy,
active marketplace, and many of the essentials of a major town center. It remained
an important center in the late Carolingian era, often the focus of imperial claims of
Charlemagne’s descendants, and beyond as later German rulers sought to identify
themselves with the town and its greatest resident.
See also: Capitulary; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Justinian; Leo III, Pope, Louis
the Pious; Merovingian Dynasty, Pippin III

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. David Ganz.
London: Penguin Books, 2008.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: Toronto Uni-
versity Press, 1979.
Lobbedey, U. “Carolingian Royal Palaces: The State of Research from an Architec-
tural Historian’s Viewpoint.” In Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages: The Proceed-
ings of the First Alcuin Conference. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003,
pp. 129–54.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Sullivan, Richard E. Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1974.

Alans

Central Asian people who moved into southern Russia, the Alans participated in
the migrations of peoples of the fourth and fifth centuries. Unlike other barbarian
groups such as the Huns, the Alans never formed a united hoard, and therefore their
impact was felt in various places in the Roman Empire. They were also associated
with a number of other groups, including Huns, Vandals, and Visigoths, as well
as serving the Roman military commanders Aëtius and Stilicho. Groups of Alans
settled in Gaul, Italy, and Spain, with the Spanish contingent joining the Vandals
who conquered the empire’s North African province. Although active during the
fourth and fifth centuries as both allies and enemies of the Roman Empire, the Alans
disappeared as an independent people during the sixth century. They were defeated
with the Vandals by Justinian’s armies in North Africa and gradually absorbed by
the surrounding population in both Africa and Europe. Despite their assimilation,
24 | Alans

the Alans did influence artistic styles in southern France and were known for a spe-
cial breed of hunting dogs, now extinct, the canis Alani.
The Alans were first identified by Roman writers in the first century of the Com-
mon Era, but had only limited and minor contact with the Romans until the fourth
century. There was, however, one major confrontation before then, and the Alans
were often used by the Romans as interpreters. In the late fourth century the Alans,
like other peoples of the central steppes of Asia, were forced to move westward by
the onslaught of the Huns. Some groups of Alans were defeated by the Huns and
incorporated into their army, and one group of Alans joined with the Visigoths who
sought entry into the Roman Empire in the 370s. This alliance proved beneficial for
the Alans but was nearly fatal to the empire. The Alans joined with the Visigoths at
the Battle of Hadrianople in 378, having been promised substantial rewards by the
Visigoths for their assistance. After the battle, at which the Roman armies were de-
stroyed and the emperor killed, groups of Alans settled in northern Italy and parts
of southeastern Europe. Moreover, many Alans remained with the main Visigothic
force and served them into the fifth century. They were part of the force that Alaric
led during his rampage in Italy and sack of Rome in 410. They migrated into Gaul
with Alaric’s successor, where they broke ranks with the Visigoths in exchange for
an alliance with the empire and lands from Narbonne to Toulouse.
The greatest number of Alans, however, entered the empire during the mass bar-
barian crossing of the Rhine River in 406. Led by their kings Goar and Rependial,
the Alans entered imperial territory with the Vandals and fought a battle against the
Franks, a Germanic people allied with the empire, who attacked the Vandals. After
defeating the Franks, the Alans marched across Roman territory and sacked Trier
and other cities. The group led by King Goar became an ally of Rome after the king
was promised land and gold. His followers were settled around Worms, later sup-
ported a rebel Roman general, and were ultimately settled near Orléans by Aëtius.
They remained important but untrustworthy allies of the Roman commander during
the mid-fifth century and played a significant role in the struggle with Attila. In 451,
when the great Hun decided to invade the Western Empire, he hoped to regain con-
trol over the Alans. But the Alans of Orléans, led by their King Sangiban, stood with
the imperial forces in defense of the Gaul. The king’s opposition to Attila slowed
his advance. The king also joined with Aëtius in the great Battle of the Catalaunian
Plains, but the Roman general placed the Alans between Gothic and Roman troops
because of his fear that Sangiban would go over to Attila’s side.
Although one group of Alans settled in Gaul, another group remained with the
Vandals and entered Spain in 409. After pillaging Gaul, the Alans carved out small
kingdoms in Spain and shared land with the native Roman population. Their inde-
pendent existence in Spain, however, was short lived because the Visigoths, under
imperial direction, conquered the Alans, who then joined with the Vandals, losing
their political independence at the same time. Although now subject to the Vandals,
 Alaric | 25

the Alans continued to play an important role in late imperial history. They joined
with the Vandals under King Gaiseric, who was officially styled rex Vandalorum et
Alanorum (king of the Vandals and Alans), when he led an invasion of North Africa
in 429. They were part of the force that gradually displaced Roman rule in the re-
gion and established an independent kingdom ruled by Gaiseric and his successors
for more than a century. The kingdom fell, however, before the armies of Justinian,
led by the great general Belisarius in 533. This defeat, along with the easy assimila-
tion of other Alan tribal units in the old Western Empire and the Alans’ conversion
to Christianity, brought about the disappearance of the group as an independent
people in the sixth century.
See also: Aëtius; Alaric; Attila the Hun; Belisarius; Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the;
Gaiseric; Hadrianople, Battle of; Justinian; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. “The Alans in Gaul.” Traditio 23 (1967): 476–89.
Bachrach, Bernard S. A History of the Alans in the West, from Their First Appearance in
the Sources of Classical Antiquity through the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1973.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Alaric (c. 370–410)

Great Visigothic king and warrior whose sack of the ancient capital city of Rome in
410, following the assassination of his rival Stilicho, profoundly shocked and dis-
mayed the people of the Roman Empire, a shock from which the Western Empire
never fully recovered. Alaric’s sack of the city was a signal of the declining fortunes
of the Western Empire, which finally fell in 476. As king, Alaric revived the chal-
lenge the Visigoths had posed for Rome since their entry into the empire in 376 and
subsequent stinging defeat of imperial armies at the Battle of Hadrianople, during
which the emperor, Valens, died. Ambitious and talented, an Arian Christian who
could be most ruthless when necessary, a skilled general who could not achieve a
decisive victory over the Romans, Alaric attempted to create a barbarian kingship
to rival Roman imperial power and an independent barbarian kingdom in the em-
pire. Although he ultimately failed in his grand design, Alaric’s challenge to Roman
authorities did set the tone for the way the Romans dealt with other barbarian
leaders and the political, military, and territorial arrangements they made with the
barbarians in the coming century.
26 | Alaric

Born around 370, Alaric is first mentioned in the early 390s, and most likely
was involved in Gothic actions in the late 380s. In 376, his fellow tribesmen had
entered the empire to avoid the westward movement of the Huns—whose activities
also shaped the subsequent history of the Goths—defeated imperial armies, killed
the emperor in battle in 378, and signed a treaty with the empire in 382 that Alaric
spent his career attempting to undo. Alaric’s first appearance was as the king of a
mixed band of Goths and allied peoples who crossed the Balkans into Thrace in
391. Alaric’s advance was stopped by the recently promoted general, Stilicho. It
was the first meeting between the two barbarian leaders and the beginning of a long
rivalry between them. Stilicho defeated and encircled Alaric at their first meeting
but at the order of the emperor, Theodosius, allowed him to go free. Alaric managed
to establish the first independent Gothic kingdom on Roman soil on this occasion
and was the first barbarian king to be made a general in the Roman army. In this
way Alaric broke with tradition, and the empire established important precedents
for its future dealings with other barbarian kings. Despite some gains, Alaric was
forced to renew the terms of the treaty of 382, which, among other things, required
the Goths to serve the Roman military.
In 394, Theodosius called on Alaric to honor the terms of the treaty, as he faced
the challenge of the usurper, Eugenius, who had been elevated to the imperial
throne in the West after the death of Valentinian II. Failed negotiations between
the pretender and the emperor led to open warfare, and although he received a
subordinate command and directed no Roman troops, Alaric supplied a sizeable
contingent to the imperial army and distinguished himself in battle. The usurper
was put down, but only after a terrible battle in which many Goths were killed.
To many Goths, it appeared that they had been sacrificed by the imperial generals
to secure victory over Eugenius and to reduce the power of the Goths. Indeed,
the treatment Alaric received led him to revolt, even though he received a high
imperial post.
Alaric’s actions were probably motivated by several factors: dissatisfaction
over treatment in the suppression of Eugenius; the Hunnish advance in 394–395;
and the death of Theodosius in 395, which ended the treaty of 382 because the
major party to the treaty dropped out. Of course, the movements of other Goths
and the turmoil within the empire allowed Alaric more freedom of action. What-
ever the case, he revolted in 395 and spent the next two years on the move
throughout the empire. Once again he was opposed by Stilicho, who managed
to surround the Goth on occasion but was prohibited from crushing his rival
because of imperial restrictions and because of court politics that undermined
Stilicho’s effectiveness and also threatened his life and position. Alaric plun-
dered Greece during this period, entered into secret negotiations with Stilicho,
and, in 397, extracted significant concessions from the empire. He received a new
command that gave him regional authority as the magister militum for the region
 Alaric | 27

of Illyricum, and he also received important territorial concessions. In this way,

the empire set further precedents by incorporating a barbarian people more fully
into the administrative structure of the empire and placing authority in the hands
of that people’s king.
Turmoil among some of Alaric’s fellow Goths, and their desire to emulate his
success, led to a Gothic attempt to take Constantinople, which was suppressed
with the aid of the Huns and their leader Uldin. Alaric remained aloof from the
struggle, but he did not remain quiet long. In 401, while his rival Stilicho was active
against a Vandal force, Alaric invaded Italy and threatened the imperial capital of
Milan, an action that so dismayed the emperor, Honorius, that he transferred his
residence to Ravenna. Stilicho quickly moved to Italy; he met Alaric in battle at
Pollentia, where he inflicted serious damage on the Gothic army, though not able
to defeat it outright. Alaric was allowed to return to his lands in the east, but for
unknown reasons he stopped at Verona in 402. Stilicho struck at Alaric with great
force and handed Alaric his worst defeat. And this time Alaric left Italy for his
Balkan homelands.
Having once again escaped destruction, Alaric once again waited for the op-
portunity to arise to allow him to strike again. It was presented as a result of
further turmoil between the Eastern and Western imperial courts and by further
pressure from the frontiers. In 404–405, Stilicho fell out with the Eastern au-
thority and may have negotiated with Alaric, making him magister militum of
Illyricum again. (Alaric received this rank by 407 and may have held it as early
as 405, but the record is unclear.) This was a clear violation of relations between
East and West because Illyricum was the possession of the Eastern emperor. Stili-
cho’s difficulties were increased by the invasion of the Gothic king Radagaisus,
barbarian invasions over the Rhine, and the appearance of the usurper Constan-
tine in Britain. Although he was able to overcome these threats, Stilicho was
forced to attempt reconciliation with the Eastern Roman Empire, and he broke
the treaty with the Goths. In 408, Alaric rose up in rebellion, occupying important
territories and threatening to invade Italy unless he received payment of 4,000
pounds of gold. Alaric’s long-time rival, Stilicho, was willing to grant these de-
mands, but he fell from favor and was executed, along with thousands of barbar-
ians living in Italy.
The death of Stilicho opened the final chapter in the life of Alaric. The massacre
of so many barbarians caused thousands of Stilicho’s supporters to join Alaric, who
took the opportunity to invade Italy with a substantially larger army. He reached
Rome in 409 and camped outside the city until the following year, threatening to
sack it unless Emperor Honorius yielded to his demands. But Honorius refused
Alaric’s offer of alliance in exchange for the grant of a generalship, payments of
gold and grain, and land for the troops. Alaric offered a different arrangement in
which he would make an alliance in exchange for land and grain. The emperor
28 | Alaric

again refused, and thus Alaric’s attempt to prop up an emperor who would meet
his demands failed.
Exasperated with his failure to move Honorius, Alaric ordered the sack of the
city on August 24, 410. A Roman noblewoman, according to tradition, opened the
city gates for Alaric, and for three days the Goths plundered and burned the city,
leaving the churches in peace. The Goths came away with great spoils, including
the booty the emperor Titus brought back from the First Jewish War and the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem in the first century and Galla Placidia, the sister of the emperor,
who was kidnapped by her future husband Ataulf. The sack, the first in 800 years,
profoundly shocked the people of the empire, including St. Jerome, who was ren-
dered speechless by the tears he cried, and St. Augustine, who wrote his great work,
City of God, in response to the sack.
Alaric, however, did not long enjoy the spoils of his victory. After the sack of the
city, he moved south with his armies and attempted to cross to Sicily as a first step
toward seizing the grain-producing regions of Africa. His fleet was wrecked, and
he then turned north, perhaps with designs on Naples or some other city. Along the
way he became ill and died in Bruttium. According to tradition, he was buried in
the bed of the Busento River while it was temporarily diverted, and the slaves who
buried him were killed so that the whereabouts of the tomb would remain unknown.
Alaric was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Ataulf.
Although he died shortly after his epoch-making sack of the city of Rome, Alaric
had a long-lasting impact on the empire. Indeed, the events of 410 profoundly al-
tered the way the Romans, Christians, and pagans saw themselves. The aura of in-
vincibility and permanence associated with Roma aeterna (eternal Rome) had been
shattered, and the city suffered further assaults in the course of the fifth century. By
the century’s end, the Western Roman Empire had disappeared. Alaric also forced
the empire to reevaluate its relations with the barbarians and led them to create
precedents that affected their dealings with other barbarian tribes that moved into
the empire in the coming decades.
See also: Hadrianople, Battle of; Huns; Rome; Stilicho, Flavius; Theodosius; Visigoths

Bibliography
Burns, Thomas S. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military
Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages.
New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
 Alaric II | 29

Alaric II (d. 507)

Visigothic king of Toulouse (484–507) who traditionally has been seen as a weak
and unworthy successor to his great father Euric, but who more recently has been
seen as an important and innovative king. Even by traditional estimates, Alaric is
worthy of better treatment than he has received because of his successful military
alliance with the most powerful Germanic king of his age, Theodoric the Great.
He introduced important legislation during his reign and prepared an important
legal codification. He also instituted a new and farsighted religious policy, which
laid the foundations for an important church council and would have established
an important institutional framework for church-state relations in the Visigothic
kingdom had the kingdom not been smashed by the great Frankish king Clovis
(r. 481–511). Indeed, it is Alaric’s defeat by Clovis that has, most unfairly, shaped
his modern reputation.
Although overshadowed by his Ostrogothic father-in-law Theodoric and his
Frankish rival Clovis, Alaric was an ambitious and, for much of his reign, success-
ful king. He oversaw the expansion and consolidation of the kingdom of Toulouse
that his father Euric may have intended in his attempts to extend the kingdom’s
boundaries. During Alaric’s reign, Visigoths from his kingdom began to migrate in
significant numbers into Spain and often fought the local inhabitants to gain control
of large estates, military campaigns supported by Alaric.
In the early 490s, Alaric joined Theodoric in his struggles in Italy against the
Germanic king Odovacar. Upon Theodoric’s victory over Odovacar in 493, Alaric
was rewarded by marriage to one of Theodoric’s daughters. At the same time The-
odoric married one of his daughters to Clovis, so that the new king in Italy could
gain the support of the powerful Frank. It is possible that it was for the same rea-
son—to gain the friendship of Clovis—that Alaric handed over Syagrius, the for-
mer king of Soissons who had earlier been defeated by Clovis and fled to Toulouse.
Although Gregory of Tours in his history places this act earlier and sees it as a
sign of weakness, it most likely happened in 493 as part of the broader political
strategy involving Theodoric. Indeed, in the early sixth century, when the Franks
sought to expand into his territory, Alaric defeated Clovis, who then sought to
reestablish their previous amity. But once again the relationship between the two
kings changed.
According to Gregory of Tours, Clovis attacked Alaric because the Visigothic
king was an Arian Christian and Clovis could not stand the thought of a heretic liv-
ing as his neighbor. Clovis ignored the warning of Theodoric that he would defend
Alaric, and war broke out between Clovis and Alaric in 507. At this point, Alaric
may have overextended his resources, and Theodoric himself was concerned about
the strength of Alaric’s army. In late summer of that year, Alaric and Clovis met
30 | Alboin

in battle at Vouillé, near Poitiers. Alaric was outnumbered by his rival and was de-
feated. Clovis supposedly killed Alaric himself and then absorbed the kingdom of
Toulouse.
Although defeated and killed in battle, Alaric was still a noteworthy king. His
success in battle against Clovis, Odovacar, and others before his final defeat testi-
fies to his martial abilities. But more important than his military prowess are the
legal and religious reforms he instituted. He promulgated a new legal code, the
Breviarium Alaricianum (Breviary of Alaric), in 506, which had been compiled by
a commission of legal experts under the direction of a high-ranking royal official.
The code was based upon earlier Roman legal codes and their commentaries and
became the official law for the Roman subjects of the kingdom.
The participation of the Roman bishops in the codification of the law laid the
foundation for the Council of Agde in 506. The council was Alaric’s means to in-
tegrate the Roman Catholic bishops and church into the governmental framework
of the kingdom ruled by an Arian Christian. His father had been more hostile to the
church, but Alaric, recognizing perhaps the wave of the future, sought to incorporate
the church into his kingdom. The council at Agde was an important first step in that
process, and plans were made at the council to hold a national council in the follow-
ing year at Toulouse. Although the council was never held because of Alaric’s defeat
by Clovis, preparation for it foreshadowed church councils in the future. Alaric es-
tablished an important precedent for later church-state relations with the council at
Agde and the proposed council at Toulouse. Although known best for his defeat at
Vouillé, Alaric was a successful and innovative king for much of his reign.
See also: Breviary of Alaric; Clovis; Euric; Gregory of Tours; Merovingian Dynasty; Odo-
vacar; Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1958.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Alboin (d. 572)

According to Paul the Deacon, Alboin was the 10th of the Lombard kings (r. 560/
561–574) and the first to rule in Italy. A successful warrior, who defeated a number
 Alcuin of York | 31

of rival peoples, including the Gepids, he was also a successful diplomat and en-
joyed good relations with the Franks, even marrying a daughter of one of the
Merovingian kings. Alboin also enjoyed fairly good relations with the bishops of
Italy, even though he and his people were pagans and Arians and the bishops and
people of Italy Catholic. Although neither he nor his successors ruled a united Italy,
Alboin laid the foundation for an important kingdom in Italy, which survived until
it was absorbed by Charlemagne in 774.
Alboin, according to Paul the Deacon, was “a man fitted for wars and ener-
gized in all things” (49). And he spent much of his career after succeeding his
father Audoin in 560–561 in waging wars. Alboin ascended the throne in tradi-
tional Lombard fashion—by election. As proved to be the case throughout Lombard
history, Alboin was elected by his people, who usually chose the heir of the former
king. He had distinguished himself already during the reign of his father, when he
led the Lombards in battle against the Gepids and, according to tradition, killed the
Gepid king. Three years after the battle, in 555, Alboin was rewarded with marriage
to the daughter of the Merovingian king Chlotar I (r. 511–561), and he maintained
good relations with the Franks ever after.
Upon succeeding his father, Alboin led the Lombards against the Gepids and
into Italy. His struggles with the Gepids were not always successful; and in 565 he
lost a battle against them. Two years later, after forging an alliance with the Avars,
Alboin destroyed the Gepids. In the battle, Alboin killed the king and made a drink-
ing cup of his skull, and also seized and married the king’s daughter, Rosamund. In
568, according to tradition, Alboin accepted an invitation from the general Narses,
who felt slighted by the emperor Justin II, to invade Italy. In thanks for their help,
Alboin arranged a treaty with the Avars that gave them control of the old Lombard
homeland.
See also: Arianism; Avars; Charlemagne; Franks; Justinian; Lombards; Merovingian Dy-
nasty; Narses; Ostrogoths; Paul the Deacon; Totila

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas
J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Alcuin of York (c. 730/735–804)

An Anglo-Saxon scholar, trained in the tradition of the Venerable Bede, Alcuin

was the most important and influential of Charlemagne’s court scholars. As one
32 | Alcuin of York

of Charlemagne’s most trusted advisors, Alcuin participated in important church

councils and advised Charlemagne on some of the critical political issues of the
day. Although not a terribly original thinker, he was widely respected for his en-
cyclopedic knowledge. His influence is perhaps demonstrated by the importance
and number of his students, including Louis the Pious and Rabanus Maurus, and
the warm regard they had for him because of his incomparable talent as a teacher.
Indeed Einhard, Charlemagne’s biographer and possibly one of Alcuin’s students,
described him as “the greatest scholar of the day.” No longer recognized as the au-
thor of the Libri Carolini or the creator of the form of writing called Carolingian
minuscule, Alcuin remains one of the most important figures in the Carolingian
Renaissance because of his teaching and scholarship. He wrote commentaries on
various books of the Bible (Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and
the Gospel of John), produced a new edition of the Bible, and wrote hagiography,
poems, letters, and works on grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic (the trivium, the three
most basic disciplines of the seven liberal arts).
Little is known for certain of Alcuin’s early years. He was born in 730/735 to a
noble family of York and was a kinsman of the great missionary saint, Willibrord.
He entered the cathedral school at York, where he received his education and where
he would later teach and serve as deacon. The school at York had recently been
founded by Bede’s friend and student, Egbert, who introduced the great Anglo-
Saxon’s love of learning there and invited Aethelberht (or Aelberht) to oversee the
creation of a library. It was Aethelberht who taught Alcuin and instilled the love of
books and learning that Alcuin bore with him through the rest of his life, an affec-
tion that had a strong effect on the Franks and was the foundation of their cultural
revival.
Aethelberht evidently recognized Alcuin’s talents, for he took his student with
him to the continent on two occasions. On these trips Alcuin collected books and
met other scholars; he met Charlemagne for the first time on a trip in 768. When
Aethelberht succeeded to the position of archbishop of York, Alcuin took over the
cathedral school, and when Aethelberht retired in 780, Alcuin also took over direc-
tion of the library. The new archbishop, Eanbald, had such confidence in Alcuin
that he sent the scholar to Rome to collect the pallium (liturgical vestment granted
by the pope to bishops with metropolitan authority), and on Alcuin’s return he met
Charlemagne at Parma and was invited to take charge of the king’s court school.
After gaining permission from Eanbald, Alcuin returned to France and spent the
rest of his life in the Frankish kingdom, with the exception of two periods, 786 and
790–793, when he returned to his native land.
It was in the service of Charlemagne that Alcuin made his mark on history. From
781 until his retirement in 794, Alcuin was a member of Charlemagne’s peripa-
tetic court and one of the king’s court scholars. At court, he participated in the
cultural and religious revival that Charlemagne promoted and was, no doubt, im-
portant in the direction that the revival took. He also led the court school, teaching
 Alcuin of York | 33

a broad range of subjects, including astronomy, to Charlemagne, his children,

and many others who went on to contribute to the Carolingian Renaissance. He
brought the great Anglo-Saxon tradition with him to create, as he once wrote, a
new, and better, Athens in the Frankish kingdom, one that honored learning in
devotion to God. He was rewarded by Charlemagne with the revenues from sev-
eral abbeys, and at his retirement was made abbot of the important monastery
of St. Martin of Tours, even though he may never have taken monastic vows and
took orders no higher than the level of deacon. Even in retirement he continued
to influence the cultural and religious life of his adopted homeland. Although
not the creator of Carolingian minuscule, he contributed to its development and
promoted its use at Tours. He wrote treatises on a variety of religious and secular
subjects and produced a new edition of the Bible, now lost, which he presented
to Charlemagne on Christmas day 800. On May 19, 804, Alcuin died at Tours,
having composed his own epitaph: “Alcuin was my name and wisdom always
my love.”
A scholar and teacher, Alcuin’s influence was felt in many areas during his life-
time, not the least of which was education. He wrote a treatise on the liberal arts and
resurrected the system of the seven liberal arts devised by Cassiodorus. The wide
range of topics that he taught include chant, grammar, rhetoric, dialectic (logic),
mathematics, and astronomy. His method of teaching is preserved in a dialogue with
one of Charlemagne’s sons and reveals Alcuin’s extraordinary pedagogical talents.
It is a dialogue in which student and teacher alternate asking and answering ques-
tions. He brought encyclopedic learning, which he dispensed to his many students
who, in turn, passed it along to their students. Indeed, his active and energetic mind
and his comprehensive knowledge were precisely what were needed for the first
generation of the Carolingian Renaissance.
Alcuin was more than the teacher to the renaissance; however, he was an impor-
tant contributor. He supplied the scholars in the Frankish kingdom with numerous
books from his native England and rediscovered long neglected works by Boëthius,
especially some of his early works on logic, and the pseudo-Augustine. He wrote
over 300 letters and over 220 poems that reveal his ability with Latin, his religious
and intellectual concerns, and his own attractive personality. His poetry included
light verse to students, for example, the Lament for the Cuckoo with its echoes
of the great Roman poet Virgil, hymns, and acrostic poems to Charlemagne. He
also wrote longer, more serious poems, including one on the Viking destruction of
Lindisfarne abbey in 793, a life of St. Willibrord, and The Bishops, Knights, and
Saints of York. He also wrote works of hagiography and treatises on the virtues and
vices, the nature of the soul, and confession.
He was a great influence on Carolingian religious life and a staunch defender
of religious orthodoxy. He reformed the liturgy of the Frankish church to bring
it into line with Roman usage, revised the mass book, and composed a series of
masses drawn from the Anglo-Irish tradition of piety. He advised Charlemagne on
34 | Alcuin of York

religious policy and criticized the king’s brutal Saxon policy and forced baptisms.
Indeed, Alcuin’s influence is clearly evident in Charlemagne’s second Saxon ca-
pitulary of 797, which introduced a less forceful means to converting the pagan
Saxons. An ardent foe of Felix of Urgel and the Adoptionist heresy, which denied
that Jesus Christ in his humanity was the natural son of God, Alcuin wrote Libri
septem contra Felicem (Seven books against Felix), which attacked the heresy,
and he then presented the case against Adoptionsim at the Synod of Frankfurt in
794. It is likely that he also participated in the debate on the decisions of the Sec-
ond Council of Nicaea, 787, approving veneration of icons, which were misun-
derstood in the Frankish world because of a faulty translation. Although it is now
believed that Theodulf of Orléans wrote the official work, the Libri Carolini (the
Caroline Books), Alcuin may have had an editorial hand in their preparation and
influenced their content.
Finally, it should be noted that Alcuin also influenced political life in the Frankish
kingdom. He was used by Charlemagne as an ambassador to King Offa of Mercia in
790. He also frequently served on the king’s council. Alcuin wrote to Charlemagne
on a wide variety of subjects, including Frankish relations with the Saxons and the
duties of kings and nobles. His most famous letter, however, was written in 799
and may be understood as encouraging Charlemagne to assume the imperial title.
After noting that the imperial throne in Constantinople was vacant, and the holder of
the throne of Peter had been attacked and depended on Charlemagne’s protection,
Alcuin wrote:
Third, there is the Royal Dignity . . . in power a ruler more excellent than the
aforementioned ones, in wisdom more radiant, and in grandeur more sublime.
Behold, now in you alone lies the salvation of the churches of Christ. You are
the avenger of crimes, the guide of those who err, the consoler of the afflicted,
the uplifter of the righteous. (Riché, p. 120)
This letter clearly reveals Alcuin’s understanding of both the political realities
of the day and Carolingian political ideology. It reflects the discussion Alcuin and
others had about the imperial bearing of Charlemagne and further demonstrates
Alcuin’s importance in the cultural, religious, and political developments of the
age of Charlemagne.
See also: Adoptionism; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Minus-
cule; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Einhard; Felix of Urgel; Libri Carolini; Louis
the Pious; Saxon Capitularies; Theodulf of Orléans; Tours

Bibliography
Bullough, Donald. “Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven: Liturgy, Theology, and the
Carolingian Age.” In Carolingian Essays, ed. Uta-Renate Blumenthal. Washington, DC:
Catholic University Press, 1983, pp. 1–69.
 Alemanni | 35

Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne: His World and His Work. New
York: Macmillan, 1951.
Dutton, Paul Edward, ed. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broad-
view, 1993.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500–900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1957.
Mayvaert, Paul. “The Authorship of the ‘Libri Carolini’: Observations Prompted by a
Recent Book.” Revue bénédictine 89 (1979): 29–57.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallach, Luitpold. Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and
Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1959.

Alemanni

A confederation of Germanic tribes or warrior bands, which may have included the
Bucinobantes, Juthungi, Lentienses, and Suevi. The Alemanni first appeared in the
third century in a conflict with the Roman Empire. Their name, which they may
not have used, means “all men” or “all of mankind” and indicates that they were
composed of many different peoples. It was also understood in a pejorative sense
by their enemies to mean “half-breeds” or “newcomers.” They were distinguished
by their long heads, which they created by artificially deforming the skull of new-
borns with bandages around the head. They were often in conflict with the Roman
Empire in the third century and sought to carve out settlements in imperial territory
in the fourth. In the fifth century they were able to exploit imperial weakness and
enter the empire, but they faced a greater challenge as the century went on from the
Franks and their Merovingian dynasty. The Alemanni were ultimately absorbed by
their Merovingian rivals, and despite a short period of independence, were subject
also to the Carolingian dynasty.
The Alemanni first appeared, according to the Roman historian Cassius Dio, in
a conflict with the Roman emperor Caracalla (r. 211–217) in 213. The Alemanni
were able to take advantage of the empire during its period of crisis from 234 to
284. They were most likely part of the group of barbarians who crossed the Rhine
River and other parts of the imperial frontier in the mid-third century. They were
among the first groups of barbarians to take control of Roman territory and settle
in parts of the empire. Throughout the mid-third century, even after some settled
in the empire, the Alemanni continued to make plundering raids on imperial ter-
ritory, often reaching Italy. Despite occasional success against them, the Romans
were unable to stop the raids of the Alemanni because of their loose organization.
They had no central king, but various warlords who led raids of plunder and pillage
36 | Alemanni

with loyal war bands. By the late third century, however, the Romans restored order
to the empire, and the Alemanni became more settled, acting as more traditional
opponents of Rome or as servants of the empire.
In the fourth and fifth centuries, the Alemanni continued their efforts to secure
Roman territory. They fought actively along the Rhine and Danube frontiers of
the empire, and, on occasion, enjoyed some success. But several emperors dur-
ing the fourth century inflicted stunning defeats on the Alemanni, including Con-
stantine, Julian the Apostate, and Valentinian I. In fact, Valentinian drove deep
into Alemanni territory in 368 to turn back Alemanni advances into the empire.
Although the emperors enjoyed victories over the Alemanni in the fourth century,
they suffered defeats by their rivals in the fifth century. In 406, a large body of
barbarians crossed the Rhine River during a winter freeze, and it is most likely
that the Alemanni were part of that group. Their success was limited, however, by
the Franks, another Germanic people, which later produced the Merovingian and
Carolingian dynasties, and by imperial diplomacy. But with the movement of the
Huns under Attila, the Rhine defenses were sufficiently undermined to allow the
further incursion of the Alemanni.
The westward movement of the Alemanni into imperial territory was not without
negative consequences for these tribes. Although they managed to settle on Roman
territory, the Alemanni once again came into contact with the rising power of north-
ern Europe, the Merovingian Franks. The conflict between these two peoples led
to the eventual subjugation of the Alemanni by the Merovingians and to the con-
version to Christianity of the Merovingians. According to the historian Gregory of
Tours, the Alemanni fought a great battle against the Frankish Merovingian king
Clovis at Tolbiac (modern Zülpich, Switzerland), which is traditionally dated 495.
Gregory informs us that Clovis was losing the battle and promised to convert to
Christianity if the Christian God allowed him to win the battle. Clovis won the battle
and then converted to Catholic Christianity. Although the date of the battle remains
controversial and the entire story of Clovis’s conversion is problematic, it is certain
that he incorporated the Alemanni into his ever growing kingdom. From the time
of Clovis, therefore, the Alemanni were subject to the Franks.
During the sixth and seventh centuries, the Alemanni remained part of the
Merovingian kingdom. The exact course of their history, however, remains uncer-
tain because of the lack of written records about them and because of the unclear
archeological record. It is likely that they participated in Merovingian military
activities, including campaigns in northern Italy. The Alemanni also continued
to be ruled by dukes rather than kings, and although loosely organized, codified
their laws. They were able to expand their territories of settlement into southern
Germany and parts of Switzerland during this period. They also, finally and only
gradually, converted to Christianity. This conversion was the result of the mission-
ary activities of St. Columban and his disciples in the later sixth century.
 Alfred the Great | 37

In the later seventh and early eighth centuries, the Alemanni regained their in-
dependence from the Merovingians. The Alemanni were able to throw off the
Merovingian rule because of the turmoil in the Merovingian kingdom brought on
by the decline of Merovingian power and the rise of Carolingian power. Although
the Carolingian mayors of the palace Pippin of Herstal and Charles Martel were
able to restore Frankish authority over the Alemanni for short periods, the Alemanni
remained independent for most of the first half of the eighth century. It was only
during the reign of Pippin the Short that the Alemanni were forced once again to
submit, permanently this time, to Frankish power. Pippin defeated the Alemanni in
two great battles in 744 and 748 and thereby reincorporated them into the kingdom.
They remained subjects of the Carolingians thereafter.
See also: Attila the Hun; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Clovis; Gregory of Tours;
Huns; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Pippin III, Called Pippin
the Short; Vandals

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Alfred the Great (849–899)

The most important and influential of the Saxon kings of England, Alfred has been
known as “the Great” since the 16th century. As king of Wessex he was involved in
a prolonged struggle with the Danes, who invaded England almost annually until
the end of Alfred’s reign. His victories over the invaders, as well as the navy he
created, the network of fortifications he built to defend the country, and his various
military reforms greatly curtailed the threat of invasion. He also reformed the law
and promoted learning in his kingdom. As the patron of learning in his kingdom,
Alfred sponsored the translation of many important Christian texts and even trans-
lated some of them himself. As a warrior, legal reformer, and educator, Alfred left
an important legacy for his successors.
The youngest of the five sons of the deeply religious but not very effective King
Æthelwulf of Wessex—who also had one daughter—and his queen, the noble
38 | Alfred the Great

woman Osburh, Alfred was born in 849 in Wantage, Oxfordshire. Although little
is known about his earliest years, it is likely that they were not marked by prepara-
tion to succeed to the throne, since Alfred’s older brothers would surely have been
expected to succeed to the throne before Alfred could. Asser, Alfred’s biographer,
does offer some information on his hero’s earliest years. He says that Alfred was the
most beloved of all the children of Æthelwulf and Osburh and was raised at court.
In chapter 22 of his life, Asser notes that as a child Alfred was “fairer in all forms
than all his brothers, and more pleasing in his looks, his words and ways.” He was
a skilled hunter who practiced as often as he could, and continued to enjoy hunting
as an adult, even though he was afflicted with illness his whole life.
Asser notes too that Alfred was deeply religious and, as a boy and an adult,
attended mass daily, prayed often, and gave alms generously. But the most remark-
able thing Alfred demonstrated as a youth, and as king, was his great desire for
learning. Although he did not learn to read until he was 12 and read Latin when he
was older still, Alfred possessed “from his cradle a longing for wisdom.” Although
he learned to read only in later life, Alfred, according to Asser, “listened attentively”
to Saxon poems until he could recite them from memory. Alfred’s devotion to learn-
ing is revealed in a story his biographer tells of his boyhood. His mother, Osburh,
promised her sons that whichever one of them could learn a book of Saxon poetry
would receive the book as a prize. Alfred asked if she really meant to give one of
them the book, and she replied that she would. Alfred had his master read the book
to him and then he repeated it to his mother.
Alfred’s zeal for learning may have been inspired by two trips to Rome that
he took early in his life. In 853, Alfred paid his first visit to the Holy See, where
he was received by Pope Leo IV and underwent a special ceremony of investi-
ture. According to both Asser’s life and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Alfred was
anointed with the kingship by the pope—a most unlikely occurrence because of
Alfred’s older sons. It is more likely that Alfred was anointed as Leo’s godson.
In 855 Alfred made a pilgrimage to Rome with his father, who stayed there a
year. The journey to Rome and back went, as had the previous trip, through the
Carolingian realm. On the return during the second trip, Æthelwulf, whose first
wife had died, married Judith, the daughter of Charles the Bald, at whose court
the pilgrims stayed. Alfred certainly came into contact with the dazzling culture
of the court of Charles the Bald on this trip, which most likely left a lasting im-
pression on a young boy who had a great thirst for knowledge. He may also have
become aware of the great legacy of Charlemagne during this visit to the court
of the great king’s grandson. Charles the Bald had sought to revive the glories of
the Carolingian Renaissance, and Alfred’s exposure to those glories would surely
have reinforced his own interests in learning. When he became king, Alfred at-
tempted to revive learning and letters in his kingdom as the great Frankish rulers
had in theirs.
 Alfred the Great | 39

Alfred’s path to the kingship was a most indirect one, because his older broth-
ers had precedence over him to the throne. In fact, one of his brothers, Æthelbald,
claimed his right to the succession while Æthelwulf was on pilgrimage in 855–856.
Æthelwulf submitted to his son’s demands by dividing the kingdom and ruling with
his eldest son until Æthelwulf died in 858. Two other brothers preceded Alfred to
the throne in the 860s. In that decade the Danish threat became increasingly serious
and was the major focus of the king’s activities. In 868, for example, Alfred joined
his brother King Ethelred in support of the king of Mercia, Buhred, in a battle
against invading Danes at Nottingham. The Danes continued their raids and had
great success against various Saxon rulers, killing Edmund, king of East Anglia,
in one engagement.
Alfred succeeded his brother Æthelred on the throne in 871 and began the diffi-
cult struggle with Danish invaders that lasted most of his reign. In the first year of
his kingship, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Alfred fought numerous bat-
tles against various Danish warrior bands and although he won an important victory
at Wilton against a much larger force, in all likelihood he lost most of the battles. In
872, to stem the tide of invasion, Alfred purchased a truce from the Danes, which
allowed him time to strengthen his hold on the kingdom and prepare for future at-
tacks. Alfred’s truce kept the Danes away from his kingdom for several years, but
the surrounding kingdoms were not as fortunate. In the 870s East Anglia, Mercia,
and Northumbria were overrun by Danish armies, and at one point the Mercian king
was forced to flee to Rome in the face of the onslaught.
The Danes mounted a renewed challenge on Alfred’s kingdom in 876. The next
few years were the most difficult of Alfred’s entire reign, and the Danes nearly took
over his kingdom of Wessex. Indeed, in 878 the Danes drove Alfred from his king-
dom to the island of Athelney. This was a dark time for Alfred and the English, but
it was also the moment (but not the last) that Alfred showed his true greatness. Mar-
shaling his forces from his base on Athelney, Alfred began to attack Danish forces
over the course of seven weeks. These attacks culminated in a major victory over
the Danes at the Battle of Eddington, breaking their army and driving them from
the field. The Danes and their king, Guthrum, agreed to leave Wessex and convert
to Christianity. Alfred’s great victory saved his kingdom from occupation by the
Danes, but it did not end the Danish threat. Guthrum merely turned his attention
to other parts of England, and Alfred himself faced further challenges later in his
reign.
During the 880s, Alfred strengthened his position in England. He extended his
authority over other English kingdoms, most importantly Mercia. In 886 Alfred
took control of London, an event of such importance to the English that, as the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle notes, “all the English people not under subjection to
the Danes submitted to him” (Whitelock). Alfred also reorganized his military,
so that he would be better prepared for future attacks by the Danes from land
40 | Alfred the Great

or sea. He reformed the fyrd, the traditional peasant militia of Anglo-Saxon En-
gland that was essential for local defense. Useful as the fyrd was for local defense,
its greatest weakness was the unwillingness of peasant soldiers to serve outside
their county for significant lengths of time. Alfred could not resolve the problem
of distance, but he was able to keep the fyrd in the field by dividing service into
six-month terms and mobilizing half the peasantry for each term. He also built a
series of burghs, fortified settlements throughout the kingdom that could serve as
defensive positions or as bases of further operation and counterattack. Situated
at key points throughout the realm, the burghs were primarily military garrisons,
but some had administrative and financial functions, roles that became more im-
portant as time went on. Alfred also built a fleet of ships to meet the Danes on the
open sea. The ships were larger than anything the Danes had and were certainly a
match for the Danish ships.
Alfred’s military reforms were an important precaution, because he faced fur-
ther attacks in the 890s. In 892 an invasion force crossed the channel from Francia
in 250 ships, followed by a second fleet of 80 ships. Over the next several years,
Alfred once again was forced to defend his kingdom and once again was suc-
cessful. From 893 to 896 Alfred waged a series of offensives against the invading
Danes, on occasion capturing their camps and forcing them to flee before being
totally destroyed. In 896 Alfred’s various military reforms served him to good
end when he trapped a large Danish navy on the Lea River. Building fortifica-
tions and thereby cutting off their escape route, Alfred forced the Danes to aban-
don their ships and scatter. Although this victory did not end the Danish threat,
which continued into the 10th and 11th centuries, it did provide a degree of peace
and stability in the kingdom, which Alfred was able to enjoy until his death on
October 26, 899.
Alfred’s legacy, however, is not limited to his defense against the Danes and
military reforms. Indeed, in some ways, his legal and literary contributions are
more important than his other achievements. It was probably in the 890s that
Alfred issued his compilation of the law. Building on the precedents of kings of
Wessex, Kent, and Mercia, Alfred issued a legal code that was intended to cover
all the English, even though he referred to himself only as the king of the West
Saxons. His use of oaths of loyalty in the code suggests Carolingian influence as
well, but it was his genius that gave the code its final shape. He clearly borrowed
from his predecessors, but introduced restrictions on the feud, the duty of sub-
jects to their lords, and, as fitting a deeply religious king like Alfred, legislation
protecting the church. His religious convictions were evident also in his concerns
with learning and literacy in his kingdom. Alfred, lamenting the extreme poverty
of learning in his kingdom, undertook the effort to translate a series of important
Christian works into the Anglo-Saxon tongue, because many people in his kingdom
could read their native tongue but could not read Latin, the language of learning.
 Alfred the Great | 41

With his support translations of various works appeared, including Bede’s History
of the English Church and People, Pope Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, a marty-
rology, and a work by St. Augustine of Hippo’s supporter, Orosius, Seven Books
against the Pagans. Alfred himself was responsible for a number of translations,
including Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Rule (Regula pastoralis), which Alfred trans-
lated as the Pastoral Care, Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, and Augustine’s
Soliloquies. The translations by Alfred vary in their loyalty to the original. The
work of Gregory was closely translated, but for the works of Boethius and Augus-
tine Alfred took great liberty with the text. He introduced new ideas and questions
in the translation of Boethius, and he added material from the Bible, Gregory the
Great, and other works by Augustine to the Soliloquies. These works reveal the
breadth of Alfred’s interests, and they continued to be copied into the 12th cen-
tury. It was also during Alfred’s reign that the first compilation of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle was made.
Alfred’s contributions to the history of Anglo-Saxon England were numer-
ous and varied. Even though his efforts to revive learning among the people were
modest, his translations remain of interest today and had an important impact on

Alfred Jewel, with King Alfred, 849–899, King of Wessex, late ninth century, Somerset.
(Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, UK/The Bridgeman Art Library)
42 | Amalaswintha

scholars long after his death. His defense of the kingdom against the Danes pro-
vided England important infrastructure to continue the struggle after his death, even
though it was to be nearly two centuries before the Danes were finally expelled
from England and the threat of invasion ended. Alfred truly was one of the great
kings of England.
See also: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Anglo-Saxons; Asser; Bede; Boethius; Carolingian
Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Mercia; Offa of Mercia; Wessex

Bibliography
Hodges, Richard. The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archeology and the Beginnings of
English Society. London: Duckworth, 1989.
Keynes, Simon. “The British Isles: England, 700–900.” In The New Cambridge
Medieval History, vol. 2. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
Keynes, Simon, and Michael Lapidge, trans. Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred
and Other Contemporary Sources. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1998.
Smyth, Alfred. King Alfred the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Sturdy, David J. Alfred the Great. London: Constable, 1995.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Amalaswintha (d. 535)

Gothic princess and daughter of the important Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric
the Great. As regent, Amalaswintha was active in the political life of Italy after The-
odoric’s death, and she promoted her personal interests and those of her immediate
family against enemies in her extended family and among the Gothic nobility in
Italy. Her rivalry with other Gothic leaders over control of her son, Athalaric, and
then for control of the kingdom after Athalaric’s death brought her great difficulties
and increased her long-standing pro-Roman political sensibilities. Her relationship
with the Byzantine emperor Justinian brought her support in Italy but, if the sixth-
century Byzantine historian Procopius is to be believed, the enmity of the great
empress Theodora. A possible pawn in Justinian’s grand political designs, Amalas-
wintha drew Justinian further into Italian affairs, and her death led to the Byzantine
invasion of the peninsula and the Gothic Wars of Justinian.
The daughter of Theodoric, the most powerful barbarian king of the early sixth
century, Amalaswintha was an important figure in Italian political life even before
her father’s death in 526. Her marriage in 515 to the Spanish Visigoth, Eutharic,
 Amalaswintha | 43

was part of Theodoric’s efforts to preserve and extend his control over the Goths
and in Italy. Eutharic’s marriage to Amalaswintha made him part of Theodoric’s
family and allowed the great king to appoint his son-in-law as his successor, thus
eliminating Theodoric’s own nephew from the succession and from power in gen-
eral. Although it caused problems after 526 for Amalaswintha, Eutharic’s death in
522–523 hindered Theodoric’s plans little, because Eutharic had provided an heir,
Athalaric, who, jointly with Amalaswintha, was designated successor to the throne.
Moreover, although it was not apparently political, Amalaswintha’s first-rate edu-
cation served her well during her father’s lifetime and after. And in fact her edu-
cation did have political overtones because it was a traditional Roman education;
Theodoric may have provided her with a Roman education because of his interest
in establishing harmonious Roman-Gothic relations.
Before his death, Theodoric appointed Athalaric as his successor. In 526
Athalaric was still a minor, and his mother assumed the regency. The opening
years of Amalaswintha’s regency were relatively peaceful, and her abilities were
recognized by many, including Procopius, who spoke highly of her courage and
intelligence. She sought to restore good relations between Goths and Romans,
which had broken down in the last years of her father’s reign, especially over The-
odoric’s imprisonment and execution of Boethius. She restored the confiscated
estates of Boethius to his family and sought the counsel of the Roman Senate.
To promote good relations with the Romans, she sent a letter to the emperor in
Constantinople, seeking to bury old hatreds, and provided her son with a Roman
education. To placate the Gothic nobility, she sought to improve relations with
other barbarian peoples in the former Western Roman Empire. Ostrogothic armies
enjoyed success in 530 against a mixed barbarian force on the northeastern fron-
tier, and Amalaswintha pursued improved relations with the Burgundians. The
alliance collapsed, however, in the early 530s as a result of her failure to send
the army against the Merovingian Franks when they invaded and conquered the
Burgundians. The situation on the kingdom’s northern frontier worsened as a
result of this failure, and it may also have contributed to her problems with the
Gothic nobility in the early 530s.
Despite her early successes and the peace in the kingdom in the opening years
of the regency, Amalaswintha faced a grave crisis in 532–533 that nearly ended her
power. As her son approached his majority, a rival, possibly anti-Roman, faction
in the kingdom attempted to take control of her son and the kingdom. One of the
criticisms her enemies raised was that Athalaric was being made “too Roman” and
needed to learn good Gothic values. The young king was persuaded by the rebels
and supported them against his mother. In the face of this crisis, Amalaswintha
sent a letter to Justinian seeking political asylum. The emperor invited the queen
to Constantinople and sent a ship with 40,000 pounds of gold to rescue her.
Amalaswintha sent the royal treasury to a palace provided by Justinian, but decided
44 | Amalaswintha

to stay and fight for control of her kingdom. The Frankish threat to the frontier
provided the queen with the pretext to send the three leaders of the revolt to the
frontier. Once they were away from court, she had them killed and as a result saved
her position.
Although she secured her hold on power, Amalaswintha faced continued
difficulties over the next few years, worsened perhaps by the death of her son in
534. She hoped to resolve the crisis by remarrying, and in 534 she married her hos-
tile family rival, Theodohad, made him coregent, and declared herself queen. Al-
lowed to mint coins and to assume the royal title, Theodohad had to recognize the
authority of Amalaswintha and follow her commands. But Theodohad, along with
the families of the murdered rebels of 532, had other ideas. They plotted together
against Amalaswintha, and in April 535 she was captured and imprisoned on an
island in Lake Bolsena.
The rough treatment of the queen brought strong protests from the imperial
court at Constantinople, because she had remained neutral during Justinian’s inva-
sion of the Vandal kingdom in North Africa and had allowed the Byzantine com-
mander, Belisarius, to use Sicily as a staging ground for his armies. Certainly,
too, Justinian’s earlier support for Amalaswintha and the long-standing good re-
lations between the two reinforced the emperor’s desire to protect her. More-
over, according to Procopius, the emperor was tired of his wife, Theodora, and
was highly attracted to the young and intelligent Gothic queen, who would have
provided the emperor with great wealth and access to Italy, which he hoped to
reattach to imperial control. Procopius further suggested that although Justinian
publicly demanded the release of the queen, Theodora secretly plotted her murder
with agents in Italy. Although Procopius’s version of events is unlikely, Justinian
did support the queen against her rivals, and her murder was a public affront to
the emperor, especially after Theodohad assured him that no harm would come
to her. Her murder provided Justinian with the justification he needed to invade
Italy, defeat the Goths, and reunite the old heartland of the empire with the Eastern
Empire.
See also: Belisarius; Boethius; Constantinople; Justinian; Ostrogoths; Procopius; Theo-
dora; Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 2. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. Henry Bronson Dew-
ing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
 Ambrose of Milan | 45

Thiébaux, Marcelle, ed. and trans. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology.
2nd ed. New York: Garland, 1994.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397)

One of the Latin Church Fathers, Ambrose was bishop of Milan and a major influ-
ence on the political and religious life of his own day. His relations with the em-
peror Theodosius the Great helped define church-state relations in the late Roman
Empire as well as in the centuries to come, and Ambrose himself helped shape the
emperor’s religious policy. Well versed in Roman administrative traditions, Am-
brose was a powerful and effective bishop whose practices as the bishop of Milan
provided a model for later church leaders and helped establish Catholic Christianity
as the religion of the empire. His personal example of chastity as well as his power-
ful intellect inspired many in his days, most importantly Augustine of Hippo. Well
educated in both the Greek and Latin literary traditions, Ambrose was the author
of numerous sermons, exegetical works, and even hymns that contributed greatly
to the formation of Christian theology.
Ambrose, the second of three children, was born in Gaul around 339. His father,
also named Ambrose, was the praetorian prefect of Gaul and was the descendant
of a long line of Roman administrators as well as Christian martyrs. This legacy
would shape the younger Ambrose’s future as he adopted the Catholic Christian-
ity of his ancestors and inherited a deep appreciation for and understanding of
Roman administrative traditions. On his father’s death in 354, Ambrose and the
rest of his family moved to Rome. In Rome, his older sister, Marcellina, adopted
a life of celibacy and prayer, and Ambrose pursued his education. He studied the
traditional Roman curriculum, which emphasized the liberal arts, especially rheto-
ric and grammar—skills necessary for success in the Roman public arena. Unlike
some of his contemporaries, Ambrose was deeply immersed in the Greek liter-
ary tradition as well as the Latin, preparation that would draw upon when he later
turned to theological work. Clearly an excellent student, Ambrose developed a
reputation for eloquence that served him well as he began his career in the Roman
courts. His ability to argue cases effectively soon attracted the attention of power-
ful figures, and in 369 the emperor Valentinian (r. 364–375) appointed Ambrose
the consular governor of Aemelia-Liguria, with residence in Milan, the western
capital of the empire.
At the time of his appointment, Milan was in great turmoil, divided along reli-
gious lines between Catholic and Arian Christians. The situation worsened in 374,
46 | Ambrose of Milan

when the reigning bishop died and a successor had to be found. Responsible for
maintaining order during the election, Ambrose was himself popularly acclaimed
the new bishop because of his evenhanded rule as governor. Although he held no
position in the church and had yet to be baptized (it was not uncommon to put off
baptism until later in life at that time), Ambrose reluctantly accepted the office
and was baptized and ordained before assuming the post he would hold until his
death in 397.
During his long career as bishop, Ambrose had a profound impact on the politi-
cal and religious developments of his day. Residing in the western imperial capital
provided Ambrose great prestige as well as access to the leaders of the empire and
often influenced their decisions. He was instrumental in the decision to remove
the Altar of Victory from the city of Rome in 382 and encouraged the decision to
declare Catholic Christianity the official religion of the empire in 381. At times,
however, Ambrose found himself at odds with Roman rulers and was forced to
defend himself and his Catholic Christianity. In 386, Justina, the mother of the
young emperor Valentinian II (r. 375–392) sent imperial troops against the bishop
as part of her effort to impose Arian Christianity in the Western Empire. Besieged
in his cathedral, Ambrose refused to back down, upholding his Catholic faith, and
the soldiers withdrew rather than massacre the bishop and his flock. He also took
a more active approach in his relations with the emperors, supporting Valentinian
in his struggles against a usurper. More importantly, he exerted his authority over
Theodosius the Great. On one occasion, Ambrose challenged the emperor’s deci-
sion in regard to the treatment of the Jews in the empire. Following the destruc-
tion of a synagogue in Mesopotamia by a group of Christians lead by their bishop
in 388, Theodosius decided to punish the bishop and Christians and force them to
make restitution for the damage. Ambrose, however, intervened on two separate
occasion, threatening the emperor with spiritual penalties and forcing Theodosius
to rescind his orders. In a more famous and influential episode, Ambrose again as-
serted his authority as bishop over Theodosius. In response to a riot in Thessalonica
that challenged imperial authority and the local governor, Theodosius ordered the
massacre of some 7,000 people in 390. Ambrose humbled the emperor, proclaiming
a ban of excommunication against him if he did not perform public penance for his
murderous order. A devout Christian, Theodosius submitted to episcopal authority,
providing a precedent for later supporters of the powers of the church over the state.
Despite these controversies, Ambrose and Theodosius remained on good terms, and
the bishop delivered a moving eulogy at the emperor’s funeral in 395.
An able administrator and skilled politician, Ambrose was also a leading fig-
ure in the development of Christian belief and practice. Along with his efforts to
promote Catholic Christianity throughout the empire, Ambrose wrote a number of
hymns and sermons, including a series of homilies compiled as the Hexameron, a
commentary on creation. His writings include an influential guidebook on Christian
life and morality, De Officiis Ministrorum, modeled on a work of the great Roman
 Ammianus Marcellinus | 47

writer Cicero (106–43 bc); a commentary on the Gospel of Luke; expositions on

the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist and the mysteries of the faith; and a
series of ethical works. He also prepared a work in praise of virginity, which he ded-
icated to his sister Marcellina; Ambrose himself lived a chaste life, which proved,
along with his great rhetorical skills, an inspiration to Augustine of Hippo. And it
was Augustine who noted that Ambrose read silently, a most unusual practice in
the antiquity when most read aloud.
See also: Arianism; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Milan; Theodosius the Great

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., ed., and Wolfe Liebeschuetz, trans. Ambrose of Milan: Political
Letters and Speeches. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 2010.
McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994.
Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. New York:
Longman, 1999.
Williams, Daniel H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflict. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.

Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330–395)

Last important pagan historian of Rome, and the first to write a major history
since Tacitus (c. 56–120). Although nearly half of his work, the Res gestae (Deeds
done), has been lost, Ammianus remains one of the most important writers for the
history of the Roman Empire and the movement of the Germanic peoples in the
fourth century. Inspired by Tacitus, whose work he emulated, Ammianus provides
a unique view, especially compared with Christian historians of the time, of the late
Roman Empire. In some ways unlike his Christian contemporaries, Ammianus be-
lieved that “Rome will last as long as mankind shall endure.” Indeed, even though
he chronicled the crises of the late fourth century, including the catastrophic de-
feat of imperial armies by the Visigoths led by Alaric, Ammianus preserved the
characteristic faith of the Romans in the empire.
Little is known precisely about Ammianus other than what is revealed in his
work of history. He describes himself as a “former soldier and a Greek” in the
pages of a history that was written in Latin. He was probably born in Antioch
in Syria around 330. He served in the 350s as an officer in both Gaul and Persia
under the emperor Constantius II (r. 337–361). His military background enabled
48 | Ammianus Marcellinus

him to write effectively about military matters in his history. He later joined the
campaigns of the emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 361–363), the nephew of Con-
stantine the Great, against Persia in 363. Julian was raised as a Christian by his
uncle but rejected that upbringing in favor of traditional Roman religion, which
he actively promoted to the detriment of the Christian church. Although he had
earlier enjoyed military success, Julian failed in his attack on Persia and was
killed near Baghdad while retreating. Ammianus retired from military service
after the failed Persian campaign and traveled widely across the Mediterranean,
spending time especially in Egypt and Greece. Sometime in the 380s, he settled
in Rome, where he wrote his history, probably in 390.
Written in the last decade of the fourth century, the history of Ammianus began
in 96, where Tacitus left off, and covered events down to 378. The work was com-
posed in 31 books, but only books 14 to 31 have survived. This section, however,
covered the years 354–378, the period of the author’s active military career, and
contains much eyewitness reporting. The work is both a personal memoir and tes-
timony and a defense of the career of Emperor Julian. The history contains not
only personal observations but also many important observations on military and
political affairs, as well as the reflections of a tolerant late Roman pagan. The work
of Ammianus is often colorful; it contains numerous details of daily life and scath-
ing accounts of the flaws of Christian and pagan leaders of Rome. Like Tacitus,
Ammianus criticized the moral weaknesses and political foolishness of his con-
temporaries and wrote in a highly rhetorical style. His work reflects the attitudes
of a late Roman soldier and noble who valued the traditional Roman virtues of
moderation and who believed in the permanence of Roman power. Indeed, his ac-
count of the terrible Roman defeat by the Visigoths at Hadrianople in 378 reveals
his belief that the empire would recover from this defeat and eventually triumph
over its enemies, just as earlier Romans had defeated their great rival Hannibal after
his victory at Cannae (216 bc).
Ammianus not only left important information about the Romans and their de-
feat by the Visigoths but also about the barbarian invaders themselves. He describes
the origins and background of the Goths and the extent of their territory. He also
describes the origins of the Huns, their nomadic lifestyle, their customs and man-
ners, and their success against the Goths. Although the surviving portion of the
history covers only a short period, Ammianus’s work is an important source of in-
formation on Romans and barbarians in the later fourth century.
See also: Alaric; Hadrianople, Battle of; Huns; Visigoths

Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Trans. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1971–1972.
Barnes, Timothy D. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
 Angilbert, St. | 49

Cameron, Averil, and Peter Garnsey, eds. The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. Cambridge
Ancient History. Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Hunt, David, and Jan Willem Drijvers, eds. The Late Roman World and Its Historian:
Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus. London: Routledge, 1999.
Matthews, John. The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas
J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Angilbert, St. (c. 740–814)

An important figure during the reign of Charlemagne, Angilbert was one of the
great king’s court scholars and was a central figure in what is called the Carolingian
Renaissance. He was given the nickname Homer by Charlemagne and the other
court scholars because of his talents as a poet. He also served as an ambassador
for the king and was the lay abbot of St. Riquier, which he received from Char-
lemagne and where he introduced important liturgical reforms. He was also the
lover of Charlemagne’s daughter, Bertha, with whom he had two sons, Hartnid and
the historian Nithard.
Angilbert was a Frank of noble parentage, and he and his family, according to
the mid-ninth century historian Nithard, were held in high esteem by Charlemagne.
Nithard’s view is confirmed by Angilbert’s place at Charlemagne’s court. Angilbert
obtained an excellent education and may have been a student of Alcuin, the lead-
ing Carolingian court scholar and close advisor to Charlemagne, at one point. His
poetry and liturgical reforms, along with his gift of over 200 manuscripts to the
library at St. Riquier, indicate his interest in learning and support for the religious
and educational reforms of Charlemagne. His later activities at St. Riquier further
demonstrate his concern for learning; he seems to have established, in conformity
with Charlemagne’s capitulary Admonitio Generalis, a school to educate the local
boys. He also served as Charlemagne’s ambassador to Rome on two occasions. In
792, he was sent to Rome with copies of one of the Saxon capitularies, sections of
the Libri Carolini (Caroline Books), and the heretical bishop Felix of Urgel, all of
which he was to submit to Pope Hadrian I for papal consideration. Angilbert went
to Rome a second time in 796 to deliver a great portion of the spoils of the Avar
Ring, the Avar capital captured by Carolingian armies in 796, to St. Peter and his
representative, Pope Leo III.
As court scholar and abbot of an important monastery, Angilbert assumed
a key position in Charlemagne’s kingdom and promoted the great ruler’s edu-
cational and religious ideals. He was a poet of great talent, whose work pro-
vided a glimpse into the “court school” of Charlemagne. His poem to the king
(Ad Carolum regem) portrays the king and his courtiers in discussion with the
50 | Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

king, who bestows favors on those around him, especially to his children, and is
himself a great lover of poetry. The poem also reveals the hustle and bustle of the
court, as well as giving sketches of the court’s members. Charlemagne is praised
in the poem and his construction of the church at Aix-la-Chapelle is described with
reference to Matthew16:18—“On this rock I will build my church.” Angilbert’s
poetry could also be quite personal and touching, as in one short poem sent to the
court to inquire about his young son.
Angilbert’s activities as abbot of St. Riquier were designed to further the reli-
gious goals of Charlemagne. The abbot introduced new wrinkles to the liturgy at
the monastery, organized elaborate religious processions, and formed the monks
into three shifts to pray continuously for the salvation of the emperor. He also un-
dertook an extensive building program at the monastery and acquired a large num-
ber of saints’ relics for the community of St. Riquier. His support for the literary,
educational, and religious reforms of Charlemagne make Angilbert an important
example of the success of the Carolingian Renaissance.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Alcuin of York; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty;
Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Franks; Hadrian I, Pope; Leo III, Pope; Nithard

Bibliography
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Sullivan, Richard. Aix-La-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1974.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

The most important source for the history of Anglo-Saxon England, especially for
the period from the mid-ninth century until the fall of the Anglo-Saxons to William
the Conqueror in 1066, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also provides useful informa-
tion on the development of the English language. It survives in seven manuscripts,
some of which include both Old English and Latin entries, and its accounts are
arranged as annals, or year-by-year summaries of events.
The Chronicle, including both its earliest versions and most complete later
versions, covers the history of England and the Anglo-Saxons from the first-century
 Anglo-Saxons | 51

bc until 1154. Events covered by the Chronicle include Julius Caesar’s invasion
of England, the Anglo-Saxon invasions, and the deeds of the Anglo-Saxon kings.
Although called the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the focus of the annals is the West
Saxon kings, with occasional mention of events in Mercia and on the European
continent. The first version, which appeared during the reign of Alfred the Great
in the late ninth century and was known to Asser, the biographer of Alfred, focuses
on the history of the West Saxon kings, beginning with the fifth-century King
Cerdic and ending with King Aethelwulf and his sons. Although the work cov-
ers a broad span of time, the period that receives the best and fullest treatment is
that after 850.
After the first version, the manuscript tradition divided into several versions,
which do not always treat events in the same fashion, some versions of the
Chronicle treating events more fully than others. Major events, like Alfred’s
campaigns against invading Vikings, however, often receive similar coverage
in all the versions. The continuations of the Chronicle lasted until 1154, cover-
ing the events of the 10th and early 11th centuries with little detail but offering
more depth for the later 11th and 12th centuries. It provides useful discussion of
William’s conquest in 1066, and one version offers a brief and bitter summary
of events of the year.
The sources used by the compilers of the Chronicle vary. Works by Jerome and
Isidore of Seville were used in the preparation of the early material covered by the
annals; also useful for the early period was a Latin translation of the Ecclesiasti-
cal History of Eusebius. Other sources used for the preparation of the Chronicle
were the Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), genealogies, northern and West
Saxon annals, Frankish annals, lists of kings and bishops, and, most probably, oral
material. The most important source, and one that helped shape the organizational
structure of the annals, was Bede’s History of the English Church and People.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Isidore of Seville; Wessex

Bibliography
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Anglo-Saxons

Germanic peoples who invaded England in the fifth century, the Anglo-Saxons
formed enduring institutions and cultural and religious traditions that remained an
important part of English society even after their ultimate defeat by William the Con-
queror in 1066. Coming from various points on the European continent, the bands
that formed the Anglo-Saxon people entered England during the mid-fifth century.
The exact details of the invasions and conquest of England by the Anglo-Saxons,
52 | Anglo-Saxons

however, remain uncertain and shrouded in legend. Indeed, one of the greatest leg-
ends of English history, the legend of King Arthur, is rooted in the history of the
invasions. Although the details of the origins of the Anglo-Saxons in England are
unclear, the later details of their history are not. In brief, they formed a number of
smaller kingdoms that gradually coalesced into a more unified realm. They wel-
comed Christianity, developed sophisticated political and cultural traditions, faced
the challenge from the Danes, and, finally, submitted to the Normans.
According to the Anglo-Saxon historian and monk Bede who wrote in the eighth
century, the origins of the Anglo-Saxons are to be found in northern Europe. Bede
identifies three main groups of invaders in his history of the English church and peo-
ple: Angles, Jutes, and Saxons. He notes that the Jutes came from parts of modern
Denmark and inhabited the kingdom of Kent and the Isle of Wight. The Saxons
were from lands between the Elbe and Ems Rivers and established kingdoms in
Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. The Angles settled in the kingdoms of East Anglia,
Mercia, and Northumbria and came originally from lands lying between those of
the Jutes and Saxons. Although these three groups are traditionally recognized as
the conquerors of Roman Britain, they were most likely accompanied by other
Germanic peoples. The Frisians, who lived along the coast of northern Europe, were
probably among those who joined the invaders. Indeed, it is likely that many people
living along the coast from the modern Netherlands to Denmark were involved in
the invasions, a group that may have even included the Swedes.
The invasion of Britain began in the confusion that attended the Roman with-
drawal from the island and the collapse of the Western Empire. According to the
earliest accounts, those of Gildas (d. mid-sixth century) and, especially, Bede, the
invasions were part of the religious history of the island. For Gildas the invaders
were ignorant barbarians who were to be opposed by faithful Christians, but for
Bede, they were punishment sent by God to chastise the natives of Britain. In any
event, the invasions most likely began in the mid-fifth century, about a generation
after the withdrawal of imperial troops from England in 410. Shortly after that with-
drawal, the people of England had become subject to raids by Scots and Picts to
the north. To deal with these raids, according to the traditional account, the British
leader Vortigern invited groups of Angles or Saxons to come to England to serve
as mercenaries in defense of the region from outsiders. But once having expelled
the raiders, the Angles and Saxons, led by the brothers Hengist and Horsa, turned
against their masters and began the conquest of England.
Over the course of the next century, Angles, Saxons, and other groups gradually
took control of the island, despite the possible appearance of a leader of resistance,
later to be known as King Arthur. Indeed, by the late fifth century the various tribes
had established themselves throughout most of the eastern half of the island, from
the Humber River in the north to the Thames in the south. It was at this point that
“King Arthur” may have appeared and slowed down the process of Anglo-Saxon
 Anglo-Saxons | 53

penetration of the island. But this was at most a temporary setback for the Anglo-
Saxons, who were not only successful warriors but also farmers and shepherds
who laid claim to the land and slowly colonized England at the same time that
they fought the native population. During the sixth century the various groups of
Anglo-Saxons formed what is traditionally termed the heptarchy. The famed seven
kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England—Kent, Sussex, Essex, Wessex, East Anglia,
Mercia, and Northumbria—struggled for predominance throughout the Anglo-
Saxon period, and from time to time a ruler of one of these kingdoms managed to
establish hegemony over the other six. For a time the kingdom of Mercia predomi-
nated, and later the kingdom of Wessex provided leadership and unified much of
the island, in part due to its most important ruler, Alfred the Great.
Although the traditional designation of heptarchy suggests a degree of equality
among the seven kingdoms, such equality seldom existed, and there were smaller
units, like the subkingdom of Deira, which formed part of Northumbria, that were
greater than some of the kingdoms of the heptarchy. Moreover, the kingdoms of
Essex and Sussex were negligible powers, and already in the seventh century, the
kingdom of Mercia had become the leading power of the south. Indeed, under
its great king, Penda, Mercia undertook a belligerent and expansive policy that
culminated in Mercian hegemony in England. He successfully extended Mercian
power over parts of central England and even exacted tribute from the king of
Northumbria, Oswy. His death in battle against Oswy slowed, but did not stop, the
expansion of the kingdom. In the generation after his death, Christianity was estab-
lished in Mercia, and Northumbrian overlordship was ended.
In the eighth century, Mercia reached its greatest heights of power under the
kings Æthelbald (r. 716–757) and, especially, Offa. Although he only gradually
established his control in Mercia and the rest of England after the murder of
Æthelbald, Offa created the most impressive realm before Alfred. He brought
much of England from the Humber River to the English Channel under his con-
trol, subjugated lesser kings to his authority, and married daughters to kings in
Northumbria and Wessex. He built an extensive dyke along the frontier with Wales,
reformed the coinage, issued laws, and enjoyed good relations with and the re-
spect of Charlemagne and Pope Hadrian I. Following his death in 796, however,
the kingdom fell into gradual decline under the assault of the Vikings and the rise
of the power of Wessex.
As Mercian power declined in the wake of Offa’s death, the ascendancy of Wessex
began. In the early ninth century, Egbert (r. 802–839) ended Mercian dominance of
Wessex and expelled the Mercians from parts of Wessex. He defeated the Mercian
king Beornwulf in battle in 825 and broke the power of the rival kingdom. He man-
aged to extend his authority over Essex, Sussex, and Kent, and even conquered and
controlled Mercia for a short time. His successors, however, faced an even greater
challenge than that posed by the kings of Mercia. Indeed, even before Egbert’s
54 | Anglo-Saxons

death, Danes began raiding the English countryside. Over the next several genera-
tions the raids turned into large-scale invasions, and the Danes conquered large sec-
tions of England. Wessex withstood the onslaught, and its kings forged marriage
pacts with their defeated rivals in Mercia to better withstand the assault. In 865, the
situation became critical, as Danish pressure increased and Danish armies seized
much of England outside Wessex.
The efforts of Æthelred I (r. 865–871) and, especially, Alfred halted the Danish
advance. Indeed, after some initial setbacks, Alfred took back control of much of
England below the Humber from the Danes and was recognized as king of all the
English not subject to the Danes. In the early 10th century, Edward the Elder com-
pleted his father’s struggle with the Danes and rid the island of their influence for
much of the 10th century. Alfred not only enjoyed success against the Danes but
also restructured English defense and military organization. He was a great patron
of learning and personally translated a number of important religious texts. He also
worked closely with the church and elevated the ideal of kingship. One of the great-
est of all English kings, Alfred unified England under the authority of the kingdom
of Wessex, and his dynasty ruled England until the Anglo-Saxon defeat at the Battle
of Hastings in 1066 and the conquest of England by the Normans.
Political division and eventual unification characterized Anglo-Saxon history
before the Norman conquest, and it was matched by division and unification in re-
ligion. Like many of the peoples who established kingdoms in the former Roman
Empire, the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity, but only after an internal strug-
gle between traditional religion and the new faith. They also faced divisions within
Christianity, although their division was between Irish and Roman Catholic Chris-
tianity instead of the struggle faced by the Franks and Goths between Arian and
Catholic Christianity. Although the island had received Christianity while under
imperial rule, its loss of contact with the continent contributed to the breakdown of
the church. During the sixth and seventh centuries, efforts to Christianize the island
were launched from both Rome and Ireland.
The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons was begun in earnest at the end of the sixth
century by St. Augustine of Canterbury, who had been sent on his mission by Pope
Gregory I, traditionally referred to as the Great. Augustine established himself in
Canterbury in 597, where he became archbishop and introduced Roman institu-
tional structures. His greatest success came with the conversion of Aethelberht,
the king of Kent, whose wife, Bertha, was a Merovingian Frank and a Christian.
In a great outdoor ceremony, Aethelberht, who was greeted by a procession of
monks singing psalms and carrying the cross, accepted Christianity and allowed
the mission to continue. Bede notes that more churches were built, including one at
Canterbury by Aethelberht, and that the king’s subjects also came to the faith. The
conversion of Aethelberht aided in the conversion of other parts of Anglo-Saxon
England, including the northern kingdom of Northumbria, whose king, Edwin,
married a daughter of Aethelberht.
 Anglo-Saxons | 55

Edwin only gradually came to the faith and needed the approval of a royal coun-
cil before accepting baptism. Although there was a pagan reaction in the generation
after Edwin’s death, his conversion brought Christianity to the north, and it survived
both his death and the pagan reaction. The conversion of Northumbria, however,
was further complicated by the influence of Irish Catholic Christianity, which main-
tained a unique organizational structure; Irish Catholics also calculated the date of
Easter and tonsured their clergy in their own way, rather than following the practice
of the Roman church. Irish missionaries were active in England and the continent in
the seventh century and offered an attractive alternative to Roman Christianity. At
the great Synod of Whitby in 664, however, King Oswy accepted the teachings and
organization of the Roman church. His decision had a great impact on the church
and people of England in the generations to come.
The conversion of Northumbria, which completed the conversion of all of
Anglo-Saxon England, was of great and lasting significance. Indeed, until the
Reformation England and Rome maintained a special relationship. The Anglo-
Saxon church promoted this tie, and as a result the tie greatly influenced cultural
and political events in the eighth and ninth centuries. One of the more signifi-
cant results of the conversion of England was the development of literary cul-
ture that followed it. The greatest expression of this culture was the so-called
Northumbrian Renaissance of the seventh and eighth centuries. Associated with
the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow and their founder, Benedict Biscop, the
revival had as its most important figure the man known as Venerable Bede, one
of the most influential historians of the Middle Ages as well as a noted Christian
scholar. Bede’s work on time was very popular among Christian scholars in the
Middle Ages; his history of the English church and people was one of the first
great national histories and remained an influential work throughout the Middle
Ages. The renaissance influenced Carolingian culture because of the numerous
books collected by Benedict Biscop, Bede, and others for their monasteries, many
of which found their way to the Frankish kingdom through Alcuin. Alcuin also
introduced many of the ideals of the renaissance to his fellow Carolingian schol-
ars and ecclesiastics.
The Latin literary tradition of Bede, Alcuin, and others is matched by an equally
impressive and important literary tradition in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, which in-
cludes both secular and religious materials. The most famous example of Old
English literature, of course, is Beowulf, which is preserved in a single manuscript
from around the year 1000. It is a 3,182-line epic poem that recounts the heroic
life and death of its main character, Beowulf, the great king of the Geats, who de-
feated three terrible monsters and ruled his people wisely after rescuing the king of
the Danes from Grendel and his mother. Although Christianized, the poem reveals
many of the traditional virtues of the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons. Other important
Old English literary works include The Battle of Brunanburh and The Battle of
Maldon. The Battle of Brunanburh includes dramatic battle scenes and a panegyric
56 | Anglo-Saxons

to King Æthelstan (r. 924–939); it concerns an important battle in the unification

of England. The Battle of Maldon exists only as a fragment, but it is celebrated
for its depiction of warrior virtues maintained in adversity in its tale of an English
loss to Viking invaders. Along with the secular verse tradition, there exists a body
of Old English religious poetry. The most important example is The Dream of the
Rood, in which the Rood, the Cross on which Christ was crucified, speaks of the
importance of the crucifixion and of its own role and describes Jesus as a traditional
Anglo-Saxon hero.
The Anglo-Saxon literary corpus also contains a number of prose works. The
most significant of these is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The chronicle, first com-
piled in the late ninth century, is one of the most valuable sources for the early
history of England; it covers the entire period from the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons
in England to their defeat by William the Conqueror. Some manuscript tradi-
tions of the chronicle continue into the Norman period, extending into the 1150s.
Other prose works include the many translations made by King Alfred or his
court. Alfred was responsible for translations into English of Boethius’s Conso-
lation of Philosophy, as well as of various works by St. Augustine of Hippo and
Pope Gregory I, known as the Great. He also sponsored translations of Gregory’s
Dialogues and Bede’s history. Alfred himself was the subject of a biography, in
Latin, by Asser, which is an important part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of writing
history and biography. Finally, in the late Anglo-Saxon period, the ecclesiastics
Ælfric and Wulfstan composed a number of sermons in English that advocated
reform, lamented the moral decay of the Anglo-Saxons, and expressed the belief
that they were living in the Last Days.
See also: Aethelberht I of Kent; Alcuin of York; Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle;
Arianism; Asser; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Bede; Beowulf;
Boethius; Franks; Hengist and Horsa; Heptarchy; King Arthur; Mercia; Merovingian Dynasty;
Northumbrian Renaissance; Offa of Mercia; Penda; Sutton Hoo; Thegn; Vortigern; Wessex
Bibliography
Arnold, Christopher J. Roman Britain to Saxon Shore. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1984.
Bassett, Steven, ed. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press, 1989.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
Heaney, Seamus, trans. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar Straus and
Giroux, 2000.
 Animals | 57

Higham, Nicholas J. The Convert Kings: Power and Religious Affiliation in Early Anglo-
Saxon England. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1997.
Howe, Nicholas. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Keynes, Simon, and Michael Lapidge, trans. Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred
and Other Contemporary Sources. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983.
Myres, John N. L. The English Settlements. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.
Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Seaby,
1990.

Animals

Domestic animals served a variety of purposes in the early Middle Ages, includ-
ing farm work and fieldwork, were an important source of food, and, in the case
of dogs and horses, were kept for companionship. Among the more important and
useful animals was the horse, which was used not only as a draft animal but also
for transportation and in war. The other animals used in early medieval society were
cattle, sheep, dogs, pigs, geese, and chickens. They provided material for food and
clothing, but they were generally smaller than their modern counterparts.
The horse played an important role in daily life in the early Middle Ages and
was known to both the ancient Romans and the barbarians who migrated into
the empire. There were various breeds of horse bred either by the Romans or the
barbarians, and the importance of the horse is revealed in early medieval legisla-
tion. The famous Carolingian Capitulary de Villis, which regulated management
of the royal estates, contains precise regulations for maintenance of horses, in-
cluding instructions for overseeing stud horses, mares, and foals. It also rules that
foals be brought to the king’s palace each year on St. Martin’s Day (November
11). Moreover, after the conversion of the barbarians to Christianity, prohibitions
against eating horseflesh were enacted by various bishops and popes, including
Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury. And in 732, Pope Gregory III or-
dered Boniface, the missionary and papal legate in Germany, to prohibit consump-
tion of horseflesh.
One of the primary purposes of horses, in peace or war, was transportation.
The horse, unlike other large domesticated animals, had a much faster pace than
humans and thus provided a fast and reliable source of transportation. The use of
horses as riding animals, however, was generally limited to kings and nobles, who
58 | Animals

could afford them. (Estimates place the cost of a horse as equal to that of four to
10 oxen or 40 to 100 sheep.) Horses were used more generally as draft animals
because of their strength and speed and were often used to pull carriages of passen-
gers and heavy loads of produce or other material on wagons. Although they may
have been used in Anglo-Saxon England to plow the fields, horses were seldom
used for agricultural work in the early Middle Ages. As the result of technological
change around the year 1000, however, horses came into more widespread use in
agricultural work as plow animals.
The other major use for the horse was in war, and many barbarian peoples used
the horse to good effect in war. The Huns were most famous for their use of the
horse in war, and the horse was also used in the preparation of food for the Huns
and was used in the ceremonies to bury great leaders like Attila. The Lombards
and Visigoths were also known for their use of the horse. Among the Franks,
both the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties employed the horse and cavalry
in their armies. It must be noted that these horses were not the great warhorses
of the later Middle Ages, which could carry a knight in full armor and operate as
a sort of premodern tank. Indeed, the horses of barbarian Europe were smaller
and lighter, as were most animals, and bore light-armored bowmen. Moreover,
Carolingian horses were not used to carry mounted shock troops, as some schol-
ars have suggested. There is no evidence to prove that the Carolingians had the
stirrup, which would have been necessary to allow the use of mounted shock
troops.
Cattle, both oxen and cows, were important for labor and food. With the arrival
of the barbarians and the end of Roman civilization in the old Western Empire,
however, the practice of selective breeding—except in the case of horses and dogs—
came to an end, and cattle, as well as most other domestic animals, decreased in
size. Despite their smaller size, cows and oxen remained vital in daily life. Before
the so-called agricultural revolution of the year 1000, the ox was the most important
agricultural draft animal. Its size, strength, and docility made the ox an ideal source
of power to drive the plows used in cereal production and farm wagons. Although
slower than horses, oxen were the preferred draft animal because they were less
expensive to feed and keep than horses.
Cows and bulls, although prevalent, were rarely used as draft animals and were
used primarily as a food source. Not only was beef the main source of meat for
those who could afford it, but cows also provided milk, cheese, and butter, which
were prominent in much of the northern European diet. Although the end of se-
lective breeding and the practice of mating before maturity limited the size of the
animals and their milk production, cows continued to be a significant part of ag-
ricultural life and diet. Cattle had one further use. In the summer they were put
out to pasture to graze in farmland left fallow (land that was left unplanted so that
it could replenish itself), which they would fertilize naturally with their manure.
 Antioch | 59

Most extra animals were sold before winter because of the scarcity of food to feed
them and their human owners.
Along with horses and cattle, a number of other animals were commonplace
in early medieval daily life and diet. Sheep provided a source of food and cloth-
ing, and pigs also formed a valuable food source. Pigs were raised nearly in the
wild, being left in the forest to forage for food, mostly nuts and berries. Written
records, such as Charlemagne’s capitularies, and archeological evidence reveal the
existence of chickens and geese, useful for both eggs and meat, on early medieval
farms. Along with these domesticated animals, wild game—including deer, rabbit,
and wild boar—was hunted and made part of the diet. At times, these wild animals
were confined to specific parts of the forest and even managed. Finally, dogs were
a common feature in society. They were selectively bred and used in hunting and
to shepherd flocks of animals and were often treated as family pets. Contrary to
popular opinion, medieval people, just like modern people, often felt an emotional
connection with their dogs.
See also: Agriculture; Attila the Hun; Capitulare de Villis; Capitularies; Carolingian Dy-
nasty; Charlemagne; Clothing; Diet and Nutrition; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Trans. Michael Jones. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1984.
Duby, Georges. Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Trans. Cynthia
Postan. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968.
Gladitz, Charles. Horse Breeding in the Medieval World. Dublin: Four Courts Press,
1997.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Slicher van Bath, Bernard H. The Agrarian History of Western Europe: A.D. 500–1850.
Trans. Olive Ordish. London: Arnold, 1963.

Antioch

City (modern Antakaya) on the Orontes that was founded by the Greeks in
300 bc Antioch became an important commercial, military, political, and religious
center under the Romans. The city enjoyed a period of great prosperity during the
later Roman Empire but suffered decline beginning in the sixth century of the Com-
mon Era and remained a town of lesser importance throughout the early Middle
60 | Antioch

Ages. Despite its decline, Antioch enjoyed an enduring legacy as one of the great
centers of early Christianity.
Incorporated into the Roman Empire in 64 bc, Antioch was favored by a series of
Roman rulers from Julius Caesar (100–44 bc) to Trajan (53–117 ad) who bestowed
privileges on it and built roads and other public works and structures to enhance
the city. Antioch’s attraction was due to its favorable geographic location, which
made it a good choice as a regional capital for the eastern empire. Roman rulers
were not the only figures drawn to the city; the apostles Peter and Paul preached
in Antioch, which included an important Jewish community. For Paul, Antioch
served as the base for later missionary work, and the converts of Antioch were the
first be known as Christians. Antioch was one of the four original patriarchates,
along with Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome. In the third century, a series of church
councils were held in Antioch to address important matters of the faith.
Antioch enjoyed its greatest prominence in the fourth and fifth centuries. Its
population grew significantly and has been estimated at between 150,000 and
300,000, and economic prosperity increased due, in part, to the olive plantations
surrounding the city. Emperors continued to build in Antioch; Constantine built the
Great Church—its octagonal shape influenced later religious structures including
the Dome of the Rock and church of San Vitale of Ravenna—in the early fourth cen-
tury, and Theodosius II strengthened the walls surrounding the city. Along with the
new imperial construction, a long, elegant thoroughfare ran through Antioch that
was lined with shops and was the main center of life in the city. Antioch’s demo-
graphic and economic growth was complimented by its increasing political impor-
tance as a result of prolonged war with Persia. Emperors Constantius II (r. 337–350)
and Valens (r. 371–378) used the city as a base in their conflict with the Persians.
The leading military officers for the east were also based there as was the civilian
governor of Syria. Antioch also continued to be a leading center of Christianity.
As the seat of the patriarch, Antioch enjoyed special status in the Christian church.
Constantius II held a council there in 341 to address lingering questions over the
creed and to implement rules of conduct for Christian clergy. One of the most re-
spected and unusual religious figures of the period, Simeon Stylites, adopted his
life as a pillar saint in Antioch and attracted large crowds of devotees. During the
fourth and fifth centuries, the school of Antioch enjoyed its greatest prominence.
One of the last major pagan rhetor, Libanius, taught at Antioch and included a
number of leading Christian scholars such John Chyrsostom. Christian scholars
developed unique approaches to theology and to reading Scripture that rivaled the
work done at Alexandria.
Antioch’s fortune declined in the sixth century. In 540 the city was sacked by
the Persians, and its citizens were deported. Although recovered for a time by
the Roman Empire, the city was again seized by the Persians in the early seventh
 Arbogast | 61

century, and a major campaign to recover territory led by the emperor Heraklios was
stopped outside the walls of Antioch in 611. Imperial forces did retake the city, but
it was a more modest place than it had once been. Antioch suffered not only from
the violence of warfare but also from repeated earthquakes in the sixth and seventh
centuries that undermined its once prominent role. The population was further re-
duced by plague that swept the region in the sixth century. The once great city was
absorbed by Islam in 637 and would remain a relatively small town throughout the
rest of the early Middle Ages.
See also: Constantine; Rome; Valens

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity A.D. 150–750. London: Thames and Hudson,
Ltd., 1971.
Cribiore, Raffaella. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2007.
Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Huskinson, Janet and Isabella Sandwell, eds. Culture and Society in Later Roman
Antioch. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003.
Kondoloeon, Christine, ed. Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2000.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman
Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Arbogast (d. 394)

A Germanic general of Frankish descent, Arbogast was the first in a series of mili-
tary leaders in the Roman Empire, a list that later included Stilicho, Aëtius, and
Ricimer, to appoint a puppet emperor. Although his efforts established a dangerous
and important precedent, Arbogast’s career as the power behind the throne in the
Western Empire was cut short by the arrival of Theodosius the Great. Nonetheless,
Arbogast’s career foreshadowed many of the events to come and revealed one of
the weaknesses of the Western Empire.
Arbogast rose through the military ranks to assume an important leadership
position in the Roman army and the Western Empire. He earned the rank of magis-
ter equitum (master of the horse) in the army of the Western Empire, and, from 380
to 388, served the emperor Theodosius in the east in his struggles against the Goths.
In 388 he was sent back to the Western Empire to serve the young emperor Valentin-
ian II (r. 375–392), who had recently been restored to the throne following a period
62 | Arbogast

of civil war. Arbogast served Valentinian well and recovered Gaul and strengthened
the Rhine frontier. He also imposed a treaty on his fellow Franks who had invaded
Gaul. His successes and the death of Bauto, another Frank sent as an adviser by
Theodosius, emboldened him to assume the office of magister militum (master of
the soldiers) without the emperor’s consent. Valentinian was outraged and sent his
general a letter of dismissal, to which Arbogast replied that since Valentinian had
not appointed him the emperor could not dismiss him. Shortly thereafter, in May
392, Valentinian was found dead, and some contemporaries suggested that he was
killed by Arbogast.
The death of Valentinian presented Arbogast an opportunity to seize com-
mand, but as a barbarian he could not do it personally. He then appointed the
teacher of rhetoric Flavius Eugenius emperor, a move that found little favor
with Theodosius. Although Theodosius did not strike immediately at Eugenius
and Arbogast, he clearly resented the move. Arbogast, a supporter of the pagans
of Rome, had hoped to find favor with the Christian Theodosius by his promo-
tion of another Christian. He also attempted to gain Theodosius’s support by
issuing new coins with the image of Theodosius on them. But these attempts
bore little fruit, and Theodosius designated his son Honorius as the heir to the
throne in the west. Arbogast and his emperor then promoted the pagan cause
more strenuously and restored the famed Altar of Victory to its traditional
place in the senate. To further secure his grip on the Western Empire, Arbo-
gast again waged successful campaigns in Gaul during the winter of 393–394.
But his efforts proved of little avail when Theodosius led a large force, which
included Stilicho and many Germans, against Arbogast and his emperor. In a
two-day battle on September 6–8, 394, Arbogast suffered a crushing defeat near
the river Frigidus. Eugenius was executed following the defeat, and Arbogast
committed suicide.
Although Arbogast was short lived, his career was still significant. His rise to
power in the military demonstrated one way to success in the empire, and his use of
that power provided a precedent for later military commanders. Indeed, the Western
Empire in the fifth century was ruled by several military commanders who had
established figureheads on the imperial throne. Arbogast’s example was especially
important to the many Germans in the military, who could not hold the highest civil
office in the empire. His virtual removal of the emperor from military command
also had long-lasting consequences by further dividing the civil and military of-
fices in the empire. It also distanced the Western emperors from the army, their
most important constituency. The struggles between Theodosius and Arbogast and
Eugenius brought further unrest to the empire and drew troops from the frontiers,
thus weakening Rome’s defense of its borders, which were seriously breached early
in the fifth century.
See also: Aëtius; Franks; Ricimer; Stilicho, Flavius; Visigoths
 Arianism | 63

Bibliography
Bury, John B. The Invasions of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton,
1967.
Cameron, Averil, and Peter Garnsey, eds. The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. Cambridge
Ancient History. Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Matthews, John. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998.
Zosimus. New History. Trans. Ronald T. Ridley. Canberra: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.

Arianism

Arianism is a religious heresy associated with the Alexandrian presbyter Arius

(c. 260–336). Arianism offered a concept of the relationship between God the
Father and God the Son that differed from that of the Catholic tradition in the late
Roman and early medieval period. It was popular throughout the fourth century
with several Roman emperors, including Valens (d. 378), as well as with much
of the Eastern Roman aristocracy. Although eventually outlawed by the devout
Catholic Christian and emperor Theodosius the Great who declared the Catholic
faith the official religion of the empire, Arianism had great influence among the
barbarian peoples who migrated into the empire. In fact, Arianism had adherents
among the Franks, Goths, Lombards, and others into the late seventh century, and
was often part of the political and military policies of these peoples. An attractive
and in some ways simpler doctrine than Catholic Christianity, Arianism nonetheless
was eventually abandoned by its Germanic adherents in favor of the predominant
faith of the church of Rome.
Arianism took shape in the early fourth century, after Christianity was legalized
in the Roman Empire and supported by the emperor Constantine. It formed in op-
position to the Catholic faith, and as a result a great controversy erupted in the em-
pire between supporters of each teaching. Unlike the Catholic faith, which stressed
the essential unity of the godhead, the faith of Arius emphasized the superiority of
God the Father. Arius taught that God the Son was subordinate and posterior to the
Father. According to Arius, the Son, rather than existing from before the beginning
of time, was created in time; he argued further that God the Father created the Son
as a mediator between himself and fallen humankind. He was divine by grace of
the Father, and since he had become like God the Father, others had hope to be-
come like the Father.
The teachings of Arius divided the church in the fourth century. To resolve
this controversy Constantine held the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325,
which was attended by 318 bishops and presided over by the emperor himself.
64 | Arianism

The council upheld the Catholic view of the essential unity of the godhead,
embodying it in the summary of the faith that formed the basis of what is tra-
ditionally called the Nicene Creed, but the controversy continued for the next
several decades. Even Constantine, in the 330s, became more inclined to the
Arian view. His successors often adopted Arianism as the preferred expression
of Christianity.
During the reign of Constantius (337–361), the emperor adopted an Arian creed,
which became the foundation for the Arianism of the Germanic peoples in the
generations to come. The faith of Arius continued to have supporters among the
emperors for the next few decades, but it faced a terrible setback under the Arian
emperor Valens. His defeat by the Visigoths at the Battle of Hadrianople in 378 was
understood as the judgment of God against a heretical ruler. His successor, Theo-
dosius, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene Creed and promoted Catholic Chris-
tianity to the rank of state religion at the expense of Arian Christianity, as well as
traditional paganism.
The triumph of Catholic Christianity in the empire did not spell the end of Arian
Christianity, however. The missionary activities of the Arian Goth Ulfilas from
the early 340s until his death in 382–383 and his translation of the Bible into the
Gothic language contributed to the acceptance of Arian Christianity by large num-
bers of Goths. In the 370s, the Gothic leader Fritigern, possibly an ally of Ulfilas,
converted to the Arian faith as part of his pro-Roman policy and his rivalry with
Athanaric. Of course Fritigern’s Arianism did not prevent him from defeating his
fellow Arian, the emperor Valens, at the Battle of Hadrianople in 378. It did, how-
ever, complicate things for the Visigoths who settled in Spain and other parts of the
old Roman Empire where the Roman population was predominantly Catholic. The
Arian Visigoths also faced an established Catholic infrastructure of churches, mon-
asteries, and most importantly, bishops, who wielded great power and influence.
Ultimately, the Spanish Visigoths converted to Catholic Christianity in 587 when
their great king, Reccared I, converted.
Not all Arian Goths had difficulty with their Catholic subjects, however. The
Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric the Great, ruled effectively despite religious
differences with the majority of his subject population. He benefited from the re-
sistance of the church in Italy to domination by the Eastern church centered in
Constantinople, a resistance that made Catholics in Italy more willing to accept
local control even if by an Arian. Moreover, Theodoric was a tolerant ruler and took
few steps aimed at restricting the rights of Catholics. He was most respectful of the
pope during a visit to Rome in 500 and, according to one contemporary, honored the
pope just as any Catholic Christian would. As king, Theodoric also presided over a
great cultural flourishing. His capital at Ravenna was the beneficiary of a building
program that created great monuments of Arian architecture in a baptistery, palace
church, and other churches throughout the city. Theodoric also built beautiful Arian
 Arianism | 65

Mosaic of Jesus of Nazareth in the dome of the Arian Baptistry at Ravenna, Italy, which
was built by the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great (d. 526). (Alinari Archives/
Getty Images)

churches in other Italian cities. Only late in his reign, when Theodoric had brutally
crushed an alleged conspiracy, did he lose favor among the Italian population, so
that his Arianism became a problem.
Other peoples, including the Burgundians and Vandals, accepted Arian Christi-
anity, and the Lombards in particular used it as part of a grander political scheme.
Invading Italy in 568, the Lombards attempted to unify the entire peninsula under
their king. This policy met the opposition of various popes, who presided over sig-
nificant territories in central Italy. Consequently, the Arianism of the Lombards
took on political, especially antipapal, and to a lesser extent, anti-imperial connota-
tions. Although the Lombards converted to Catholic Christianity in the late seventh
century, their political agenda remained unchanged, although some kings did take
a softer stance in relation to the popes.
Arianism had a very different career among the Merovingian Franks under
their greatest leader, Clovis (r. 481–511). According to the sixth-century historian
Gregory of Tours, Clovis favored Catholic Christianity long before his conversion.
His wife, Clotilda, was a Catholic Christian who repeatedly sought to convert her
husband to her faith. When Clovis did convert, according to Gregory, he chose
66 | Arnulf of Metz, St.

Catholic Christianity, and was described as a new Constantine. Indeed, his con-
version during a great battle recalls Constantine’s conversion prior to the Battle
of the Milvian Bridge. Gregory also describes Clovis’s wars against the Visigoths
as a sort of crusade, launched because the great Merovingian king could not tol-
erate Arian heretics living in Gaul. Of course, the situation is not so clear-cut as
Gregory presents it. Clovis did ultimately convert to Catholic Christianity, but
there is evidence that his conversion may not have been directly from paganism
to Catholic faith. Clovis, at the very least, had sympathies with the Arian tradition
and may have been an Arian Christian for a time before his final conversion to the
Catholic faith.
See also: Athanaric; Burgundians; Clotilda; Clovis; Constantine; Fritigern; Gregory of
Tours; Hadrianople, Battle of; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Ostrogoths; Reccared I;
Rome; Theodoric the Great; Ulfilas; Theodosius the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Hanson, Richard P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Contro-
versy, 318–381. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, Ltd., 1988.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Vol. 2 of The Christian Tra-
dition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1978.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993.

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas Dunlap.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Arnulf of Metz, St. (580–643/647)

Bishop, saint, and traditionally the founder, with Pippin I, called Pippin of Landen,
of the Carolingian family, Arnulf is generally thought to have been an important
figure in the political life of the Frankish kingdoms in the seventh century. The
marriage of Arnulf’s son to one of Pippin’s daughters is traditionally thought to
have joined two of the most powerful aristocratic factions in Austrasia, the east-
ern realm of the Merovingian Franks, and Pippin II of Herstal was the product of
this marriage. Arnulf’s reputation for sanctity, no doubt, strengthened the family’s
position, and, according to the early ninth-century Annals of Metz, Arnulf of “all
 Arnulf of Metz, St. | 67

the Franks is held before God and men to be a special patron” (Fouracre and
Gerberding 19976, 352). Much of what is known of Arnulf’s life, however, is
shrouded in mystery and myth created by later Carolingian writers, and the exact
relationship between Arnulf and the two Pippins is uncertain.
According to the traditional account, Arnulf was born in 580 to an aristocratic
family with extensive land holding between the Mosel and Meuse Rivers. He early
on showed an inclination toward the religious life, possibly inspired by Irish mis-
sionaries who established a monastery nearby, and was taught to read and write. He
later joined the court of the mayor of the palace (major domo) and then the court of
the Merovingian king, Theudebert II. He assumed important administrative duties
over royal domains and rose to prominence at court. His youth and early years at
court occurred during a time of unrest and often brutal civil war between the queens
Fredegund and Brunhilde. After Fredegund died, Brunhilde was the real power in
the Merovingian kingdoms, even though she ruled through her sons and grandsons.
In 613, Arnulf, along with Pippin and other Austrasian nobles, joined Chlotar II in
a revolt that overthrew and savagely executed Brunhilde.
During the reign of Chlotar (613–629), both Arnulf and Pippin played influential
roles and were rewarded for their service to the king. Indeed, the alliance they had
forged during the revolt had drawn the fortunes of the two ancestral Carolingian
leaders closer together. Joined by rebellion, they also were joined by the marriage
of Arnulf’s son, Ansegisel, and Pippin’s daughter, Begga. Moreover, as the Annals
of Metz note, Arnulf “very often strengthened [Pippin] with sacred admonitions
and divine and human learning so that he would be strengthened for more impor-
tant matters” (Fouracre and Gerberding 1996, 352). Pippin became mayor of the
palace, thus acquiring the office that provided the foundation for later Carolingian
success. Arnulf was rewarded by Chlotar with the office of bishop of Metz, perhaps
as a result of Arnulf’s religious inclinations as well as of his administrative talents.
As bishop he controlled sizable estates and wealth that would have been important
to the king, who allowed Arnulf to retain possession of his administrative posts at
the royal court. He was also entrusted with the responsibility of tutor to Chlotar’s
young son, the future Dagobert I.
In his later years, Arnulf yearned to resign from his official religious and secular
duties to take up the life of a monk. He was prohibited from doing so by Chlotar,
who valued Arnulf’s talents. On the death of Chlotar, however, Arnulf was allowed
to retire to a monastery, where he died some time between 643 and 647 after years
of pious service. The pious life he led at the monastery contributed to his reputation
as a saint, and his feast day is celebrated on August 16 or 19 at his former monas-
tery. Although Arnulf’s life may have been subject to Carolingian mythologizing,
which makes some of the exact details of his life certain, he was surely an important
figure in the early years of the Carolingian family and in the Frankish kingdoms of
the seventh century.
68 | Asser

See also: Austrasia; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Chlotar II; Fredegund; Merovin-
gian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen; Pippin II, Called Pippin of
Herstal

Bibliography
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Fouracre, Paul. The Age of Charles Martel. London: Longman, 2000.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Arthur, King. See King Arthur

Asser (d. 909)

Monk, abbot, and bishop of Sherborne (c. 895–909), Asser is best known for his
Life of Alred, the biography of the Anglo-Saxon king Alfred the Great. Asser,
a key figure at the court of King Alfred, was a close friend and confidante of
the king and contributed to the cultural revival that took place under the king’s
direction.
Asser was born in Wales and, as he tells us, was educated, bred, tonsured, and or-
dained in the “furthest coasts of western Britain.” He became a monk of St. David’s
Abbey in Pembrokeshire and seems to have developed a reputation as a scholar
and teacher while there. His renown as a man of learning reached Alfred in Saxon
England who sought out the Welsh monk when he needed someone to teach him
to read and write in Latin. The two met at Dene, Alfred’s estate in Sussex, where
the king invited Asser to leave all his possessions and join the royal court. Asser, as
he notes in the Life of Alfred, was reluctant to leave, and so the king suggested that
he spend six months of each year in Wales and six months in Alfred’s kingdom.
Agreeing to these terms, Asser departed but became very ill and remained with-
out hope for a cure for 53 weeks. He then joined Alfred at his court in Leonaford,
where he stayed for eight months reading to Alfred every day. In gratitude for his
services, Alfred made Asser abbot of the monasteries at Ambresbury and Banwell
and granted him all the possessions of Exeter. Asser continued to serve the king,
who by St. Martin’s Day, November 11, 887 had mastered reading and writing in
Latin. In subsequent years, Alfred with the assistance of Asser translated works by
Boethius, Gregory the Great, and Orosius into the Anglo-Saxon language. Along
with bestowing Exeter and the monasteries on Asser, Alfred made his friend bishop
of Sherborne, a position Asser held until his death.
 Astronomer, The | 69

In 893, Asser began his life of King Alfred, which covered the life of the king
from his birth until the year 887. The Life of Alfred draws extensively on the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as well as the personal reflections of Asser himself. The
biography describes Alfred’s personal life, his marriage and children, as well
as his life as king. In the Life, Asser describes the king’s struggles to secure his
kingdom and his frequent fights against pagan invaders, notably Vikings from
Denmark. He describes as well Alfred’s construction and use of a fleet against
the Vikings and his important naval and military victories against the Vikings.
Asser also comments on Alfred’s interest in promoting learning throughout the
kingdom as well as the king’s own efforts to read or be read to every day. Alfred
is portrayed in a most favorable light in the Asser’s life. He is depicted as a great
Christian ruler, and Asser was inspired in his portrayal. Asser was inspired in his
portrayal by great kings such as Charlemagne and, more importantly, Solomon
and the kings of the Hebrew Bible. Despite this somewhat one-sided portrait, As-
ser’s Life of Alfred remains one of the most important sources for the history of
this great king and his reign.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Anglo-Saxons; Boethius, Anicius
Manlius Severinus; Charlemagne; Gregory the Great; Wessex

Bibliography
Keynes, Simon, and Michael Lapidge, trans. Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of Alfred
the Great and Other Contemporary Sources. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1983.

Astronomer, The (fl. ninth century)

Anonymous author of the Vita Hludowici imperatoris (Life of the Emperor Louis),
the Astronomer provides an important, contemporary account of the life of the
Carolinian emperor Louis the Pious (r. 813–840). Offering a sympathetic but not
uncritical portrait of the emperor, the Astronomer also offers commentary on the
events of the early ninth century and the fortunes of the Carolingian dynasty.
Most of what is known of the Astronomer is drawn from his biography of the
emperor. He has been called “the Astronomer” because of his general interest,
which he reveals in his work, and apparent expertise in celestial matters. In the Vita
Hludowici, the author describes an episode in which Louis called him to court to
explain the importance of a passing comet—Halley’s Comet—in 837. This incident
suggests that the Astronomer had important contacts at court; it is likely that he was
a monk who came from the aristocracy and served as an important palace official
for Louis. He most likely joined the young ruler when he was sent to Aquitaine,
and throughout his biography the Astronomer shows great interest in the south.
70 | Astronomer, The

His evident dislike for the people of Aquitaine, however, raises the possibility that
this was not his homeland, and it may be that he was from Gothic Septimania.
Whatever his geographic origins, the Astronomer clearly knew the emperor and
had contacts with the emperor’s court.
The Astronomer most likely wrote his biography in 841, shortly after the death of
the emperor, whose end is movingly described by the author. In preparing the life,
the Astronomer drew from a variety of sources, including the Royal Frankish An-
nals and, possibly, official documents of the imperial court. He was also indebted to
the information provided by the monk Ademar, who had access to the court and may
have been a high-ranking official before entering a monastery. Another source that
the Astronomer used was the Life of Charlemagne by Einhard, whom he admired
and most likely knew personally. The Astronomer, however, wrote a very different
life of Louis than the one that Einhard wrote about Charlemagne. Although firmly in
the tradition of imperial biography produced by Carolingian authors and stressing
the virtues of the king, the Astronomer’s biography is arranged chronologically and
is less overtly secular than Einhard’s. Less indebted to classical biography, the life
of Louis also stresses the important role of the divine in the life and history of the
emperor and pays close attention to the religious reforms of the ruler.
The Vita Hludowici surveys the life of the emperor Louis the Pious from his
youth to his death. The life provides a brief summary of the reign of Louis’s father,
Charlemagne, and it also emphasizes the character of Louis as Charlemagne’s des-
ignated heir and strongly endorses Louis’s position as the legitimate Carolingian
ruler and heir of Charlemagne, who took pains to prepare his son as emperor. The
Astronomer also attributes the important imperial virtues to Louis, but is not uncriti-
cal of his hero, whom he blames for being a bit too merciful at times. Along with
establishing Louis’s place as Charlemagne’s chosen successor, the Astronomer also
asserts the legitimacy of Louis’s authority during the troubled times of the 830s
when the emperor’s sons rebelled against him. The Astronomer was highly critical
of Lothar and his brothers and was a staunch defender of the rights of Charles the
Bald. In the Vita Hludowici, the Astronomer sought to promote the legitimacy Louis
and Charles the Bald as well as to promote the integrity of the empire. In this way,
the life provides not only a valuable depiction of the period but also an important
commentary on Christian kingship.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Einhard; Lothar; Louis
the Pious

Bibliography
Cabaniss, Allen, trans. Son of Charlemagne: A Contemporary Life of Louis the Pious.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1961.
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In Carolingian
Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
 Athanaric | 71

Laistner, M.L.W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1957.
Noble, Thomas F. X. ed. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: Lives by Einhard, Notker,
Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer. University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2009.

Athalaric. See Ostrogoths

Athanaric (d. 381)

Gothic warrior leader or judge from 365 to 381, whose reign was marked by
prolonged struggles against the Romans and the Huns as well as against other
groups of Goths. His reign was later recognized by the Visigoths as the moment of
the beginning of that people, and he was deemed their founder king. It was as a re-
sult of the pressure of the advancing Huns that Gothic followers of Athanaric aban-
doned their leader and, with rival Gothic groups, petitioned the Roman emperor
Valens for entry into the Roman Empire. The entry of the Visigoths in 376 led to
the Battle of Hadrianople, but Athanaric was not involved in that battle and was
eventually welcomed to Constantinople and honored there shortly before his death.
His reign was characterized also by the indiscriminate persecution of Christians,
Catholics, and non-Catholics, living in his territory, which led later Christian his-
torians to blacken his name.
Athanaric was a member of a royal clan among the Gothic Tervingi, and from
his youth he had strained relations with the empire. His father, after an apparent
failed diplomatic contact with Constantine the Great (r. 306–337), made Athana-
ric swear an oath never to step foot in the empire. Moreover, although the empire
supported Athanaric’s dynasty, Goths fought with Rome against Persia, and trade
went on between the Goths and Rome, these good relations followed a crushing
defeat by Rome and rested on Gothic hostages at the Roman court. In the 360s,
when he had come to rule in his own name, Athanaric supported the pretender to
the Roman throne, Procopius, against the legitimate emperor, Valens (r. 364–378).
Valens massacred the warriors Athanaric sent to support Procopius and prepared
for open war against Athanaric.
The Roman campaign against the Goths in the late 360s brought great devas-
tation and suffering to Athanaric’s people. From 367 to 369 Valens prosecuted
war against Athanaric but, despite considerable advantages, could not defeat the
Goth. Athanaric was no match for Roman power and lost battles against Rome, but
he managed to avoid the severe defeats his predecessors suffered. In 369, with a
growing Persian threat, Valens accepted Athanaric’s offer of peace. The treaty was
settled, much to the chagrin of Valens, on an island in the Danube, because Athana-
ric refused to set foot in Roman territory. The treaty freed Athanaric’s Goths from
Roman hegemony and ended tribute payments to the Romans.
72 | Athanaric

After settling with the Romans, Athanaric turned his attention to affairs in his
realm. From 369 to 372 Athanaric, fearing that Christianity would undermine the
traditions of Gothic society, conducted a systematic persecution of Christians
in his realm, many of whom had converted as a result of the missionary activi-
ties of Ulfilas. He forced Christians in his realm to honor a tribal idol and make
sacrifices to it, and if they refused they were punished and their houses burned.
The idols were probably images of important ancestors or tribal founders, and
those who failed to honor them denied the tribe and its divine origins. In other
words, they violated the integrity of the community to which they otherwise
belonged. In a sense Athanaric, much like the Roman emperors before the con-
version of Constantine, was trying to preserve the unity of his realm by forcing
Gothic Christians to adhere to the traditional religion. Athanaric’s persecutions
were also part of his anti-imperial policy, because of the close association of
Christianity with the Roman Empire, which had sponsored missionaries north
of the Danube River. But Athanaric’s efforts backfired because they failed to
unite the Goths. In fact, his persecutions led to a division within the commu-
nity when his rival, Fritigern, agreed to convert to Christianity in exchange for
the support of the Roman emperor Valens. Fritigern also challenged Athanaric’s
authority in the mid-370s, but Athanaric managed to keep control as a greater
threat emerged on the horizon.
The Huns’ advance followed in the wake of the Gothic war with the Romans and
the internal struggle between Athanaric and Fritigern. Although at first modest, the
pressure of the Huns became increasingly intense and caused a dramatic realign-
ment of barbarian settlements inside and outside the frontier of the empire. As the
Huns moved eastward, various Gothic groups faced them, with generally disastrous
consequences. One tribe of Ostrogoths was smashed by the Huns, even though a
small group managed to make their way to Athanaric’s territory. In the summer of
376, Athanaric was ambushed by an advance force of Huns, from which he man-
aged to escape with his army intact.
In response to the threat of the Huns, Athanaric began a program of building
defensive fortifications similar to Roman fortresses along his frontier. Unfortu-
nately for Athanaric and his Goths, this policy of wall building proved ineffective,
as Hunnish raiding parties once again fell on him and defeated the Goths in battle
near the Danube River. His ability to retreat successfully and regroup failed him
after his defeat by the Huns, in part because the Huns took control of important ter-
ritory and managed to cut off Athanaric’s supply lines. As a result of his losses to
the Huns and the devastation it caused, Fritigern, Athanaric’s old rival, established
himself as a leader and, with a majority of the Tervingi, withdrew from Athana-
ric and received the right from Emperor Valens to settle in the Roman Empire.
The division of the Goths had serious consequences for both Athanaric, who had
 Attila the Hun | 73

lost most of his followers, and Valens, who was defeated by Fritigern and killed at
the Battle of Hadrianople in 378.
Athanaric and his remaining followers did not follow Fritigern into the Roman
Empire, but he could not remain where he was because of continued pressure from
the Huns. Just as the Huns advanced at Athanaric’s expense, Athanaric’s successful
withdrawal came at the expense of other barbarian peoples. He advanced against
another barbarian people who lived across the Carpathian Mountains and settled
there for the next four years with his remaining followers. In late 380, Athanaric
was forced out in a coup engineered by Fritigern. Despite his long-standing hostility
toward the empire, Athanaric sought asylum in Constantinople in January 381. He
was welcomed by the emperor Theodosius, who met him at the gates of the city and
offered him a lavish reception. The welcome afforded Athanaric was outdone only
by the funeral Theodosius provided him two weeks later, after the Goth’s death on
January 25, 381.
See also: Fritigern; Hadrianople, Battle of; Huns; Ulfilas; Visigoths

Bibliography
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 40–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Attila the Hun (d. 453)

The fifth century king of the Huns, called the scourge of God. Attila was a mighty
warrior who extracted great wealth from the Roman Empire and posed a threat to
the peace of the late ancient world during his reign from 435 to 453. Although he
did not pose a direct challenge to the existence of the Roman Empire, Attila in-
vaded the empire on several occasions and inflicted serious damage on the empire
and its armies. His armies threatened both the new Rome, Constantinople, and the
original city of Rome. His empire was a rival to the Roman Empire, but despite
its size and military power, the empire of the Huns did not long survive Attila, its
greatest king.
Several late ancient writers have left descriptions of Attila’s physical appear-
ance and personality. The sixth-century historian of the Goths, Jordanes, describes
Attila as short of stature but of mighty bearing. Attila had a swarthy complexion,
74 | Attila the Hun

a broad chest, a large head with small eyes, a thin beard, and a flat nose. In his his-
tory, Jordanes observes that Attila had a haughty walk, which revealed his proud
spirit and abundant self-confidence. A lover of war, he terrified all the world but
was gracious to suppliants. The Roman ambassador to Attila’s court, Priscus, left
an account of diplomacy at the court that complements the account of Jordanes.
Priscus describes the favorable treatment he received from the king, who spoke
“friendly words” to him and sent warm greetings to the emperor. He also describes
a banquet he was invited to by Attila. The king sat on a couch in the middle of the
room, surrounded by couches for his guests. The guests were served lavish dishes
on silver platters and wine in goblets of silver and gold, but Attila ate meat on a
wooden plate and wine from a wooden goblet. His clothing, Priscus notes, was plain
but clean. His sword, boots, and bridle were without elaborate ornamentation. Attila
had numerous wives and an even larger number of children.
In the year 435, Attila and his brother Bleda ascended to the throne of the Huns,
succeeding their uncle Ruga. It was Ruga who enjoyed the first successes against
the Roman Empire, invading the empire, threatening the capital, and extracting trib-
ute from the emperor. Ruga, in the 420s, brought cohesion to the disparate bands
that made up the Hunnish confederation and imposed unity of purpose on these
tribes. Ruga also imposed a treaty on the empire, demanding not only tribute but
also the return of Huns who had deserted and joined the imperial army. This was
a most serious demand for the empire, which had come to rely on the service of
Hunnish soldiers. It also proved critical to Attila, who exploited the terms to his
advantage.
As king, Attila immediately took the offensive and negotiated a new treaty—the
Treaty of Margus—with the empire, which became the cornerstone for relations
with the empire for the rest of his reign. According to the new treaty, the amount of
tribute paid to the Huns was doubled from 350 pounds of gold a year to 700 pounds.
Huns who had deserted were to be returned to Attila or ransomed at the value of a
Roman solider. (The fate of returned deserters was not pleasant, as the example of
two royal deserters who were sent back by the Romans and crucified by Attila sug-
gests.) Constantinople was not to make treaties with the enemies of the Huns and
had to guarantee that fairs be held along the frontier between the two powers. Attila
also extended the size of the empire he inherited by waging war on the barbarian
tribes on his northern and eastern frontier during the later 430s.
In response to the refusal of the emperor, Theodosius II, to honor the terms of
the Treaty of Margus—he suddenly ceased the payment of tribute—Attila invaded
the empire. Seizing the opportunity to harass the empire while Theodosius II was
engaged with the Persians, Attila inflicted great damage on imperial territory. He
razed a number of important cities, including Singidunum (Belgrade) and Serdica
(Sofia). Another city, Naissus (Nis), was badly devastated; the stench of death was
so great that no one could enter the city, and human bones filled the Danube River.
 Attila the Hun | 75

He won a series of battles in 443 and threatened the city of Constantinople itself.
His numerous victories forced the empire to renegotiate its treaty with the Huns.
The annual subsidy was raised to 2,100 pounds of gold, with a one-time payment
of 6,000 pounds of gold to cover the missed payments.
The early successes of Attila, however, were suddenly interrupted. The terror in-
spired by the great Hunnish horsemen no longer seemed so great, and they no longer
acquired the spoils of war they once did. Epidemic or rebellion may have struck
the empire of the Huns. The armies were no longer successful in battle. And the
emperor once again refused to make the tribute payments to the Huns. Following
these setbacks, Attila murdered his brother Bleda in 444. It may have been an assas-
sination motivated solely by the lust for power, but it is also possible that Bleda was
blamed for the misfortunes that had struck the Huns. Bleda’s incompetence may
have caused the military setbacks. He was clearly a rex inutilis, a “useless king,” or
even worse, a king who had lost the favor of the gods. Whatever the reason for the
assassination, Bleda’s murder left Attila in sole control of the empire.
Shortly after the murder of his brother, Attila once again took the offensive and
invaded the Eastern Empire a second time. This invasion was even greater than the
previous campaign and led to even greater devastation. Although suffering heavy
losses himself, Attila inflicted severe defeats on imperial armies. He laid waste to
large sections of the Balkans and had led his armies to Thermopylae by 447 when
the emperor pleaded for peace. The treaty renewed the terms of the earlier treaties.
The Empire was to renew annual payments of 2,100 pounds of gold. It was forced
to ransom Roman captives and to promise to return Huns who had deserted and to
stop accepting them into the empire and its army. The empire also ceded a signifi-
cant portion of its Danubian province to Attila.
In 450, Attila was once again on the warpath, but this time it was the Western
Empire that felt the wrath of God’s scourge. There are several factors that inspired
Attila to attack the imperial West, not the least of which was its military weakness.
The Vandal king, Gaiseric, fearful of the power of the Visigoths, encouraged Attila’s
western focus. The death of Theodosius II in 450 also contributed to Attila’s deci-
sion to attack the empire again, because the new emperor, Marcian, refused to pay
the tribute or make any other concessions to the Huns. Finally, there is the interest-
ing case of Honoria, daughter of Galla Placidia and sister of the emperor Valentin-
ian. She had led a dissolute life and was caught with a servant. He was executed,
and she was betrothed to a trustworthy senator—that is, one who posed no threat
to the emperor. To avoid marrying a senator she detested and to acquire a protec-
tor, Honoria sent a ring to Attila. The great king interpreted this as a proposal of
marriage and demanded that Honoria be turned over and that she be given half of
the territory of the Western Empire. Although there was some interest in turning
Honoria over to the king of the Huns, Marcian’s refusal to pay the tribute pushed
Attila to take his bride by force.
76 | Attila the Hun

The preparations for the invasion were extensive, and Attila entered Gaul in the
Western Empire with a massive army, counted at between 300,000 and 700,000
men by contemporary sources. Although these numbers are probably exaggerated,
it is certain that Attila led an army of great size into the Western Empire. His army
contained a large number of allied and subject peoples, including Alans, Burgun-
dians, Heruls, Ostrogoths, Ripuarian Franks, Sarmatians, Suevi, and Vandals led
by Gaiseric, as well as his own Huns. He faced a great alliance of Romans and
Burgundians, Celts, Salian Franks, and Visigoths, all led by the Roman military
commander, Aëtius, who had long relied on the Huns for the imperial army. Despite
the great alliance against him, Attila enjoyed success early in the campaign and
sacked the important cities of Rheims, Metz, Strasbourg, Cologne, and Trier. His
efforts to seize Orléans in the summer of 451, however, failed. Aëtius managed
to secure the city before Attila’s arrival, and rather than waste time and men on
a prolonged siege, Attila withdrew. Although a wise tactical move, Attila’s with-
drawal provided the Romans with a victory and raised their morale.
Attila’s own morale was undermined by the loss at Orléans, as well as by a sooth-
sayer who predicted that the impending battle would prove disastrous for the Huns,
even though a great rival would die. Nonetheless, Attila prepared for a showdown
with his enemy, and on June 20 on the plains between Troyes and Châlons, the
two armies fought a great battle that some have seen as one of the decisive battles
of world history. The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (also known as the Battle
of Maurica, or of Châlons) was a terrible, bloody battle in which, according to
Jordanes, 165,000 men died. The fighting was so ferocious in this battle of nations
that the ancients report that a small stream near the field grew to a raging torrent
from the blood of the combatants.
The battle for a time went so poorly for the Huns that Attila prepared a funeral
pyre for himself should it come to that. But the death of the Visigoth Theodoric
staved off the destruction of the Huns, and Attila was able to withdraw from the field
of battle and leave Gaul. Aëtius, victorious, decided not to pursue his foe, perhaps
because he did not wish to destroy the Huns, who were an important counterbalance
to Rome’s other barbarian rivals. Aëtius’s use of the Huns in his army no doubt also
kept him from destroying his rival’s army. Attila was like a wounded animal at this
point, more ferocious because of his own injury, and any pursuit could have led to a
devastating counterattack that would have destroyed the army of Aëtius and opened
the Western Empire to Attila.
Attila may have been beaten near Châlons, but he was a determined enemy and
planned an even greater invasion in 452. Attila crossed the Alps and led his armies
on a grand invasion of Italy that brought devastation to the north of the peninsula
and threatened the ancient capital, Rome. Aëtius was unable to rally his allies
among the Alans and Visigoths and thus had insufficient forces to challenge the
great army of the Huns. As a result much of northern Italy suffered heavy dam-
age from the Huns. Many cities were pillaged and destroyed. The city of Aquileia
 Attila the Hun | 77

was razed to the ground, and its inhabitants, according to tradition, fled into the
lagoons of the Adriatic and founded Venice. According to one early account, the
cities of Milan and Pavia were completely destroyed and left depopulated. Attila’s
armies sacked Verona and Vicentia as well and extorted a ransom from the people
of Ticinum to spare that city. Unchecked by imperial armies, Attila set up court in
northern Italy, probably at Milan. He was met there by two Roman senators and
Pope Leo I, known as the Great; the eloquence and prestige of the elderly pon-
tiff is alleged to have convinced Attila to withdraw from Italy. According to papal
tradition, it was not Leo alone who persuaded the king to leave the peninsula; the
heavenly hosts, led by the apostles Peter and Paul, threatened Attila with death
if he disobeyed the papal commands. The plague afflicting the army of the Huns
and the threat of an imperial army from the east no doubt also influenced Attila’s
decision to withdraw.
Once again, despite military setbacks, Attila planned further campaigns
against the empire, including a massive invasion of the Eastern Empire in 453.
His plans, however, were cut short by his own death. He was found dead with
his new wife the morning after his wedding. There were rumors that his wife
had poisoned him. He may have celebrated his marriage too enthusiastically and,
in a drunken stupor, drowned in his own nosebleed. Or he may have suffered
a fatal stroke. Whatever the cause, the mighty king was dead, and he was bur-
ied in great state. His body was borne by the best horsemen of the Huns into an
open field, where it was laid to rest. The body was placed in a tent of the finest
Chinese silk, and a great revel, the strava, took place around it. The Huns rode
around the tent, chanting a dirge, tearing out their hair, and gashing their faces.
The body was then placed in three nested coffins bound with gold, silver, and
iron. It was buried with great wealth, including gem-encrusted weapons, and
the slaves who prepared Attila’s tomb were killed so that its whereabouts would
remain unknown.
The empire of the Huns did not long survive its greatest king. None of Attila’s
many sons had the abilities of their father, and fraternal squabbling worsened a bad
situation. The many subject peoples revolted and brought down the empire. Rome
surely rejoiced. Despite its rapid demise, the empire of Attila had posed a grave
threat to the empire of Rome. His ambition and military prowess challenged Rome,
and he nearly succeeded in taking control of the Western Empire. His untimely
death cut short even greater plans of conquest that could have proved devastating
to the Roman Empire, and despite his ultimate failure Attila remains one of the best
known and greatest of Rome’s foes.
See also: Aëtius; Gaiseric; Galla Placidia; Huns; Rome; Visigoths

Bibliography
Baüml, Franz H., and Marianna Birnbaum. Attila: The Man and His Image. Budapest:
Corvina, 1993.
78 | Augustine of Canterbury, St.

Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Thompson, Edward A. A History of Attila and the Huns. Oxford: Clarendon, 1948.
Thompson, Edward A. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Augustine of Canterbury, St. (d. 604)

Missionary to the Anglo-Saxon people, Augustine was sent to England by Pope

Gregory I, called the Great, with forty other missionaries. Much of our knowl-
edge of his evangelical mission comes from two primary sources: the letters sent
to Augustine from Gregory, which were preserved, in part, by Bede in A History of
the English Church and People, and Bede’s history itself. Augustine successfully
introduced Christianity to the kingdom of Kent, converted the Kentish king, built or
restored churches, and introduced monastic life to England. Augustine was not only
a successful evangelist, but he was also the first archbishop of Canterbury. Although
there was a period of apostasy after the deaths of Augustine and Aethelberht, the
Anglo-Saxon king, Augustine can be recognized as restoring contacts between
England and Rome that had been broken during the barbarian invasions and also
as reestablishing Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England.
According to Bede, the inspiration to evangelize England was the result of an
experience Gregory had before he became pope. One day while in the market-
place in Rome, Gregory came upon some merchants who had recently arrived
with young boys to sell as slaves. Remarking on their attractive features, Gregory
asked the name of their race. He was told they were Angels, and he said that was
appropriate because “They have angelic faces” (Bede 1981, 100). He learned too
that they were pagan and from the land of Deira, and he hoped to rescue them
from the wrath of God (de ira). He approached the pope, asking to be sent as a
missionary but was refused this request. According to the tradition recorded by
Bede, however, he did not forget his hope and as pope sent a mission to England.
Although the tale may be apocryphal, it does reveal Gregory’s desire to convert
the English as well as his possible awareness of the importance of western Europe
for the papacy.
Whatever the truth of Bede’s tale, Gregory did send an evangelical mission to
England, which was led by Augustine. Little is known of Augustine’s life before he
was chosen to lead the mission to England, other than that he was probably a student
of Felix, bishop of Messana, and was a monk and prior of St. Andrew’s monastery
in Rome. In 596 Augustine was appointed to lead roughly forty monks to England
to preach the Christian faith or at least to learn if the people would be receptive to
 Augustine of Canterbury, St. | 79

hearing the word. It was a mission of some uncertainty and setbacks but one that
ultimately proved successful.
Leaving Rome sometime before July 596, Augustine and his fellow missionar-
ies arrived first in Gaul, bearing letters from Gregory asking the bishops of Gaul to
support the missionaries on their way. Augustine’s route through Gaul possibly took
him to the cities of Arles, Lyons, Marseilles, and Tours. As the letters of Gregory
reveal, the missionaries also visited the powerful Merovingian queen Brunhilde
and possibly also her grandsons Theudebert, later Theudebert II, and Theuderic,
later Theuderic II. The queen was, no doubt, interested in the mission because her
niece Bertha was married to the English king Aethelberht. A letter from Gregory
in 597 suggests that she was most helpful; the pope thanks her for her efforts and
praises her as a new Helena, the mother of the first Christian emperor Constantine.
The journey through Gaul, however, was not without incident. At either Lérins or,
more likely, Arles, the missionaries sent Augustine back to Rome to ask the pope
to reconsider sending the mission because of their fears of going to a barbarous,
pagan nation. Gregory promoted Augustine to the rank of abbot and returned him
with a letter encouraging the missionaries to proceed to England and another letter
seeking support for the missionaries from the bishop of Arles.
The exact date of the arrival of the missionaries in England remains uncertain,
but it was probably sometime during the summer of 597. They arrived first on the
island of Thanet near the coast of Kent and brought with them Frankish interpreters.
Augustine, now a bishop, having been consecrated at Arles, made contact with the
king, Aethelberht. Although his wife was a Christian, the king remained a pagan,
but he informed Augustine that he would welcome them, even though Augustine
was to stay on the island. The king feared that Augustine would use magic to de-
ceive him and ordered an open-air audience to be held, rather than one in a house
where Augustine would more easily be able to use magic. The bishop arrived at the
head of a procession bearing a silver cross and an icon of Jesus Christ. Although
he did not convert, the king welcomed Augustine and offered him a dwelling in
the capital of Canterbury, where Augustine settled and restored the ancient church
of St. Martin. He thus began the mission, and then his prayers and the miracles he
performed convinced the king to convert. This was Augustine’s greatest accom-
plishment, and even though the king did not compel his subjects to convert, many
did, and Gregory reported in a letter to the patriarch of Alexandria that Augustine
baptized 10,000 people on Christmas Day, 597.
Augustine set about establishing the infrastructure needed for the church in
England. In 601 he received the pallium, symbol of full episcopal authority, from
Gregory and permission to establish a number of new bishoprics under his au-
thority as archbishop. He was to promote London to the status of archbishopric
and also create a new archiepiscopal see in York and twelve new episcopal sees
under the authority of York. Augustine’s see at Canterbury, was to remain the
80 | Augustine of Canterbury, St.

primatial see in England. Augustine also repaired the cathedral in Canterbury,

Christ Church, which was consecrated on June 9, 603, and established a mon-
astery near the cathedral, which served as the burial site for Augustine and his
successors as archbishop as well as for the kings of Kent. He received aid from
further missionaries in 601, who brought a number of items necessary for worship,
including altar covers, books, church ornaments, relics, and vestments. He cor-
responded often with Gregory in Rome and received instructions on various mat-
ters, including an order not to destroy the pagan temples of the English. Gregory
approved destruction of pagan idols but recommended purifying existing pagan
temples and consecrating them as churches so that the English would flock “more
readily to their accustomed resorts, [and] come to know and adore the true God”
(Bede 1981, 87). Augustine also received a letter from Gregory cautioning the
archbishop against taking pride in the miracles that God was performing through
the archbishop in England.
Augustine also organized a council at Augustine Oak in 603, between the
church he had established and the British churches that existed outside the Anglo-
Saxon kingdoms. These churches had fallen out of communication with Rome,
and Augustine hoped to reconcile with them and introduce Roman practices to
them. The conference was a failure because the British churches refused to ac-
cept his, and Rome’s, teaching on the date of Easter and other matters. Even
though Augustine miraculously cured a man of blindness as a test of whom God
favored, while the British clerics failed at the task, the conference ended without
reconciliation between the two churches. A second council was held sometime
later, and again the two sides failed to agree. The British priests refused to accept
Augustine’s compromise of allowing them to continue their traditional practices
but requiring them to conform to Roman usage on Easter and baptism because
Augustine did not rise from his seat when they approached. Bede records Au-
gustine’s prophecy of strife afflicting the British churches, which, Bede notes,
was fulfilled.
Despite this failure and the period of apostasy after his death on May 26, 604,
and the death of Aethelberht, Augustine’s mission was of great importance for the
history of Christianity in England. He successfully restored connections between
England and Rome. He baptized many Anglo-Saxons, including the king of Kent,
established a network of bishops, built a monastery, and restored many churches
that had fallen into disuse and disrepair. Indeed, as the epitaph on his tomb notes,
the first archbishop of Canterbury “supported by God with miracles guided King
Aethelberht and his people from the worship of idols to the faith of Christ.” (Bede
1981, 105).
See also: Aethelberht I of Kent; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Brunhilde; Constantine; Gregory the
Great; Merovingian Dynasty; Rome
 Augustine of Hippo, St. | 81

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Uni-
versity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Augustine of Hippo, St. (354–430)

The greatest of the Latin church fathers. Augustine’s influence extended from late
antiquity into the early Middle Ages and beyond. His voluminous writings, of more
than 5 million words, shaped much of the intellectual culture of barbarian Europe.
His autobiography, polemical and theological works, sermons, and other treatises
shaped how early medieval ecclesiastics from Caesarius of Arles to Alcuin under-
stood the faith. Early medieval writers also looked to Augustine for instruction on
how to interpret and teach Scripture. It was not only learned ecclesiastics, but also
the barbarian kings of the early Middle Ages who were influenced by Augustine’s
ideas. If Charlemagne’s biographer, Einhard, is to be believed, one of the great
king’s favorite books was the City of God, which, for the king and his advisors, may
have offered a model of the just earthly society.
Augustine was born in Thagaste in North Africa (now Souk Ahras, Algeria) in
354 to parents, Patricius and Monnica, who belonged to the lower aristocracy, and
was probably their only child. He was educated in the traditional Roman fashion,
and was sent to the best schools his father could afford, including those in the great
city of the province, Carthage. There was little remarkable about his youth, except,
as Augustine notes in his autobiographical work Confessions, for his theft of some
pears with his friends. As a young adult he acquired a mistress who bore him a son,
Adeodatus, and, much to his Christian mother’s dismay, he converted to Manichae-
anism, a religion that taught the belief in a good god and a bad god and held that
the material world was evil because it was created by the bad god. He remained a
Manichaean until his conversion to Christianity in Milan in 386.
Having developed a reputation as a teacher in Thagaste and Carthage, Augustine
had moved to Milan in 384 to find a position at the imperial court. While there he
met the archbishop, Ambrose, and converted to Christianity. After his conversion,
he returned to Africa, without his mistress or the woman to whom he had become
engaged while in Milan, and hoped to live the quiet life of a Christian scholar. He
was ordained a priest in 391 and in 395 made bishop of Hippo, a promotion that
82 | Augustine of Hippo, St.

St. Augustine of Hippo. (Library of Congress)

forced him to consider the meaning of his new faith and write On Christian Doc-
trine and Confessions. As bishop he was involved with fighting a number of re-
ligious heresies, administering the diocese, and preaching. Over his long career,
he wrote numerous sermons, which provided an important outlet to develop his
theology.
In 413, he began his greatest work, City of God, a Christian apology inspired
by the Visigoths’ sack of Rome in 410. This massive work contains philosophies
of history and politics, a defense of Christian belief, and profound Christian theol-
ogy. It tells, among other things, the history of the tragedies that befell the Roman
Empire before the sack of Rome, which the pagans blamed on Christianity, to prove
that the pagans were wrong and to comfort Christians who questioned their belief
in the face of disaster. Augustine spent his last years administering his diocese,
struggling against one final heresy, and reexamining his many written works. He
died on August 28, 430, as the Vandals began to threaten Augustine’s city of Hippo,
which they sacked in 431.
 Augustine of Hippo, St. | 83

Shortly after his death, Augustine’s writings, together with his relics, were
moved from his native Africa to Italy and from there continued to shape intellec-
tual life for centuries after. His influence on the cultural life of Europe can be mea-
sured by the many ecclesiastics who borrowed from his writings and the libraries
where his works were found. Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636), the late Roman bishop
and encyclopedist, who was influential in the Visigothic courts of Spain, borrowed
heavily from the principles Augustine laid out in his work On Christian Doctrine,
which advocated the use of classical learning in the service of the Christian faith.
In the seventh century, the works of Augustine were deposited in numerous mon-
asteries in the Merovingian kingdom of the Franks. And in the eighth century, the
Anglo-Saxon missionary, Boniface, recognized the authority of Augustine as a bib-
lical commentator, and the bishop of Hippo’s influence can be detected in the work
of the great Anglo-Saxon scholar Bede. But the extent of Augustine’s influence is
perhaps best revealed in the Carolingian Renaissance.
Manuscript copies of his works were found in most Carolingian libraries, and
of particular importance was the library at Lyons, which was a virtual Augustine
research center. Augustine’s treatise on Christian doctrine was the foundation for
Carolingian educational ideas, and his influence can be seen on the works of the
greatest Carolingian teacher, the Anglo-Saxon scholar Alcuin. Finally, the great
debate over predestination begun by Gottschalk of Orbais in the mid-ninth century
involved competing interpretations of Augustine’s works.
Augustine’s influence was felt beyond the intellectual realm, however, since
his ideas also affected the political realm, especially during the Carolingian age.
Einhard, in his biography of Charlemagne, noted that the great king of the Franks
enjoyed hearing excerpts from the City of God read during his banquets. Indeed,
it has been suggested that Charlemagne’s, or at least his advisors’, ideas of gov-
ernment were inspired by a reading of Augustine’s works. Although the ques-
tion of whether Augustine intended to provide a blueprint for the just Christian
society in his great work remains open, many of his readers saw such a blueprint
and worked to establish it. Political Augustinianism was an important influence
in early medieval society and involved a number of key concepts touched on by
the great bishop in the City of God. The City of God describes the existence of
two “cities” on earth—the city of God, whose members are virtuous, and the
earthly city, whose members are corrupt. Augustine explains that the two societies
coexist but that the only true and just city is the heavenly one. Implicit, however,
in his discussion is the notion that a society could be just if it were ruled by a
Christian monarch, and it is this implication that may have inspired Charlemagne
and his advisors, such as Alcuin.
See also: Alaric; Alcuin of York; Bede; Boniface, St.; Caesarius of Arles; Carolingian
Renaissance; Charlemagne; Einhard; Gottschalk of Orbais; Isidore of Seville; Merovingian
Dynasty; Vandals; Visigoths
84 | Austrasia

Bibliography
Augustine. Confessions: Books I–XIII. Trans. Francis J. Sheed. Indianapolis: Hackett,
1993.
Augustine. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Trans. Henry Bettenson.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. Trans. Donald W. Robertson, Jr. New York:
Macmillan, 1958.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1967.
Deane, Herbert. The Political and Social Ideas of Saint Augustine. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1964.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
O’Donnell, James J. Augustine. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1985.
Wills, Gary. Saint Augustine. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Austrasia

The “eastern land” or “eastern realm,” Austrasia was the northeastern part of the
Frankish kingdom and included parts of modern day Belgium, France, Germany
and Luxembourg. Its territory stretched from near the Seine to the Rhine and in-
cluded the Meuse and Moselle River valleys. The capital of the region was Metz
and Trier, Cologne, and Mainz were its other major cities and episcopal sees. The
homeland of the Ripuarian or Rhineland Franks, Austrasia was the birthplace of the
Carolingian dynasty and one of the three major regions that made up the Frankish
kingdom.
Austrasia was first established as the core of the kingdom of the Ripuarian Franks
in the fifth century and was made part of the growing Merovingian kingdom by
Clovis (r. 489–511). After the death of Clovis, Austrasia emerged as one of the
kingdoms, along with Neustria and Burgundy, that was divided between Clovis’s
successors. It had its own king and mayor of the palace and followed a different
path of development than the other kingdoms. Austrasia was less Romanized than
the other regions and was more Germanic in language and custom. The Austras-
ians spoke the Germanic Frankish language, rather than Latin or Romance, and
possessed their own law code, the Lex Ripuaria. It was from Austrasia that the
Franks expanded into regions such as Alemannia, Bavaria, and Thuringia.
Throughout much of the sixth and seventh centuries, the Austrasians and Neus-
trians engaged in bloody conflict for dominance in the larger Frankish realm.
Following the overthrow of the queen Brunhilde in 613, Austrasia and Neustria
were united under Chlotar II who, in 623, appointed his son Dagobert as king in
Austrasia. The office of mayor of the palace emerged at this point, and the roots
 Avars | 85

of the Carolingian dynasty were established in Austrasia in the early seventh

century. In 687, the Austrasian mayor, Pippin I of Landen defeated his Neustrian
rival at the battle of Tertry and reestablished the preeminence of Austrasia in
the Frankish kingdom. In 751, Pippin’s grandson, Pippin the Short overthrew
the last of the Merovingian kings and was crowned the first king of the Franks.
In the late eighth century, Charlemagne built his imperial capital in Austrasia at
Aix-la-Chapelle, preserving the importance of the region in the Carolingian em-
pire. Under the later Carolingians, Austrasia was incorporated into the central
kingdom of Lotharingia.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Chlotar II;
Clovis I; Dagobert; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen;
Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Tertry, Battle of

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany the Transformation of the Merovingian
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Avars

An amalgamation of peoples from the central steppes of Europe, the Avars were
a late arrival among the barbarian peoples who were the successors of the West-
ern Roman Empire. They were skilled horsemen, who may have had an impor-
tant impact on the development of military technology in the early Middle Ages,
and successful warriors. Although less well known than their relatives the Huns,
they had similar success in threatening the established kingdoms of their day and
greater success in creating a permanent kingdom. They were seen as a threat by the
Byzantine Empire and caused difficulty for the Franks before their great capital was
destroyed by Charlemagne’s armies.
The exact origins of the Avars remain uncertain. They have been identified with
the Juan-Juan, a group of tribes in Mongolia, and with a tribal group of Afghanistan,
the Ephthalites. There is, however, general agreement that at some time in the mid-
sixth century, the Avars were pushed out of their homeland by the Turks. They
appear in the historical record in 558, when an Avar embassy arrived in Constan-
tinople and met with the emperor Justinian. They settled not long after that in the
region of modern Hungary.
On their arrival, the Avars were welcomed by the Byzantines, who needed
allies along their eastern frontier, but they quickly wore out their welcome. They
86 | Avars

demanded land and other privileges from Emperor Justinian, who offered them
some gifts but insisted they prove themselves before he made any major conces-
sions. They very quickly subdued several nomadic steppe tribes and thus dem-
onstrated their abilities. By 562 they made further demands for territory from
Justinian, who agreed to give them land west of modern Belgrade. They had
wanted other territory, and the two powers were on the verge of war when the
Avars turned their attention for the first time to the Franks. For the next genera-
tion they continued their westward efforts. By the 580s, with Slavic subjects and
allies, the Avars turned their attention to Byzantine territory in the Balkans. They
extended their influence into the Balkans and posed a serious threat to the em-
pire, which they forced out of the region of the Danube River in 602. In 626, with
the Slavs and new Persian allies, the Avars pressed on and threatened the city of
Constantinople. The siege failed, and the Avars lost ground to the Byzantines, as
well as to the Bulgars and other Slavs who were supported by the empire. The
Avars showed their first sign of decline in the face of their defeat and the Slavic
rebellions. These losses of ground were the first sign of decline for the Avars. They
subsequently posed less of a problem for the Byzantines, even though occasional
battles took place for decades to come.
The Avars made their mark not only on the Byzantine Empire but also on the
kingdom of the Franks and other powers in the former Western Roman Empire. In
562, rather than launch an attack on the Byzantine Empire, the Avars turned their
attention westward to make their strength known in that region. They attacked the
Merovingian kingdom of Austrasia in 562 but were turned back by the king Sigebert
(r. 560/561–575). But in 565 or 566, the Avars attacked Sigebert’s kingdom again
and defeated him. According to Gregory of Tours, the Avars won the second battle
because they “made a number of phantom figures dance before [the Franks’] eyes
and so beat them easily” (29). Sigebert gave them many gifts and agreed to a treaty
with them. Following this success, the Avars, in 567, joined with the Lombards to
destroy the Gepid kingdom. The Lombards, uncertain of Avar intentions, moved
into Italy, leaving the Avars the main power along the Danube River.
Although they turned their attention elsewhere, the Avars returned to their strug-
gle with the Franks in the early seventh century. They had some success in the
early seventh century, but an alliance of Franks and Saxons led by King Dagobert
pushed them out of eastern Frankish territory in the Rhineland. Again in the eighth
century, the Avars and the Franks were at war when the Avars invaded the kingdom
and destroyed the city of Lorch and its surrounding territory in 711. They launched
another campaign into Frankish territories in 740 and were decisively defeated.
This marked the end of their period of aggression and the beginning of the end
of their kingdom. They now faced the expansionistic policies of the Carolingian
dynasty and its greatest member, Charlemagne. He directed an eight-year war
against the Avars from 788 to 796 that led to the destruction of the kingdom and
 Avars | 87

its great capital. According to Einhard, the entire Avar “nobility died in this war,
all their glory departed” (67). He noted further that the Avars had unjustly acquired
their wealth and that Charlemagne justly took it from them in a war that brought
the Franks more wealth than any other war.
Although the Avars disappeared in the face of the Carolingian attack, they left
an important legacy. According to some historians, the Avars introduced important
military technology to Europe. The Avars may have used an iron stirrup. The stir-
rup improved the fighting ability of soldiers on horseback by making them more
secure and steady in the saddle. With the stirrup, they could more effectively wield
their lances. The Byzantines, who made contact with them before other peoples
around the Mediterranean, adopted the iron stirrup for their cavalry by 600, but the
stirrup only gradually made its appearance in the barbarian kingdoms. The Avars
also used a composite bow in battle that was more effective than other bows, and
skilled Avar riders at full gallop could shoot up to twenty arrows a minute. The
arrows had heavy three-winged heads and could be fired up to 1500 feet. The
bow was shorter than most other simple bows and was made of layers of horn,
sinew, and wood that were glued together and reinforced with bone. Although very
effective for the Avars, the bows were not widely used by other peoples because
they were difficult to produce.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Dagobert; Einhard; Franks; Gregory of
Tours; Huns; Justinian; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1982.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper and
Row, 1962.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
B
Badon Hill, Battle of (fifth century)

Traditionally associated with the legendary King Arthur, the battle of Badon Hill
or Mount Badon (Mons Badonicus) was an important episode in the invasion of
England by the Saxons in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. Although the exact
date and location of the battle remain uncertain, the early English sources agree
that it was a major battle that slowed the progress of the Saxon invaders. The sixth-
century chronicler and cleric, Gildas, notes that the battle was the last in a series of
indecisive battles, won sometimes by Britons and sometimes by Saxons, before the
Britons inflicted great slaughter on their enemies at Badon Hill. Gildas, however,
observes that England remained a troubled land after his battle. Although he does
not name the commander directly, Gildas implies that the victor at Badon Hill was
not Arthur but rather the late Roman general Ambrosius Aurelianus.
In the eighth century, the great scholar Bede confirmed the account of Gildas
and identified Aurelianus as the victorious general. Writing in the eighth century,
the chronicler Nennius identified the victor at Badon Hill as Arthur. According to
Nennius, the kings of the Britons, lead by Arthur, fought 12 battles against the in-
vading Saxons. The last of these battles was fought at Badon Hill, where Arthur
personally slew 960 of the enemy and single-handedly won the battle. Despite his
victory at Badon Hill and elsewhere, Arthur was only able to delay the inevitable,
and, as Nennius explains, the Saxons continued to attract kings from Germany who
would come to rule over the Britons.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Bede; King Arthur

Bibliography
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Littlefield, 1972.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-
Price. Revised R. E. Latham. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1968.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
Giles, J. A. ed. Six Old English Chronicles, of which Two are Now First Translated from
the Monkish Latin Originals: Ethelwerd’s Chronicle; Asser’s Life of Alfred; Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s British History; Gildas; Nennius; and Richard of Cirencester. London: H. G.
Bohn, 1848.

89
90 | Balthild, St.

Balthild, St. (d. 680)

Wife of King Clovis II (639–657) and regent of Chlotar III (657–683), Balthild was
an important figure in the Merovingian kingdom of the second half of the seventh
century. A saint, whose feast is celebrated on January 30, Balthild was also a shrewd
political leader who successfully guided her son’s regency and implemented impor-
tant political and religious reforms. Often compared with the Merovingian queen
Brunhilde (d. 613), Balthild could be as ruthless as her predecessor when family in-
terests were at stake, but Balthild was not quite so brutal as the earlier Merovingian
queen. Indeed, even when their policies seem most similar, Balthild seems to have
been motivated less by simple power politics than Brunhilde. Balthild also seemed
genuinely committed to the reform of the Frankish church and, according to her
biographer, was a devout and pious member of the convent where she spent her last
years. Her hagiography, or saint’s life, The Life of Saint Balthild or The Life of the
Lady Balthild, written by a member of her community at Chelles, is the primary
source for our knowledge of Balthild’s life.
Little is known of Balthild’s early life. Her biographer notes that before her mar-
riage to Clovis II she had an “admirable and pious religious way of life” and that she
was “kind in her heart, temperate and prudent” (Vita Domnae Balthildis, 119). She
was described as an Anglo-Saxon slave, who was purchased by a Frankish noble to
serve at his court. Indeed, so attractive were her personality and appearance that, as
her biographer tell us, the noble desired to marry her, but she resisted. “By the true
will of God” (120) she eventually married Clovis, son of the great king Dagobert I,
and bore him the future kings Chlotar II (584–629) and Childeric II (662–675).
She apparently had little direct influence during her husband’s reign and lived a
life of piety and religious devotion. Her husband recognized this and granted her
as a servant Abbot Genisius, who assisted her in works of charity, including dona-
tions of food and clothing to the poor as well as grants of money to churches and
monasteries.
After Clovis’s death in 657, however, Balthild assumed the regency for her
son Chlotar III and exercised much power and influence throughout the kingdom.
She may also have been instrumental in the reunification of the three parts of the
Merovingian kingdom, Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Under his mother’s
regency, Chlotar assumed authority over Neustria, and Balthild’s close ties with
important abbots and bishops in Burgundy strengthened the connection between
Neustria and Burgundy. She also appointed a new mayor of the palace for Neustria,
further extending her authority in the realm. She also arranged the marriage of her
son Childeric with an important noblewoman in Austrasia in 622. The marriage and
Balthild’s connection with Austrasian nobles paved the way for Childeric’s ascen-
sion to the Austrasian throne.
 Balthild, St. | 91

Balthild’s political success was due in part to the good relationship she had with
the clergy in the Merovingian kingdom. She was by all accounts pious and deeply
committed to the reform of the Frankish church. She was an ardent supporter of the
cult of the saints, and she also actively collected the relics of the saints, perhaps to
gain the saints’ support for her family. As regent, Balthild was actively involved in
the daily affairs of the church and its hierarchy. She appointed bishops to their sees
and to important positions in the regency government.
Although she has been blamed for the death of nine bishops, Balthild should
not be compared too closely with Brunhilde in this matter. As regent, Balthild was
responsible for executions, but only after the letter of the law had been followed;
apparently, she never acted arbitrarily. Indeed, any executions she ordered were
to preserve the peace and order of the kingdom. Moreover, despite the sugges-
tion that some of these bishops were martyred, Balthild’s relationships with the
bishops were not that bad, and the appointments she made were uniformly good
bishops. She also, unlike Brunhilde, was an active opponent of simony and a
strong supporter of religious reform. She promoted the more stringent monasti-
cism of the Irish missionaries and founded monasteries, including one at Chelles
that followed the pattern of Luxeuil, which had been founded by the great Irish
saint Columban. To strengthen monasticism in the kingdom, she ordered that
certain monasteries be exempted from episcopal jurisdiction, an act that surely
alienated some bishops in her kingdom but also found much support from the
bishops as a whole.
By the mid-660s, Balthild had ruled effectively and proved a successful re-
gent for her son, Chlotar, who reached his majority in 664. In that year or the
year after, 665, Balthild fell from power. According to the author of the saint’s
life, Balthild lost power because of her opposition to the murder of the bishop
of Paris, Sigobrand. Her struggle against the nobles responsible for the murder
proved unsuccessful, however, and she was deposed and allowed to enter the
woman’s monastery she founded at Chelles. She stayed at Chelles until her death
in circa 680. Although she may have felt the convent to be a prison, Balthild’s
hagiographer assures the reader that the queen was a model of pious devotion at
the monastery. She exhibited “great humility,” “joy,” and a “cheerful heart” even
when cleaning the kitchen or the latrines (127). Her piety was so great that as her
death approached, according to the author of The Life of Saint Balthild, she re-
ceived a vision in which she ascended a stairway leading to Mary. Although she
lived her final years secluded in a monastery in a sort of internal exile, Balthild
left an important mark on the Merovingian kingdom, its ruling dynasty, and its
church.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Austrasia; Brunhilde; Columban, St.; Dagobert; Merovingian
Dynasty; Neustria
92 | Barbarian Art

Bibliography
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Vita Domnai Balthildis (The Life of Lady
Balthild, Queen of the Franks). In Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography,
640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996, pp. 47–132.
Nelson, Janet L. “Queens as Jezebels: The Careers of Brunhild and Balthild in
Merovingian History.” In Medieval Women. Ed. Derek Baker. Oxford: Blackwell, 1978,
pp. 31–77.
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, ca. 500–
1100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 451–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Barbarian Art

The product of the various peoples who entered the Roman world in late antiquity
and then established successor kingdoms during the early Middle Ages, barbarian
art was often highly stylized and quite accomplished. Indeed, the label barbarian
or barbarian art in some ways demeans the quality of the works that Germanic
and other peoples created from the fourth to ninth centuries. Works of art were pro-
duced in various media. These artists produced works in ivory and precious metals
and gems, creating beautiful book covers of carved ivory or metalwork and jewelry
of gold and silver. Weapons, too, were created as works of art. Some of the most
impressive examples of barbarian or early medieval art, however, are found in the
manuscript illuminations that were produced in monasteries throughout Europe.
Both the covers and illustrations of early medieval manuscripts reveal a high level
of skill and a well-developed aesthetic sensibility. Barbarian art drew its inspiration
from various sources and, especially after the initial period of contact and conver-
sion, mixed Christian, Germanic, and Roman influences to create a distinctive and
often beautiful artistic style.
The most predominant form of artistic expression of the migration period and
into the early post-Roman period was in metalwork. Artists and artisans created
exquisite pieces of jewelry—earrings, rings, bracelets, and brooches—and other
things, such as belt buckles, to adorn clothing and the body. There were several
categories of the design of metalwork during the migration period. Some pieces
were simply abstract and geometric in design; other styles were more clearly
representational, and the decoration of the jewelry and other metalwork included
animal patterns. The representational, animal style is generally classified in one
of two categories, Style I or Style II. Style I, which originated in northern Europe
and spread into France by the sixth century, arranged parts of animals or complete
but compact animals in a decorative pattern in the metalwork. The ribbon animal
 Barbarian Art | 93

Brooch earrings, bracelets, and Visigothic jewelry, 621–672. (The Art Archive/
Archaeological Museum Madrid)

style, Style II, was a Lombard innovation that spread to other peoples, and it placed
animal figures in elongated, intertwined, continuous, and symmetrical patterns in
the metalwork. These traditional designs mixed and mingled with Roman influ-
ences, especially among the Visigoths and Lombards, as the various Germanic
peoples settled in the former Western Empire and came into fuller contact with
Roman artistic traditions.
Other forms of metalwork include the work done in bronze and other base metals,
used for adorning soldiers. A polychrome cloisonné style, which developed by the
fourth century and employed gold and precious gems, was also popular. The poly-
chrome style was used in brooches and to decorate the swords and other weapons
of kings and nobles. Gold was also employed by late antique and early medieval
artisans to decorate book covers, especially of the more important manuscripts in a
monastic, cathedral, or royal library. Borrowing the techniques and styles used for
jewelry and other metalwork, craftsmen decorated book covers with figures in gold
and other metals, and incorporated precious gems to further enhance the beauty
94 | Barbarian Art

and value of the book and its cover. Because many of the covers were for books
of the Bible and other religious texts, the scenes on the covers were often drawn
from the history of the church and from the religious texts themselves. Especially
popular were decorations portraying Christ in majesty, with the four Evangelists
represented by their symbols.
Another medium in which early medieval artists were skilled is ivory, which
was used for decoration of book covers as well as liturgical objects. The style of
the carved miniatures that adorned important books in the early Middle Ages was
at first a continuation of ancient Roman styles. The artists borrowed both tech-
nique and subject matter from their Roman predecessors, but as time went on, they
began to develop their own unique styles. The carvings often displayed scenes
from the Gospels, Psalms, and other books of the Bible. The carvings themselves
reveal variation in style, technique, and talent. Some ivory carvings are noteworthy
for their monumental quality, even though they were done on a miniature scale,
and others are characterized by more animated figures that recall the illumina-
tions found inside the books. They also reveal the mingling of Christian, Roman,
and Germanic influences. The covers often included scenes from the Christian
Scriptures or history that were modeled on Roman or Byzantine precedents. The
artists also often included decorative borders with geometric or floral patterns.
Ivory carvings also adorned reliquaries and other small containers, various liturgi-
cal objects such as crosiers, and even larger architectural items, such as the doors
of Santa Sabina in Rome.
Among the most characteristic and magnificent products of early medieval
artists are the manuscript illuminations that decorated many of the great books of
the period. Although mural painting was practiced, few examples survive—one
important exception is the mural from the church of Theodulf of Orléans, which
portrays the story of the Ark of the Covenant and reveals Theodulf’s sophisticated
theory of art—to allow us to judge them, in contrast to the manuscript illumina-
tions. Particularly by the Carolingian period, manuscript illuminators had achieved
a highly developed style that merged Christian, Roman, and German traditions, just
as the artists in ivory had. Numerous psalters, gospels, and other important texts
received luxurious illuminations.
Subjects included Jesus, Mary, the saints and apostles, and other important
figures in the history of the church such as the popes. By the Carolingian age,
subjects included kings and emperors, including Louis the Pious, Charles the
Bald, and Lothar. The illustrations portraying the monarchs stressed key politi-
cal ideas, emphasizing the religious nature and divine origin of kingship. The
illustrations often borrowed from classical models, and some clearly repeat their
Roman predecessors, but others reveal a more unique and individual spirit. The
illuminations, in many colors and sometimes highlighted with gold, are often
dramatic and stately.
 Barbarian Art | 95

Ark of the Covenant from the Oratory of Theodulf (mosaic). (Peter Willi/The Bridge-
man Art Library)

Individual letters in the text were sometimes decorated. These letters, the so-
called historiated capitals, included images that captured a brief incident or scene
or were decorated with abstract designs or floral patterns. The miniatures also in-
cluded the kind of abstract or geometric ornamentation in the borders and through-
out the main image that had been popular in the migration period. Some images as
well include the dramatic movement and expression that the migration-period peo-
ples seemed to favor. But Roman styles also shaped the illuminations and defined
the way individuals like Louis the Pious or the Evangelist Matthew were portrayed:
the former as a Roman ruler, the latter as a classical scribe.
See also: Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Clothing; Franks;
Ivories; Jewelry and Gems; Lombards; Lothar; Louis the Pious; Weapons and Armor;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Beckwith, John. Early Medieval Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Grabar, André. Early Medieval Painting from the Fourth to the Eleventh Century.
Lausanne: Skira, 1957.
Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. The Carolingian Renaissance.
New York: George Braziller, 1970.
96 | Basil the Great, St.

Lasko, Peter. Ars Sacra 800–1200. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: Northwest Europe before Charlemagne.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Mütherich, Florentine, and Joachim E. Gaehde. Carolingian Painting. New York: George
Braziller, 1976.
Ross, Marvin, and Philippe Verdier. Arts of the Migration Period in the Walters Art Gal-
lery. Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery, 1961.
Snyder, James. Medieval Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, 4th–14th Century.
New York: Harry Abrams, 1989.

Basil the Great, St. (330–379)

One of the Cappadocian Fathers and a doctor of the church, Basil the Great, or
Basil of Caesarea, played an important role in the development of orthodox Chris-
tian belief and practice. A skilled administrator, Basil served as bishop of Caesarea,
staunchly opposed Arianism, and left an important body of writings on various
religious topics. He was also an ardent supporter of monasticism and made great
contributions to its development and dissemination.
Born in Caesarea, the capital of Cappadocia to a prominent Christian family
of long standing (his grandfather was forced to flee during the persecutions of the
early fourth century), Basil had connections to both the ecclesiastical and literary
elite of his day. One uncle was a bishop, and Basil’s father, Basil the Elder, was
an orator and lawyer. The younger Basil followed in his father’s footsteps and was
given the best education of late antiquity, studying at Caesarea and then Constan-
tinople and Athens. After beginning a secular career, Basil turned to the religious
life, in part influenced by his sister Macrina. In 357–358, Basil visited a number of
ascetic communities and colonies of hermits in search of spiritual guidance. Most
impressed by the communal monastic life of St. Pachomius, Basil returned home to
establish a small monastery on a family estate at Annesi with a number of friends.
Although closely associated with the monastic life, Basil had a very public career
even after establishing his community. In 360, he was called to assist the bishop
of Caesarea at the council of Constantinople, in part because of his deep learning
and commitment to the orthodox faith. He was consecrated a presbyter in 362 and,
after a breach of a few years, served the bishop from 365 to 370. Becoming bishop
himself in 370, Basil defended the Nicene faith against rival ecclesiastics and the
pro-Arian emperor Valens, who sought to force Basil’s submission to imperial com-
mands. As metropolitan of Cappadocia, Basil promoted other opponents of Arian-
ism to the bishoprics under his authority and strongly advocated Nicene teachings
in his own sermons. The death of Valens at the battle of Hadrianople in 378 opened
the door for the victory of Nicene teachings, but Basil’s strong support for Nicene
 Basil the Great, St. | 97

orthodoxy was critical to its long-term success and his defense of orthodoxy is one
of Basil’s lasting legacies.
A strong supporter of orthodox teachings, Basil is perhaps best known for his
influence on monasticism, and it was at the community of Annesi that Basil first
developed his ideas on monastic life and practice. Although not composing a for-
mal rule like the Rule of St. Benedict, Basil did compile the so-called Longer and
Shorter Rules, which are collections of his writings on monastic life assembled
in response to concerns raised by fellow monks. His vision of the religious life
stressed the communal over the eremitical to avoid the excesses of the solitary life
of spiritual competition and to stress brotherly love and sociability of humanity.
This emphasis on community can be seen in Basil’s placement of monasteries in or
near cities, rather than in the desert, so that the laity could experience the monas-
tic life. Basil’s form of monasticism also shaped the relationship between the head
of the community and the monks, stressing the absolute obedience to the abbot as
a means to emphasize humility and the imitation of Christ who obeyed God and
accepted his Passion. Another influential innovation of Basil was his emphasis on
work as a way toward spiritual perfection and as a means to make the monastery
self-sufficient.
Along with his monastic writings, Basil left an important body of theological
and liturgical works that shaped Christian teaching and further incorporated the
Greek cultural and philosophical tradition into Christian thought. His writings
include the Hexameron, a commentary on the six days of creation, On the Holy
Spirit, and anti-Arian treatise Against Eunomius. His numerous letters—some 300
still exist—address topics of daily living, theology, and ethical behavior, and his
epistles on matters of clerical discipline have become part of canon law. Although
revised in later days, the Liturgy of St. Basil, a eucharistic service, originally com-
piled by its namesake continues to be used by the Eastern Orthodox churches of
the world.
See also: Arianism; Caesarea; Constantinople; Monasticism; Valens

Bibliography
Harmless, J. William. “Monasticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Stud-
ies. Eds. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008, pp. 493–517.
Hildebrand, Stephen M. The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of
Greek Thought and Biblical Faith. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America,
2009.
Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea; Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation
of Divine Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Rousseau, Philip. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Silvas, Anna M. The Asketikon of St. Basil the Great. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
98 | Bede

Bede (c. 673–735)

Traditionally known as the Venerable Bede, Bede is the most important and influ-
ential Anglo-Saxon scholar and the most important scholar of the period from the
death of Pope Gregory I, called the Great, to the coronation of Charlemagne in
800, a period sometimes known as the Age of Bede. He was a monk at the com-
munities of Wearmouth and Jarrow, which were founded by Benedict Biscop. He
was a devout monk who seldom traveled far from his Northumbrian monastery.
He was also an accomplished writer and teacher, whose values were transmitted
to the Carolingian world by his most famous admirer, Alcuin. He popularized
the anno Domini dating system and had great influence on the practice of bibli-
cal exegesis and history writing. He wrote numerous commentaries on Scripture
and other works, but his most famous work is A History of the English Church
and People.
Much of what is known of Bede comes from an autobiographical note at the end
of his history. Born probably in 673 on lands that later belonged to the monastery
of Wearmouth, Bede tells us that he was sent to that monastery at the age of seven.
He later joined Abbot Ceolfrith at the monastery of Jarrow, which he ruled, together
with nearby Wearmouth, after its founder, Benedict Biscop, died. In the anonymous
life of Abbot Ceolfrith, we learn that a young boy, generally believed to be Bede,
was one of the only survivors, with the abbot, of a plague that struck Jarrow in 686.
Bede helped the abbot sing the canonical hours after the disaster and retained a great
love for the hours throughout the rest of his life. In a story told by Alcuin, Bede is
once supposed to have said, “I know that angels visit the congregation of brethren
at the canonical hours, and what if they should not find me among the brethren?
Would they not say, ‘Where is Bede?’ ”
Bede himself tells us that he spent his entire life in the monastery, although he
did visit the abbey of Lindisfarne and other monasteries, as well as the archbishop
of York and King Ceolwulf of Northumbria, who was a patron of learning and
who became a monk shortly after Bede’s death. He also notes that he became a
deacon at age 19 and a priest at age 30 and that he “observed the regular disci-
pline [of a monk] and sung the choir offices daily in church” (Bede 1981, 336).
Although devoted to the monastic life, he explains that his greatest pleasure came
from “study, teaching, and writing” (336). From the age of 30 until the age of 59
he “worked, both for my own benefit and that of my brethren, to compile short
extracts from the works of the venerable Fathers on Holy Scripture and to com-
ment on their meaning and interpretation” (336). He lists these works in his au-
tobiographical note, and they include commentaries on the books of the Hebrew
Bible and Christian Scriptures, letters, saints’ lives, a history, a martyrology, and
a book on hymns.
He continued writing and teaching until his death, four years after writing his
autobiographical note. His last work, which he left unfinished when he died on
 Bede | 99

A page from the Anglo-Saxon theologian Venerable Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis
Anglorum (A History of the English Church and People), completed around 731. (The British
Library Board)

May 25, 735, was an Old English translation of the Gospel of John. He was buried
in the south porch of the monastery church but later moved to the main altar. His
fame continued long after his death and was the cause of the theft of his relics in
1020. His bones were stolen by a monk of Durham, who buried them at the shrine to
100 | Bede

St. Cuthbert in Durham. They were later encased in a gold and silver reliquary,
and during the Reformation, when the monasteries were pillaged and closed by
Henry VIII, his relics were allegedly transferred to the Holy Land.
Bede’s fame rests on his talents as biblical commentator, teacher, and historian.
He left a great legacy to the generations that followed and had a marked influence
on the Carolingian Renaissance because of his writing and teaching. In the Middle
Ages, he was perhaps best known for his biblical commentaries. He wrote some
24 commentaries on the books of the Bible in an elegant, almost classical Latin,
mainly line-by-line explanations of biblical texts, which were commissioned by
Bishop Acca of Hexham. Most of his exegetical work is on the books of the Hebrew
Bible, including commentaries on Genesis, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Daniel, and
Job. He wrote commentaries on the Gospels of Mark and John as well as works
on the Epistles and Apocalypse of John. His commentaries on the books of the
Bible employed allegorical interpretation of the literal events recorded in Scripture.
He borrowed from numerous Christian fathers, including St. Augustine of Hippo,
St. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory the Great. Although he often read his sources in
compendia rather than the original texts, Bede was very familiar with Jerome’s
Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate.
His talents as a teacher are revealed in two ways. First, they are demonstrated
by the importance of his students and the students of his students, such as Alcuin.
His talents, along with his interest in teaching, are also revealed in numerous
works written as instructional aids. In fact, all his works, including the lives of
St. Cuthbert and of the abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow, have a didactic purpose.
He wrote three little books designed specifically for teaching students in monas-
tic schools, one book on spelling and two books on poetry. The books on poetry
include a collection of commentaries on an ancient Latin book of grammar and
a book in which Bede discusses the language of the Bible. He wrote a book on
natural phenomena, influenced by Isidore of Seville, which discusses earthquakes,
storms, the planets, stars, and the heavens. He was also a master of the important
monastic art of computus, the science of calculating dates in the calendar, most
importantly Easter. His first attempt to explain this science, written in 703, led
to charges of heresy against Bede, which he vigorously denounced in a letter to
another monk. A second work, De temporum ratione, was much less controver-
sial and much more successful. It became the standard introduction to the science
of computus, and through it the practice of dating from the birth of Jesus Christ,
rather than from the beginning of the world, became commonplace in medieval
Europe.
Bede’s most important and well-known work, however, is his History of the
English Church and People, which he completed in 731. True to his concerns as
a teacher, Bede wrote his history so that his reader could follow the good exam-
ples therein and act in ways pleasing to God. Organized in five books, the History
 Bede | 101

traces the events from the time of Roman Britain, through the period of invasions,
the deeds of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and the establishment of Roman Christianity
in England. The arrival and triumph of Roman Christianity is one of the important
themes of the book and includes some of his more memorable stories, including
the tale of Gregory the Great’s decision to evangelize England, and the tale of the
Synod of Whitby in 664.
The work itself is a true history and not a simple chronicle of events, of the
kind his predecessors and contemporaries had compiled. It was an immensely
popular work throughout the Middle Ages because of Bede’s powerful style
and command of the Latin language. He also was most skilled at handling his
sources, and although he included miraculous events, he was a critical reader of
his sources. He sifted through a variety of eyewitness, oral, and written tradi-
tions and borrowed from writers such as Orosius and Pliny. His History was so
popular that it was translated into Old English during the reign of King Alfred
the Great, and his talents as a historian so great that he has been called the father
of English history.
Bede was truly one of the great teachers and writers of the early Middle Ages.
A devout monk and ardent supporter of Roman Christianity, Bede was venerated
in his own time and is still venerated in ours for his many talents and faith. In 1899
he was declared a Doctor of the Church, and in 1935 he was declared a saint. His
tomb in Durham, pillaged in 1541, remains a site of veneration.
See also: Alcuin of York; Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Benedict
Biscop; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Isidore of Se-
ville; Northumbrian Renaissance

Bibliography
Bede. Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. Lawrence Martin. Kalamazoo,
MI: Cistercian Publications, 1989.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Brown, George Hardin. Bede the Venerable. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1987.
Farmer, David H. The Age of Bede. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1998.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500–900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Lapidge, Michael. Bede and His World: The Jarrow Lectures, 1958–1993. 2 Vols.
Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1994.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth to the Eighth
Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
102 | Belisarius

Belisarius (c. 500–565)

Leading general and loyal supporter of Justinian for more than 40 years, Belisarius
fought numerous campaigns against the Persians, the Vandals in Africa, and the
Goths in Italy. Completely loyal to Justinian throughout his life, despite the sus-
picions held by the emperor that sent Belisarius into disgrace, the general helped
save Justinian during the Nika Revolt and was critical to Justinian’s efforts to recon-
quer Italy and other sections of the Western Empire that were governed at that time
by barbarian kings. His successes, however, sometimes worsened Justinian’s fears
about his powerful and popular general. Indeed, the respect contemporaries felt for
Belisarius is best illustrated in the pages of the sixth-century Byzantine historian
Procopius, the general’s military secretary. Best known for his scandalous accounts
of Justinian and Theodora, Procopius portrayed Belisarius in the least unfavorable
light in the Secret History and in some ways made Belisarius the great hero of
The History of the Wars.
Born in a village in modern western Bulgaria in circa 500, perhaps as late as
505, Belisarius was a Romanized Thracian, with possible Gothic ancestry, of mod-
est, but not peasant, circumstances. He entered the military as an officer, and his
talents and dazzling personality must have quickly come to the attention of Jus-
tinian, then Master of Soldiers, who appointed him to his staff. In the mid-520s,
Belisarius, still in his early or mid-twenties, was given a military command against
Rome’s great eastern rival, Persia. His early command met with little success, but in
529, Justinian, now emperor, appointed Belisarius Master of Soldiers with a com-
mand over the eastern frontier. Further campaigns in the east met with little suc-
cess, but Belisarius demonstrated great personal courage and saved an important
imperial city from conquest by the Persians. Recognizing his value, Justinian had
Belisarius marry Antonina, an old friend of Justinian’s wife Theodora. His great-
est early accomplishment, however, was the part he played in the Nika Revolt in
532. Belisarius remained loyal to the emperor during this moment of great crisis.
He volunteered to lead a garrison to capture the rival emperor, Hypatius, an enter-
prise that failed because he met some imperial bodyguards. Despite this setback,
Belisarius played a part in the final suppression of the revolt and commanded a
group of Germanic mercenary soldiers who massacred the rebels in the capital of
Constantinople. Belisarius’s demonstration of loyalty and military ability revealed
his full worth to the emperor.
His presence in Constantinople in 532 was a lucky accident; Justinian had re-
called him from the east to give him charge of the forces to be sent against the
Vandals of North Africa. The Vandals, previously thought to be a potential ally in
Justinian’s efforts to recover Italy, were to be the first step in a grand scheme of
conquest. In 533 Belisarius invaded the Vandal kingdom and quickly smashed it.
 Belisarius | 103

In two great battles, Belisarius and his well-trained imperial armies and cohort of
Hunnish auxiliaries overwhelmed their Vandal opponents. At the second battle,
Belisarius displayed his abilities for strategy and tactics. By forcing battle he man-
aged to retake the initiative, and his assault forced the Vandals from the field, their
camp, and the pages of history. Indeed, the Vandals as a people disappeared after
their defeat by Belisarius, and imperial authority was restored in North Africa.
His achievement was so highly regarded in Constantinople that he was awarded a
triumph—the ancient Roman ceremonial parade accorded to victorious generals—
through the capital’s streets.
Belisarius provided further service for Justinian’s great plan to reconquer the
Western Empire, leading imperial armies, although sometimes with inadequate
support, into Italy. In the early 530s the Gothic kingdom of the late Theodoric
the Great was rent by conflict between his daughter Amalaswintha and much
of the Gothic nobility over the management of her regency of her son Athalaric
and of relations with Constantinople. Amalaswintha had much support from
Justinian, and her murder, accomplished according to Procopius with the com-
plicity of Theodora, provided the emperor with the justification he needed to
invade Italy.
In 535, in the midst of the turmoil among the Goths of Italy, Justinian ordered
Belisarius to invade. His opening campaigns in Sicily and southern Italy were sur-
prisingly easy, as Roman militias welcomed the imperial armies and Gothic com-
manders were eager to negotiate. Belisarius reached Rome by the end of 536; in
the following year he faced stiffer resistance, from the new Gothic king, Witigis,
who had begun to rally the Goths in 536. Witigis laid siege to Rome in 537 and
538, and despite great hardship and starvation Belisarius was able to hold the city.
His troops were able to kill many of the besiegers, and their spirits were revived
by reinforcements, which allowed Belisarius to take the offensive against Witigis
in 538. By 540, after his efforts to attract support from the Franks and Lombards
failed, Witigis was forced to submit to Belisarius, who had surrounded and besieged
his rival at Ravenna. There is also the suggestion that Belisarius was offered royal
and imperial titles at this point by the Goths and his own soldiers, a possibility
supported by Justinian’s cool reception of his victorious commander. Nonetheless,
Belisarius returned to Constantinople after successfully establishing the imperial
presence once again.
The Gothic Wars, however, did not end in 540, even if Belisarius decreed that
they had. Another new Gothic king, Totila, took the offensive against Justinian,
and his successes forced the emperor to recall his loyal general. From 544 to
548, Belisarius was once again leading Roman armies, with only limited sup-
port from Constantinople, against the enemy Goths in Italy. Despite Justinian’s
limited support of his general, Belisarius managed some success against Totila
and even took Rome back from the Gothic king and managed to tilt the struggle
104 | Benedict Biscop

back in Constantinople’s favor. Achieving few victories, Belisarius left Italy in late
548 with the conquest incomplete, leaving it to Narses the Eunuch to ultimately
complete the task.
Belisarius had one final moment of glory in the service of Justinian and the em-
pire. In 559 an army of Huns invaded from the north and came within 30 miles of
Constantinople. Justinian called on Belisarius to save the city, and, with only a small
army, he did just that. Persuading the Huns that his army was much larger than it
was, Belisarius convinced them to depart. After that victory Belisarius resumed his
retirement, only to fall into disgrace again in 562 for alleged involvement in a plot
against Justinian. He was restored to favor the following year and died two years
later, after a long career in defense of the empire, still loyal to an emperor who did
not always appreciate him.
See also: Amalaswintha; Gothic Wars; Huns; Justinian; Narses; Ostrogoths; Procopius;
Theodora; Theodoric the Great; Vandals; Witigis

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 2. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, 1996.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. H. B. Dewing.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Benedict Biscop (d. 689)

Founder of the two great Northumbrian monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow,

Benedict Biscop was a leading intellectual and monastic leader of the later sev-
enth century, who laid the foundation for the so-called Northumbrian Renaissance.
A frequent pilgrim to Rome, where he collected relics and other treasures and,
most importantly, books, Benedict, known as Biscop Baducing before his monas-
tic conversion, left an important legacy for Anglo-Saxon learning. The libraries he
established at the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow provided the books neces-
sary for the work of numerous scholars, including Alcuin, who transferred this great
 Benedict Biscop | 105

learning—and the desire for books—to the empire of Charlemagne and created the
basis for the Carolingian Renaissance.
A Northumbrian noble in the service of King Oswy, Benedict Biscop received
numerous estates appropriate to his rank and service, estates that were of great
importance later in his life. The kingdom of Northumbria was a meeting place of
Celtic and Roman Christianity and the site of the important Synod of Whitby in
664, at which Roman Christianity triumphed. Benedict’s experience in Northum-
bria exposed him to important influences from both forms of Christianity. He was
a lifelong supporter of Roman Christianity, as witnessed by his numerous trips to
Rome, and he looked to Rome for books, relics, and the proper rule of religious life.
But he also was probably influenced by elements of Celtic Christianity, especially
the tradition of peregrinatio, the tradition of pilgrimage or missionary activity far
from home. This influence would help to explain his numerous trips to the Conti-
nent, the first of which was a trip to Rome with Wilfrid of Ripon in 652–653, when
Benedict was roughly 25 years old.
Although the first trip was not without significance—or controversy, as Wilfrid
and Benedict separated at Lyons—Benedict’s second trip to Rome was even more
critical for the life of Benedict. Sometime after 657, in the company of Alchfirth,
son of King Oswy and friend of Wilfrid, Benedict journeyed to the Continent.
From Rome he went to the important monastery of Lérins, where he received
the tonsure and learned the monastic life. When Benedict later founded his own
monasteries, he drew from his experience at Lérins, a place where many of the
great ancient and early medieval Irish monastic leaders had stayed and shaped
the monastic life. But as important and influential as Lérins was, it could not hold
Benedict permanently; he again heard the call of Rome, after probably two years
at the monastery. While in Rome, Benedict was sent back to England. He accom-
panied the new archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus. Departing Rome in
the spring of 668 and arriving about a year later, Theodore and Benedict took up
residence in Canterbury. Benedict resided in the monastery founded by Augustine
of Canterbury in the early years of the century for the next two years, until the
arrival of the community’s new abbot.
In 671–672, Benedict made another trip to Rome, but this trip may have
been taken with the purpose of acquiring the materials necessary to found a
new monastic community. Earlier trips to Rome had been taken so that Benedict
could improve his understanding of the faith at its capital. But in the early 670s
Benedict had absorbed a great deal from his earlier trips and had also had ex-
tensive monastic experience at Lérins and Canterbury. While in Rome, Benedict
collected books of all sorts that would be useful for the monastic library, and
also collected books at Vienne and Rhone Valley. The books, along with relics
and other materials collected, provided the foundation for his first great monastic
community, Wearmouth.
106 | Benedict Biscop

The foundation at Wearmouth was the first of two important monasteries

Benedict established. He founded the monastery on land he had received from
his old friend King Ecgfrith, who had succeeded Oswy in 671, and with the col-
laboration of Ceolfrith, a Northumbrian noble who like Benedict had left the
secular life for the monastic. Benedict’s many trips and connections on the con-
tinent continued to serve him in the construction of the monastery, which began
in the year 674. Leaving Ceolfrith in charge, Benedict returned to the continent,
where he hired builders and masons from a friend in Francia. He also recruited
glassmakers to put windows in the church and other monastic buildings at Wear-
mouth. When the buildings of the monastery were completed or well on their way,
Benedict, joined by Ceolfrith and most likely a large group, returned to Rome yet
again to acquire even greater learning in the faith so that he could better prepare
a rule for his new community. He also accumulated more books for the library at
Wearmouth and received an exemption from the pope that allowed the monks to
elect their abbots without outside interference. He was joined on his return to the
monastery by Abbot John, the archcantor of the church of St. Peter in Rome, who
taught the monks of Wearmouth the Roman method of singing and, possibly, the
Roman style of handwriting.
The success of Wearmouth inspired Ecgfrith to grant Benedict more terri-
tory at Jarrow, which was some seven miles from the original foundation; the
new house was established in 681. It was colonized by a group of monks from
Wearmouth, possibly including the great historian and scholar Bede, which was
led by Ceolfrith, who became the abbot of the new community. Benedict again
went to Rome and appointed a relative as abbot of Wearmouth, but Ceolfrith as-
sumed the superior position in Benedict’s absence and oversaw the election of a
new abbot for Wearmouth when Benedict’s relative died. The two communities
were ruled separately at first, but they remained very closely connected. After
the second abbot of Wearmouth died, Ceolfrith was elected as abbot and thus
ruled both houses, and Benedict declared that the two communities should be
ruled by one abbot.
Benedict took one final trip to Rome in the mid-680s to acquire still more
books for the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow. He died on January 12, 689,
sometime after returning from his final Roman pilgrimage. His legacy in England
was a great one. He strengthened English ties to Rome and the continent and
passed his devotion to Rome on to his many disciples. He established two of the
great monastic communities of medieval England and created a library at Wear-
mouth and Jarrow that inspired generations of Anglo-Saxon scholars, including
the greatest of all, Bede. Benedict’s monastic foundations influenced cultural
developments in England and, through Alcuin, on the continent for generations
to come and contributed to renaissances in Northumbria and the Carolingian
kingdom.
 Benedict of Aniane | 107

See also: Alcuin of York; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Carolingian
Renaissance; Northumbrian Renaissance; Rome; Synod of Whitby

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Benedict of Aniane (c. 750–821)

A Visigothic monk and reformer, Benedict of Aniane was a close advisor of the
Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious. He helped establish the Rule of Benedict
of Nursia as the official rule of monastic life in the Carolingian Empire in the
early years of the reign of Louis. His implementation and interpretation of the
Rule, moreover, involved a reform of monastic life that is traditionally seen as
the precursor to the great monastic reform movement of Cluny in the 10th and
11th centuries.
The son of a Gothic count of southern Gaul, Benedict, or Witiza as he was origi-
nally known, was sent to the court of the Frankish king Charlemagne to be edu-
cated and taught the use of arms. While on campaign in Italy with Charlemagne,
however, Benedict nearly drowned, and the incident forced him to examine him-
self. His soul-searching led him to abandon the world for the monastic life, and in
774 he joined the monastery of Saint-Seine, near Dijon, France. His life there was
unsatisfactory, and his extreme asceticism led the abbot to criticize him, to which
Benedict, according to his biographer, responded, “the Rule of blessed Benedict
as for beginners and weak persons, he strove to climb up to the precepts of blessed
Basil and the rule of blessed Pachomius” (Ardo 220). Indeed, Benedict revealed
his single-minded determination early in his monastic career, as well as his desire
for a better, purer monastic life than existed in the “mixed rule” communities of the
Carolingian realm. In 780, Benedict left the community of Saint-Seine to found a
new monastery on his father’s property in Aniane, near Montpellier, France, and
probably about that same time changed his name to Benedict. Despite his earlier
interest in the great eremitic monks, Benedict established the Rule of Benedict of
Nursia at his monastery, but, true to his earlier zeal, strictly followed the rule of his
108 | Benedict of Aniane

namesake. With his dedication to Benedict’s rule, he broke with the contemporary
mixed rule traditions of Carolingian monasticism; nevertheless, the devotion and
discipline of his house attracted numerous followers. Over the next few decades,
Benedict and his followers spread the strict observance of the rule to many mon-
asteries throughout Aquitaine and Septimania in southwestern France. Moreover,
in 802 Benedict participated in a council of bishops and abbots meeting at Aix-
la-Chapelle to discuss the Rule of Benedict, and in fact the later Benedict was the
most important discussant at the council. His activities surely brought him to the
attention of the king of Aquitaine, Louis the Pious, whose mentor Benedict became.
Shortly after Louis became sole emperor following his father’s death in 814, he
called Benedict from Aquitaine because of “the fame of his life and saintliness,”
according to a contemporary chronicle. Benedict was to be the emperor’s religious
advisor and was to introduce throughout the entire empire the reforms implemented
in Aquitaine. Benedict was installed in a new monastery, which Louis built for him
at Inde, near the imperial palace at Aix-la-Chapelle. The monastery, consecrated
in 817, was not only the residence of Louis’s chief religious advisor but also the
model for monastic life in the empire. Benedict welcomed monks and abbots from
throughout the realm and instructed them on the Rule of Benedict. Perhaps of even
greater importance was Benedict’s role at two councils at Aix-la-Chapelle in 816
and 817, at which monastic life in the Carolingian Empire underwent dramatic re-
form. Under Benedict’s direction, and with the support of the emperor, the council
reformed the life of all religious in the empire and established the Rule of Benedict
as the standard for all monasteries in the empire, ending the long-standing tradi-
tion of the mixed rule.
Benedict’s career is important for two reasons. First, Benedict successfully im-
posed the Rule of Benedict of Nursia on all the monasteries (with a few exceptions)
in the Carolingian Empire. His activities are important also because the original
Benedictine rule was reformed by Benedict, a reform that foreshadowed the re-
forms at Cluny in the next century. Among other things, Benedict of Aniane’s re-
forms altered the relationship between the abbot and his monks. On the one hand,
the reforms limited the abbot’s authority, as well as the community’s independence,
by subjecting both to an overall “abbot-general,” whose authority superseded that
of the local abbot. The reforms also granted the abbot certain privileges that the
original rule had not.
The reforms of 816 and 817 also enforced a stricter rule of cloister, which not
only limited the monks’ access to the outside world but also severely restricted the
access of the outside world to the monastery. Most notably, the reforms eliminated
access to the monastery school for the laity or secular clergy. But the most impor-
tant reform involved the increase in the liturgical duties of the monks. The origi-
nal Benedict had sought to establish a balance in the lives of the monks between
labor and prayer, but Benedict of Aniane dramatically increased the amount of time
 Benedict of Nursia, St. | 109

the monks were expected to pray, chant the Psalms, and perform divine services.
Benedict’s death in 821 and the civil war and division in the Carolingian Empire
beginning in the 830s limited the impact of his reforms, but he remains important
for his efforts on behalf of the Rule of Benedict and the foundation he put in place
for later monastic reform movements.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Benedict of Nursia, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne;
Louis the Pious; Monasticism; Visigoths

Bibliography
Ardo. “The Life of Saint Benedict, Abbot of Aniane and of Inde.” Trans. Allen Cabaniss.
In Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
Eds. Thomas F. X. Noble and Thomas Head. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1995, pp. 213–54.
Knowles, David. Christian Monasticism. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Sullivan, Richard. “What Was Carolingian Monasticism? The Plan of St. Gall and the
History of Monasticism.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval
History. Ed. Alexander Callander Murray. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, pp.
251–87.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Benedict of Nursia, St. (c. 480–547)

Benedict of Nursia was the founder of Western monasticism. His Rule (code of
behavior, spiritual life, and monastic organization) was the most influential rule in
the early Middle Ages. Little is known of his life, except what is found in the pages
of Pope Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, which were written nearly a half-century
after Benedict’s death. Gregory’s life was a model of hagiography and remained
an important source for later monastic writers. Benedict’s personality, however,
can best be discerned from his Rule, which reveals the intelligence and humanity
of the saint, who made allowances in his code for human weakness. His monastic
foundation at Monte Cassino, roughly 80 miles south of Rome, was an influential
house until its destruction by the Lombards in 589 (the community was reestab-
lished in 720), but Benedict’s influence continued, as his Rule became the basic rule
for most monks in the post-Roman world. Indeed, during the reign of the Carolin-
gian dynasty and under their direction, the Benedictine Rule became the primary
rule for monks.
110 | Benedict of Nursia, St.

St. Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480–543), the founder of

Western monasticism, ca. 510. (The British Library
Board)

Born, according to tradition, in 480 in Nursia, about 70 miles north of Rome,

Benedict, according to Gregory the Great, was “blessed also with God’s grace
[and] in boyhood he showed mature understanding, for he kept his heart detached
from every pleasure with a strength of character far beyond his years” (Geary
1989, 215). Gregory also tells us that Benedict’s family sent him to Rome for
a liberal education, which suggests that Benedict was from a fairly prosperous
family. In Rome, however, Benedict saw that the other students had fallen into
vice, and fearing that he might do the same and offend God, he turned his back
on worldly learning. He also renounced his family and wealth and took up the re-
ligious life in a cave in Subiaco, about 35 miles outside Rome, in circa 500. He
was assisted during his stay at Subiaco by a monk from a nearby monastery named
 Benedict of Nursia, St. | 111

Romanus, who brought Benedict some food on occasion. Moreover, Benedict

began to attract the attention of others and gathered numerous disciples. And he
was elected abbot by the monks of a nearby abbey. Although called unanimously
by the monks, he soon left the community because the monks found his rule too
strenuous and tried to poison him. According to Gregory, Benedict was saved by
a miracle when the pitcher with the poisoned wine shattered after Benedict made
the sign of the cross over it.
After the attempted poisoning, Benedict left the community and took up the path
that led to the establishment of his famous rule and community at Monte Cassino.
He returned to Subiaco with several companions to establish a new community. He
was again the target of poisoning, this time by a jealous local priest, and he also at-
tracted a great number of followers. After the second attempt on his life, Benedict
founded his famous monastery on a mountain some 1,500 feet high. He had great
success at this monastery, which he built on top of an old pagan shrine, attracting
many monks and preaching to the people in the surrounding region. According
to Gregory the Great, Benedict performed more than a few miracles while at the
monastery, including saving one of the monks of Monte Cassino from drowning.
He also sent a group of monks to found another monastery, and he met once a year
with his sister Scholastica, who was a nun in a nearby community. After establish-
ing his house and laying the foundation for Western monasticism, Benedict died,
according to tradition on March 21, 547.
Benedict’s greatest accomplishment was the composition of the Rule of Bene-
dict, a code guiding the life of the monks and the organization and government of
the monastery. The Rule evolved over time and was probably composed in its final
from, a prologue and 73 chapters, in the later 530s. Although the Rule was once
thought to have been an independent creation by Benedict, it is now recognized that
he borrowed heavily from several existing rules, most importantly from the Rule
of the Master, the anonymously written monastic rule composed around 500. But
comparison of the two demonstrates Benedict’s practical wisdom, humanity, and
organizational ability. The Rule of the Master is a long and often rambling blueprint
for monastic life, but Benedict’s Rule is much briefer and more focused. Benedict’s
Rule opens with a discussion promoting the ascetic life and outlining the virtues a
monk should cultivate, particularly obedience and humility. The next section out-
lines the daily routine of divine service, prayer, and readings of Scripture. There
are chapters on the election of the abbot and other officers of the community in the
next section of the Rule. Benedict also regulated hours of sleep, manual labor, and
reading for the monks in his community, and provided guidelines for meals and for
monastic discipline.
The daily routine for the monks was clearly outlined by Benedict and was all
focused on service to God. But the Rule is important not only for its religious
devotionalism but also for its flexibility and humanity. Indeed, it is these last two
112 | Benedict of Nursia, St.

characteristics that help explain the success of the Rule. Benedict not only included
guidelines for the recruitment and training of monks, but also provided guidelines
for the duties of the abbot. Benedict’s abbot was to be a father figure, who could be
stern and demanding when the situation required, but who was also to be consol-
ing and encouraging as circumstances dictated. Benedict intended that the abbot
respond to the needs of the monks as well as rule over them. He also recognized
that not all monks were on the same level and established different guidelines for
different monks. For example, he allowed different measures of wine and food for
those who were sick or elderly, as compared to those who were in better physical
or spiritual condition.
Although in its early history Benedict’s rule would have competition from the
Rule of St. Columban and others, the rule of Benedict would come to be the dom-
inant rule in the western church. Benedict and his rule received strong support
from Pope Gregory the Great in the late sixth century and the Carolingian rulers
Charlemagne and Louis the Pious would establish the Rule of Benedict as the rule
of the monasteries of the empire in the ninth century. Benedict’s growing impor-
tance in the Carolingian period and after is also demonstrated by the claim of the
monasteries of Monte Cassino and Fleury to possess Benedict’s relics, and both
houses boasted a thriving cult of Benedict.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Bede; Benedict of Aniane; Benedict
Biscop; Boniface, St.; Caesarius of Arles; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Columban,
St.; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Lombards; Louis the Pious; Monasticism; Monte
Cassino

Bibliography
Farmer, David Hugh, ed. Benedict’s Disciples. Leominster, UK: Fowler Wright, 1980.
Fry, Timothy, ed. and trans. RB 1980: The Rule of Benedict in Latin and English with
Notes. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981.
Gregory the Great. Life and Miracles of St. Benedict (Book Two of the Dialogues). Trans.
Odo J. Zimmerman and Benedict Avery. Collegeville, MN: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1949.
Geary, Patrick J., ed. Readings in Medieval History. Peterborough, ON: Broadview
Press, 1989.
Knowles, David. Christian Monasticism. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through
the Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1976.
Sullivan, Richard. “What Was Carolingian Monasticism? The Plan of St. Gall and the
History of Monasticism.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval
 Beowulf | 113

History, ed. Alexander Callander Murray. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, pp.
251–87.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Beowulf

The greatest literary work of Anglo-Saxon literature, Beowulf is a heroic epic poem
of 3,182 lines that contains a mixture of history, legend, and myth. The poem, the
earliest extant long poem written in English, describes the legendary feats of the
great hero, Beowulf, who, unlike other characters in the poem, is known only from
this poem. Divided into two parts, Beowulf describes the title character’s great vic-
tories over Grendel, his mother, and a fire-breathing dragon. The poem addresses
the great heroic ideals of courage, loyalty, and service, and also matters of life and
death. Although the poem conveys the values of pagan Germanic culture, it was
probably written at a Christian court; it expresses belief in the Christian God and
upholds the Christian ideals of good against evil.
The events of the poem take place in the fifth and sixth centuries—Gregory
of Tours, the sixth-century historian, describes the raid into Francia by Hygelac,
Beowulf’s uncle, in his History of the Franks—and begins at the court of the
Danish king Hrothgar. The poem opens with the genealogy of Hrothgar, the great
and good king of the Danes who brought peace and prosperity to the kingdom and
built the great hall Heorot. In his mead hall, Hrothgar and his warriors celebrate
the good things that Hrothgar has brought, and the king gives his warriors gifts of
gold. The good times at Heorot are suddenly disrupted by the monster Grendel,
who is of the line of Cain, which has been cursed by God and exiled from hu-
manity. Hearing the sounds of revelry at Heorot, Grendel is enraged and attacks
the hall, killing and eating Hrothgar’s warriors. Grendel’s reign of terror lasts
12 years before the arrival of the great hero Beowulf, who offers his services to
the king. Although his talents are questioned by Unferth, one of the king’s coun-
selors, Hrothgar welcomes Beowulf as his hero. That evening Grendel returns
and devours one of Beowulf’s men before reaching for Beowulf himself. But
the monster meets the unexpected—a hero whose grip is greater than any man’s.
A terrible struggle follows, as the two enemies fight each other with their bare
hands. Heorot suffers great damage, and the Danes fear for their hero. But Grendel
cannot overcome Beowulf. The great warrior’s grip holds firm, and Grendel is able
to get away only by having his arm torn off. The monster then flees to his home,
where he bleeds to death.
Beowulf’s victory is welcomed by Hrothgar, who rewards his hero handsomely,
and a great celebration ensues in Heorot, in which Beowulf is praised and songs
are sung that foreshadow the dark events to come. Not everyone rejoices at the
114 | Beowulf

death of Grendel, however. Upon learning of her son’s death, Grendel’s mother
is enraged and moves quickly to avenge her son’s death. She too attacks the
great hall of Heorot, and, although she is not as powerful or ferocious as her son,
brings great destruction with her and manages to kill and eat one of the Danes
before being driven back to her home in a lake. Beowulf is then asked to defend
Hrothgar once again.
This time, uncertain of what he will face, Beowulf dons full battle armor and
carries a sword offered by Unferth. Beowulf has to dive into a lake and swim a full
day to reach his enemy’s lair. Before he arrives, the she-monster senses his coming
and reaches out to take him, beginning to fight him underwater. She drags him into
her lair, where he now can fight without the weight of the water. A mighty struggle
again takes place, and Beowulf strikes his foe with the sword from Unferth, but it
proves of no use against the monster. Beowulf is in dire straits, as Grendel’s mother
nearly overwhelms him. He manages to take hold of the giant’s sword he sees on
the wall and slays Grendel’s mother with it. Although the sword kills his enemy, it
melts like thawing ice because of the great heat of the monster’s blood, which then
bubbles up to the surface.
The sight of the blood greatly dismays Beowulf’s men, who fear the worst. But
these fears are quickly laid to rest by the return of Beowulf, who bears the head of
Grendel, which he cut off after his victory over the monster’s mother. Once again
Beowulf returns to Heorot to receive the thanks and praise of Hrothgar, whose
speech carries a warning for the future. After the celebration Beowulf takes leave,
in a moving scene with Hrothgar, and departs for his home in Geatland. Once he
arrives in his homeland he is warmly received by his king, Hygelac, who learns of
Beowulf’s great success in Denmark.
The second part of the poem begins some time later, after Beowulf has ruled
the Geats for 50 years. Although Beowulf has ruled the Geats well, his path to the
throne was marked by the tragic deaths of Hygelac and his son and by bitter wars
with the Frisians and Swedes. Under Beowulf there is peace, but that peace is sud-
denly interrupted by the appearance of a fire-breathing dragon, who terrorizes the
kingdom and brings great destruction, burning houses, forts, and Beowulf’s own
great hall. The dragon has risen in anger because a slave of one of Beowulf’s war-
riors stole a cup of gold from the dragon’s great treasure hoard. Once again, the
great hero Beowulf prepares to do battle with a powerful foe. Dressing in a suit of
armor and bearing a mighty sword and a shield of iron—instead of the traditional
shield of wood—Beowulf marches out to meet the dragon. He is joined by 12 war-
riors, and then by one more (the warrior who forced the slave to steal the cup). After
declaring that it is his duty alone to fight the dragon, Beowulf begins his terrible
and final battle with the dragon.
Beowulf has finally met his match and is overwhelmed by the dragon, whose
breath of fire greatly wounds Beowulf. In the heat of the battle, all but one of
 Beowulf | 115

his warriors, Wiglaf, abandon Beowulf in his hour of need. Wiglaf denounces the
cowardice of his fellow warriors and enters the struggle with the dragon. Together,
Beowulf and Wiglaf are able to defeat the horrible creature, but only after Beowulf
has been fatally wounded. Beowulf then offers a final speech and looks over the
fantastic treasure hoard of the dead dragon. After his death, prophecies are made
about the impending destruction of the Geats by their rivals, who will take ad-
vantage of the Geats after the death of their great king. The poem concludes with
the funeral of Beowulf, whose warriors ride around his tomb singing a dirge and
lamenting their loss.
The poem was preserved in one manuscript from about the year 1000, and was
first published in a modern edition in 1815. The original composition of the poem
is uncertain, but most scholars believe that it was composed in the early eighth
century at a court in Bede’s Northumbria, although there are those who argue for
a late eighth-century composition at the court of King Offa of Mercia. Those who
support an early date argue that a Scandinavian hero would not have appeared in an
English poem at a time when Viking warriors were invading the island. Of course,
others suggest that the poet may have hoped to appeal to the invaders. The date of
composition is important for both the understanding of the poet and the poem, but
once again there is little agreement among scholars on those matters. Most Beowulf
scholars are split between those who believe that the poem was composed in a pre-
dominantly oral culture or those who believe it was composed in a literate culture.
The values embodied in the poem and its hero provide support for both sides.
The nature of the language of the poem, the interest in material wealth—helmets,
swords, jewelry—suggest the possibility of an oral environment. The expression of
belief in a creator God, references to the Hebrew Bible, especially the line of Cain,
and Christian values of good and evil suggest composition in a literate culture. The
answer is probably a mixture of both: The poem may well have been composed at
a Christian court in an oral culture, which had absorbed the values of the literate
culture by the time the poem was committed to parchment. Finally, interpretation
of the poem is complicated by its uncertain origins. Despite variety of opinion, it
is certain that the meaning of Beowulf is shaped by its origins in a superficially
Christianized environment. The poem advocates the epic values of bravery, honor,
and fidelity, but within the framework of belief in the Christian God and the impor-
tance of the struggle against evil.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Gregory of Tours; Offa of Mercia

Bibliography
Alexander, Michael, trans. Beowulf. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983.
Baker, Peter S., ed. Beowulf: Basic Readings. New York: Garland, 1995.
Bjork, Robert E., and John D. Niles, eds. A Beowulf Handbook. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1997.
116 | Bernard Hairyfeet

Chambers, Raymond W. Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study the Poem with a Dis-
cussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn. 3rd ed., supplement by C. L. Wrenn. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Hasenfratz, Robert J. Beowulf Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979–1990.
New York: Garland, 1993.
Heaney, Seamus, trans. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar Straus and
Giroux, 2000.
Tolkien, J.R.R. “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.” Proceedings of the British
Academy 22 (1936): 245–95.

Bernard Hairyfeet (841–886)

The younger son of Bernard of Septimania and Dhuoda, Bernard Hairyfeet or

Hairypaws (Plantevelue) was a key figure in the political turmoil of the West
Frankish kingdom in late ninth century and the emergence of the medieval duchy
of Aquitaine. As his mother Dhuoda notes, Bernard was born in 841, the year
following the death of Louis the Pious. He suffered from the familial difficulties
brought on by his father’s revolt against Charles the Bald and subsequent execu-
tion by the Carolingian ruler. Like his brother William, Bernard was rumored to
have planned to assassinate Charles to avenge Bernard of Septimania’s death, and
as a result spent time in exile in Lothar’s realm in the late 860s. It seems, however,
that Bernard managed to return to the Charles’ good graces and was confirmed in
his honors in 869.
In the civil unrest following the death of Charles the Bald, Bernard endured loss
of territory but saw the restoration and enhancement of his position by the new Car-
olingian ruler, Louis the Stammerer. Throughout his tumultuous career, Bernard
managed to accumulate extensive properties in Berry, the Limousin, Autun, and the
Auvergne. These territories were molded into a principality by his son, William I
the Pious (875–918), the founder of the monastery of Cluny as well as the founder
of the duchy of Aquitaine.
See also: Aquitaine; Bernard of Septimania; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald;
Dhuoda; Lothar; Louis the Pious; Louis the Stammerer

Bibliography
Dhuoda. Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman’s Counsel for Her Son. Ed. and
trans. Carol Neel. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
 Bertrada | 117

Bernard of Septimania (795–844)

Duke of Septimania and count of Barcelona and imperial chamberlain, Bernard was
an important figure in the Carolingian Empire and, for a time, a close ally of the
emperor Louis the Pious. Bernard played an unfortunate role in the civil strife of
the 830s and participated in the conflict in the West Frankish kingdom of Charles
the Bald in the 840s. He was also the husband of Dhuoda, whose handbook was
written for their son William, and the father of Bernard Hairyfeet.
The son of William, count of Toulouse, and a distant cousin of Louis the Pious, Ber-
nard rose to prominence in the 820s. Inheriting his father’s position and duties, Bernard
was responsible for protecting Aquitaine from the Muslims of Spain. He turned back
a ferocious assault by Abd al-Rahman II in the years 824–827, earning the gratitude
of Louis, who appointed Bermard chamberlain in 829 and protector of the emperor’s
son, Charles the Bald. Bernard’s rapid rise earned him powerful enemies, who ac-
cused him of sorcery and adultery with the emperor’s wife, Judith. When revolt broke
out against Louis in 830, Bernard fled to Barcelona where he would insert himself at
times in the conflict that raged in the 830s but without ever regaining his old position
and influence. In the hopes of expanding his power in Septimania, Bernard at times
supported and encouraged further rebellion by Pippin, one of Louis the Pious’ sons,
and Pippin’s son, Pippin II. After the death of Louis, Bernard reluctantly accepted the
establishment of Charles the Bald as ruler over Aquitaine and the West Frankish king-
dom. Following Charles’ victory in 841, Bernard swore his loyalty and sent his son
William to Charles as a hostage—an act that inspired Dhuoda to write her handbook.
Bernard kept his options open and was apparently plotting to increase his own power
in 844 when he was captured by Charles the Bald and condemned for treason.
See also: Aquitaine; Bernard Hairyfeet; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Dhuoda;
Judith; Louis the Pious

Bibliography
De Jong, Mayke. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the
Pious, 814–840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Bertrada (d. 783)

The wife of Pippin the Short, the first Carolingian king, and mother of Char-
lemagne, the first Carolingian emperor, Bertrada surely played an important role
118 | Bertrada

in the Carolingian kingdom. At the very least, she fulfilled the traditional role of
royal wives by producing an heir; she bore Pippin three sons, two of whom sur-
vived, and a daughter. Her activities may well have stretched beyond the tradi-
tional to include support for Pippin’s religious reforms. She also was involved in
diplomacy after her husband’s death and strove to maintain peace between her two
sons, Charlemagne and Carloman. Her intervention had limited success, but she
remained, according to Einhard, the beloved mother of the greatest Carolingian
ruler, Charlemagne.
Pippin and Bertrada were married in 744, but the nature of their relationship, at
least at the outset, is confused, in part because of the changing marriage traditions
of the realm in the mid-eighth century. It was thought at one time that the two were
not legitimately married, but that Pippin took Bertrada as a concubine or in the old
Frankish marriage practice of friedelehe. The marriage was only legitimate, ac-
cording to this view, once Charlemagne was born, in either 742 or 748. It is now
generally recognized that in fact the two were formally married and that Charles
was not illegitimate. Even though the marriage is now recognized as legitimate, it
was not the most stable one. Pippin married Bertrada, as was often the case, for her
connections with a powerful noble family, connections that would allow Pippin, as
mayor of the palace, to strengthen his hold on the kingdom after the death of his fa-
ther, Charles Martel. At some point during their marriage Pippin tried to repudiate
Bertrada to marry another woman, but his efforts were stopped by Pope Stephen II
(752–757), and the marriage continued until Pippin’s death in 768. Despite his at-
tempt to divorce her, Pippin brought Bertrada along with his entourage when he went
to meet Stephen on the latter’s visit to the kingdom. And Stephen bestowed a spe-
cial blessing on Bertrada when he crowned and anointed Pippin and his sons in 754.
After Pippin’s death, Bertrada continued to influence affairs in the kingdom,
and her most important moment came early in the reigns of her sons Charlemagne
and Carloman. On the death of their father, tensions between the two brothers
broke out that threatened the peace and stability of the realm. The strain was
worsened by Carloman’s refusal to help his older brother suppress a rebellion in
Aquitaine. At this point Bertrada intervened in the hopes of preventing civil war
and also to strengthen Carolingian power and her sons’ diplomatic ties in Bavaria
and Italy. In 770, according to the Royal Frankish Annals, Bertrada met with her
son Carloman before proceeding to Italy “in the interests of peace” (Scholz 1972,
48). It is possible that she hoped to allay any fears Carloman may have had about
his brother or, on the other hand, to upbraid him for his lack of support for his
brother. In either event, she went to Italy through Bavaria, where she met with
Duke Tassilo.
The duke had commended himself into vassalage to Pippin in 757, but had failed
to honor his oath in 763. Bertrada may have attempted to reconcile Tassilo, and his
 Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus | 119

important and powerful duchy, to her two sons. After meeting with Tassilo, Bertrada
went to Lombard Italy to meet with King Desiderius. Allies of the Franks before
Pippin’s campaigns to protect the pope, the Lombards remained a powerful force
in Italy and a potential threat to both the pope and, to a lesser extent, the Carolin-
gians. Bertrada arranged a marriage between the king’s daughter, Desiderata, and
her son Charlemagne. The apparent success of Bertrada’s trip was shattered in the
following year with the death of Carloman and the disinheritance of his children,
as well as Charlemagne’s repudiation of Desiderata.
The rejection of Bertrada’s diplomatic initiative, however, according to Ein-
hard, was the only example of tension between Bertrada and Charlemagne.
Einhard notes that Bertrada lived to a “very great age,” was honored by Char-
lemagne, with whom she lived, and was “treated with every respect” by her
son (Einhard 1981, 74). She lived to see the birth of three grandsons and three
granddaughters to Charlemagne. She died in 783 and, Einhard notes, was bur-
ied by her son “with great honor in the church of Saint-Denis, where his father
lay” (74).
See also: Carloman, King of the Franks; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles
Martel; Desiderius; Einhard; Lombards; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Royal Frank-
ish Annals; Tassilo

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Bleda. See Attila the Hun

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus (c. 480–525)

Roman senator and noble, whose family boasted an emperor in its lineage and
strong Christian credentials, Boethius was one of the last great philosophers of an-
tiquity. Like most Romans of his class, he also served in government, in his case as
advisor of the great Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric. A talented philosopher,
120 | Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus

theologian, and orator, Boethius is best known for his Consolation of Philosophy
(De consolatione philosophiae), which he wrote while in prison awaiting his execu-
tion at the order of Theodoric. Despite this tragic ending, Boethius’s memory lived
on long after his death, and his greatest work was the perhaps the most widely read
text in the Middle Ages after the Bible and influenced many, including the ninth-
century Anglo-Saxon king Alfred the Great, who translated it.
Like many traditional Romans, Boethius enjoyed a good education and was set
on the path to holding public office. His later writings suggest that he was a par-
ticularly good student, who may have traveled to the great schools at Athens and
Alexandria to study for a time, and his talents as an orator stood him in good stead
in his political career. His father had served as consul, but had died in 487 while
Boethius was quite young. The early death of his father, however, had one benefi-
cial result—the important Christian senator Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symma-
chus assumed Boethius’s father’s place and raised and educated him. His family
background and education prepared him for a career in public service, which he
accepted, as he notes in the Consolation, in accordance with Plato’s endorsement
of philosophers serving in government. In 510, he was made consul, and in 522 his
two sons were elevated to the consulship, a great honor that suggests Boethius held
favor with the imperial government in Constantinople. He was also highly favored
by the Ostrogothic king in Italy, Theodoric, who made Boethius his Master of Of-
fices (magister officiorum) in 522.
Boethius’s career in public service and his relationship with Theodoric are
complex, celebrated, and tragic. His focus was plainly on serving the interests
of Italy and its people, and at one point he helped resolve an economic crisis
in southern Italy. He was also willing to work with Theodoric. Although an
Arian ruler of a Catholic population, Theodoric was generally a wise and toler-
ant king, with whom educated and public-minded senators like Boethius could
work. Indeed, Theodoric often called Boethius to his service, and not only in 522
when he was made chief of staff. Theodoric had often requested Boethius to em-
ploy his great mathematical and mechanical talents to create objects that the king
could use in diplomacy as gifts. At the same time, there is evidence that Boethius
was interested in bridging the gap between the eastern and western parts of the
Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages his intellectual work remained an impor-
tant conduit of the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, notably the works on logic,
to the Latin West. The theological treatises he wrote in the 510s were designed to
reconcile Eastern and Western theology—an attempt, perhaps, to draw Constan-
tinople and Italy closer together at a time when Theodoric’s policy was to keep
the two far apart. Boethius’s efforts, however, were appreciated by the imperial
government at Constantinople, which rewarded him and his sons with the con-
sulship. Clearly, Boethius was involved in a complex web of competing political
and religious interests.
 Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus | 121

His political involvement came to a bad end not long after his promotion to
Master of the Offices. The aging Theodoric faced serious difficulties in Italy in his
last years, which included tensions at his own court over relations with Constan-
tinople, an aggressive and ambitious emperor in Constantinople, and an uncertain
succession because of the death of one son-in-law and the conversion to Catholi-
cism of the other. In the early 520s, Theodoric cracked down hard on anti-Semitic
rioters and ordered all Romans disarmed. In 522, he learned of a conspiracy headed
by the leading senator, Albinus, who was implicated in corresponding with Con-
stantinople against Theodoric. The king quickly ordered Albinus arrested, and
Boethius came to his fellow senator’s defense. Despite his good service to The-
odoric, Boethius had also made enemies of the king’s advisors for his promotion
of Catholic orthodoxy against Arianism and for exposing corruption in the king’s
administration.
Standing before the king, Boethius declared “If Albinus is guilty, then so am I,
and so is the whole senate” (Wolfram 1997, 224). Although modern scholarship
remains divided on whether Boethius was involved in the conspiracy or not, The-
odoric had Boethius arrested. Several senators, in need of money, brought evidence
against Boethius, who was found guilty of witchcraft and treason. He was impris-
oned in Pavia where he wrote his masterpiece, The Consolation of Philosophy, and
suffered a gruesome execution, most likely after torture, probably in 525.
Revered as a martyr throughout the Middle Ages because of his brutal execution
by Theodoric, Boethius is best known for his theological work and the Consola-
tion. His earlier treatises included works on mathematics and music, which pre-
served elements of earlier Greek works on the subjects. Indeed, one of his great
goals was his desire to translate all the works of Plato and Aristotle into Greek.
Although he was unable to complete this task, he did translate a number of impor-
tant treatises of Aristotle that would have an important influence on later medieval
thought. An important translator of Aristotle, Boethius was heavily influenced by
Neoplatonic thought, as seen in his theological works, and believed in the unity of
all knowledge even though that knowledge may appear disconnected. His Conso-
lation of Philosophy was written as a dialogue between Boethius himself and Lady
Philosophy; it reflects on the great questions of human happiness and suffering, and
vindicates divine providence and the freedom of the human will. Although some-
times regarded as a work of pagan philosophy, the Consolation addresses clearly
Christian themes of God’s plan and the realization that human fate is associated
with that plan as well as the idea that God stands outside of time and so humans
are not predestined to certain actions or specific fate. Along with attempting to un-
derstand his own situation, the Consolation may have been an effort by Boethius
to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian theology, and whatever the intent it
was an important source for the preservation of Greek thought for medieval Latin
thinkers.
122 | Boniface, St.

See also: Alfred the Great; Arianism; Ostrogoths; Rome; Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. Richard Green. New York: Bobbs-
Merrill, 1962.
Chadwick, Henry. Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philoso-
phy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.
Gibson, Margaret, ed. Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Influence. Oxford: Blackwell,
1981.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500–900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas Dunlap.
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

Boniface, St. (c. 675–754)

Most famous and influential of all the Irish and Anglo-Saxon missionaries to the
continent in the seventh and eighth centuries, Boniface spread the Christian faith
to pagan Saxons and other Germanic peoples. He also founded several bishoprics
and the important monastery at Fulda and reorganized numerous dioceses during
his career as a missionary and reformer. He was supported early in his mission-
ary work by the Carolingian mayor of the palace, Charles Martel, and also by the
pope. His support from the pope was perhaps most important to Boniface, because,
like all Anglo-Saxons, he felt a special devotion to the papacy and structured his
reforms along models established at Rome. He later played a role in the reform of
the Frankish church and was supported by Charles Martel’s sons, Pippin the Short
and, especially, Carloman. Martyred on June 5, 754, Boniface has been recognized
as the Apostle to Germany because of his successful missionary activity, and his
feast day is celebrated on June 5.
Born in circa 675 to a noble family in Devonshire, England, and originally called
Winfrith (Pope Gregory II gave him the name Boniface in 719), Boniface, accord-
ing to his biographer, demonstrated great piety and zeal for the monastic life from
an early age. While still a boy, according to his biographer, Boniface “subdued the
flesh to the spirit and meditated on things eternal” and discussed spiritual matters
with priests who visited his father’s house (Talbot 1995, 111). Although reluctant
to allow his son to take up the monastic life, Boniface’s father eventually relented,
after a serious illness, and sent him to a Benedictine community near Exeter. He
received an excellent education at the community, was ordained a priest at age 30,
and developed a reputation as a scholar. Indeed, in 705 he was called on by the arch-
bishop of Canterbury to help resolve a number of issues facing the king of Wessex,
which Boniface did successfully.
 Boniface, St. | 123

Despite his success and the possibility of ecclesiastical advancement, Boniface,

like many Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks, felt the call to take up missionary work. In
716 he joined his fellow Anglo-Saxon missionary, Willibrord, on the continent and
traveled to the region called Frisia (in the modern Low Countries), whose inhabit-
ants had slid back into paganism during the turmoil after the death of the mayor
of the palace Pippin of Herstal. His efforts, however, proved unsuccessful because
he found no support from the Frisian leader, Radbod. Boniface then returned to
England, but would not stay there for long, even though he was elected abbot of his
monastery, an honor he declined in favor of further missionary activity.
In 719, Boniface began his second evangelical mission on the continent. He
visited Rome first this time and received both a new name and a commission from
Gregory II to preach to the pagan Saxons east of the Rhine River and to spread
the Roman method of baptism and the Roman liturgy. Returning north, he joined
Willibrord again in Frisia and spent three years evangelizing the Frisians, where the
death of Radbod, the Frisian king who opposed the Franks, and the rise of Charles
Martel offered the opportunity for success. Indeed, in 723 Charles Martel sent an
official letter to the ecclesiastical and lay nobility proclaiming Martel’s protection
of and support for the activities of Boniface. In the previous year, Boniface had
been called back to Rome, where Gregory consecrated him bishop, provided him
the mandate to preach to the pagan Saxons, and sent a letter to the Carolingian
mayor of the palace requesting his support. Boniface returned to the north and
began his mission in most aggressive fashion by chopping down one of the pagan
Saxons sacred oaks near Fritzlar. This event had great significance, because Boni-
face suffered no vengeance from the pagan gods and demonstrated that the power
of his God was far greater.
Over the next several decades, Boniface continued his missionary activities and
remained in frequent contact with the pope in Rome. From 725 to 735 he spent
most of his time in Thuringia, where he converted pagans and struggled against rival
missionaries whose methods he disliked and termed heretical. As with all things,
Boniface sought the support of Rome in his struggles with rival missionaries. His
devotion to Rome, his efforts to spread Roman traditions, and his frequent reports
to the pope attracted the attention of the new pope, Gregory III, during his years in
Thuringia. Gregory welcomed his efforts and raised him to the rank of archbishop,
which increased Boniface’s authority and reinforced his power and prestige as the
official representative of the pope in Germany.
In 735, Boniface was sent to the duchy of Bavaria to reorganize and reform the
church, activities that turned out to be important when the duchy was absorbed by
the Frankish kingdom. Although supported by the duke, Boniface was often opposed
by the bishops and other church leaders in Bavaria, especially after his trip to Rome
in 737. There he had been welcomed by Gregory III, who supported his efforts in
Germany. Returning to Bavaria, Boniface wholeheartedly began reorganization of
124 | Boniface, St.

the church of Germany, despite frequent opposition. He established numerous new

bishoprics, including those at Erfurt, Freising, Regensburg, and Würzburg. He also,
in 744, established a monastery at Fulda, which he placed under the protection of
the pope and entrusted to his Bavarian convert Sturmi. His activities in Bavaria
were an important prelude to his activities in the Frankish kingdom after the death
of his patron, Charles Martel.
Until the rise to power of Pippin and Carloman, Boniface had done little with the
Frankish church, which was much in need of reform. Indeed, it is from Boniface
that we learn of the sorry shape of the Frankish church. Certainly there is some
exaggeration, but Boniface complained that there had been no church council in
the kingdom in 80 years and that the bishops were “greedy laymen” or “adulterous,
undedicated clerical carousers.” Moreover, he lamented that the bishops also shed
blood and that the lower clergy were often ignorant and had “four, five, or more
concubines in their bed each night.” With the support of the Carolingian mayors
of the palace, particularly Carloman, Boniface instituted reform of the Frankish
church. The German Council of 742 or 743 held by Carloman implemented the
reform ideas of Boniface, declaring that priests and other clergy must wear distinc-
tive and simple clothes and must not keep arms, hunting dogs, or women in their
house. Monks were encouraged to follow the Rule of St. Benedict and were to
live chaste and stable lives. Carloman, inspired by Boniface, also established new
episcopal sees, which he put under Boniface’s authority as archbishop. Finally,
Boniface reinforced the pro-Roman tendencies in the Frankish church, inadver-
tently laying the foundation for a political alliance between the Carolingians and
the pope.
After Carloman’s retirement to a monastery Boniface’s influence at the Carolin-
gian court declined, particularly because of Pippin’s close relationship with Chro-
degang of Metz, an important bishop and religious reformer, and Boniface returned
to missionary work. His influence continued in the kingdom, and he did not com-
pletely separate himself from Pippin’s affairs, at least according to the Royal Frank-
ish Annals, which declare that Boniface anointed Pippin king in 751. There is more
than a little uncertainty about his presence at the ceremony, but his importance in the
realm even after Carloman’s retirement is attested by the assertion that he partici-
pated in the coronation. It is certain that Boniface resumed his evangelical activity
and remained dedicated to it during the last year of his life. Retiring from his duties
as archbishop, he turned the office over to one of his disciples and began preaching
to the pagan Frisians. He was attacked on the morning of June 5, 754, and suffered
martyrdom, and, according to his biographer, Boniface encouraged his followers
not to fear the attackers but to “endure with steadfast mind the sudden onslaught
of death, that you may be able to reign evermore with Christ” (Talbot 1995, 136).
Boniface’s biographer notes further that within a few years great miracles occurred
at the spot of the martyrdom.
 Bretwalda | 125

See also: Anglo-Saxons; Carloman, Mayor of the Palace; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles
Martel; Chrodegang of Metz; Gregory II, Pope; Gregory III, Pope; Pippin II, Called Pippin
of Herstal; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rome; Royal Frankish Annals

Bibliography
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars. New York: Macmillan,
1947.
Emerton, Ephraim, ed. and trans. The Letters of Saint Boniface. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2000.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1984.
Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Reuter, Timothy, ed. The Greatest Englishman: Essays on St. Boniface and the Church
at Crediton. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Talbot, C. H., trans. “Willibald: The Life of Saint Boniface.” In Soldiers of Christ: Saints
and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Eds. Thomas F. X. Noble
and Thomas Head. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Bretwalda

Term used to designate any Anglo-Saxon king who exercised power over all of
southern England, bretwalda, or bretwald, was probably a scribal correction of the
Old English term Brytenwealda, which probably meant “Britain ruler” or “ruler of
the Britons.”
Although often used in modern scholarship, the term bretwalda appears only in
one manuscript copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In the year 829, according to
the Chronicle, King Egbert of Wessex conquered “the kingdom of Mercia and all
that was south of the Humber, and he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda.”
Other manuscripts reporting the event use the Old English word Brytenwealda, but
even that version of the term was not widely used. However, echoes of the term
bretwalda can be heard in a charter of Æthelbald of Mercia from 736, in which the
king is called “rex Britanniae,” the Latin version of “king of Britain.” The Chronicle
also lists Egbert’s predecessors as bretwalda: Aelle of Sussex, Ceawlin of Wessex,
Aethelberht of Kent, Raedwald of East Anglia, and Edwin, Oswald, and Oswy of
Northumbria. This list of kings is taken from Bede’s history, which identifies the
126 | Breviary of Alaric

kings as ruling over all the lands south of the Humber and thus reinforces the notion
that the term meant “Britain ruler.”
Although a clear definition of the term seems to have existed among Anglo-
Saxon writers, bretwalda was probably not a regular institution. The appearance
of bretwalda in the Chronicle may reveal the memory of an overall leader of the
combined regions of the south from early Anglo-Saxon history. It may also be of
poetical origin, emerging in the banquet halls of the kings and used as a term of
praise and honor. It may also have emerged from church ideology, and the writing
of the church’s most famous representative, Bede, to testify to the unity of the
English people.
See also: Aethelberht I of Kent; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Heptarchy;
Wessex

Bibliography
Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-
Price. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Classics, 1968.
Loyn, Henry R. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. 2nd ed. London:
Longmans, 1991.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Breviary of Alaric

Compiled by the Visigothic king of Toulouse Alaric II (d. 507) in 506, the Bre-
viary of Alaric (Breviarium Alaricianum) or Roman Law of the Visigoths
(Lex Romana Visigothorum) is a major codification of Roman law. The Breviary
reflects the influence of Roman imperial administrative and legal traditions on the
Visigoths as well as the importance of the Roman population of Alaric’s realm. In-
corporating some of the more important works of Roman law and jurisprudence,
the Breviary had a significant impact on both later Germanic law and the Code of
Justinian.
Although his father King Euric (r. 466–484) had promulgated a new legal code
of mixed German and Roman traditions, Alaric saw the need to compile a more
fully Roman legal code for his numerous Roman subjects that was separate from
the Germanic legal traditions applicable to his Visigothic subjects. To accomplish
this, Alaric drew together a number of legal experts at his court who were put
under the direction of a high-ranking royal official. Their task was to upgrade and
organize Roman law and to eliminate redundant and obsolete laws. The collection
 Breviary of Alaric | 127

includes major sections of the Theodosian Code of 438, the novels or new laws of
the Roman emperors of the fifth century, and the legal commentaries of the great
Roman jurists Gaius, Papinian, and Paulus. As a result, the framework of legal
thought and practice of the Breviary was Roman. Before undertaking this major
reform, Alaric consulted with secular and religious leaders of his kingdom to gain
their approval. After the legal experts completed their work, Alaric formally pre-
sented the Breviary to a great council of state for final acceptance. The new code
was officially placed in the royal treasury, and Alaric decreed that under penalty
of death his counts were to use no other version of Roman law. It received further
support at the council of Adge in 506, a national council of bishops that was the
first of its kind in the Germanic kingdoms of the post-Roman world.

Illustration of the king, the bishop, the duke, and the

count from a ninth-century version of the Breviary
of Alaric. (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France/
Flammarion/The Bridgeman Art Library)
128 | Brunhilde

A major accomplishment intended for all the lands of the Visigoths, the Bre-
viary had both a lesser and greater impact than Alaric had intended. The king’s
death of thee hands of the Merovingian king Clovis in 507 limited the Breviary’s
influence in Gaul as Frankish control was established over Visigothic territory
there. In Visigothic Iberia, the legal tradition returned to the Germanic-Roman
model of Euric over the Roman law of Alaric. In the Frankish kingdom and
Byzantine Empire, however, the Breviary would shape the legal tradition long after
the death of Alaric.
See also: Alaric II; Clovis; Corpus Iuris Civilis; Euric; Franks; Justinian; Merovingian
Dynasty; Visigoths

Bibliography
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
King, P. D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2006.
Van Kleffens, E. N. Hispanic Law until the End of the Middle Ages. Edinburgh: University
of Edinburgh Press, 1968.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1996.

Brunhilde (d. 613)

Visigothic princess, Merovingian queen, and rival of the queen Fregedund, Brun-
hilde had great influence on politics in the Frankish kingdoms in the late sixth and
the early seventh centuries. Her struggle with Fredegund contributed to the insta-
bility and civil war in the Frankish kingdoms in the late sixth century. Despite fre-
quent attempts on her life by her rival, Fredegund, Brunhilde survived and was the
power behind the throne in the last decade of the sixth century and the first decade
of the seventh. She worked consistently during her reign of more than 30 years to
promote the interests of her family, especially her sons and grandsons. Her efforts,
however, provoked opposition and led to a revolt that ended in her death and con-
tributed to the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
According to the sixth-century bishop and historian, Gregory of Tours,
Brunhilde was “elegant in all that she did, lovely to look at, chaste and deco-
rous in her behavior, wise in her generation and of good address” (221). Al-
though Gregory may have been biased toward the queen, since there is good
evidence to suggest that she secured his appointment as bishop, his opinion
seems born out by Brunhilde’s successes while a queen of the Franks. She came
to the kingdom, again according to Gregory, to marry the Merovingian king
 Brunhilde | 129

Sigebert I (r. 560/561–575), who saw that his brothers were marrying their ser-
vants and decided to seek the hand of a princess. Brunhilde was the daughter of
the Visigothic king of Spain, Athanagild, and she was also an Arian Christian,
who converted to Catholic Christianity shortly after her arrival in the Frankish
kingdoms. She arrived, therefore, with wealth and pedigree unrivaled by any of
the other Merovingian queens.
Her arrival inspired jealousy in Sigebert’s half-brother, King Chilperic I
(560/561–584), who arranged to marry Brunhilde’s sister, the princess
Galswintha. She too arrived with great wealth and prestige, but not so much
that Chilperic hesitated to murder her shortly after her arrival, refusing to return
the dowry. He then married, or remarried, the former servant Fredegund, who
may have been behind the murder. The murder of Galswintha and promotion
of Fredegund surely embittered relations between the two Merovingian queens.
Some scholars argue that a blood feud followed the murder of Galswintha, but
others maintain that the strife between Brunhilde and Fredegund was simply an
example of the violent politics that occasionally plagued the Merovingian dy-
nasty. Whatever the case, the relationship between the two was hostile and led
to great civil strife.
In 575, tragedy again struck Brunhilde when Chilperic had Sigebert murdered
and then took control of his kingdom and treasure. Brunhilde was captured and
exiled to Rouen from her husband’s capital at Paris, and her son Childebert was
taken from her. Despite this setback, Brunhilde returned to power in the 580s and
became increasingly powerful thereafter. The first step in her return was her mar-
riage to Merovech, son of her rival Chilperic. The marriage provided her with
supporters and access to power once again, and Merovech had access to control
of a kingdom. But Chilperic separated the two and returned Brunhilde to her east-
ern Frankish kingdom. When Merovech attempted to return to Brunhilde she re-
buffed him, and shortly afterward he was captured and killed, possibly, as Gregory
suggests, at Fredegund’s orders. Although Merovech met a sad fate, his former
wife’s fortunes climbed in the 580s. This occurred, in part, because of the death
of Chilperic and the subsequent weakness of Fredegund, who may have killed
him and certainly made attempts to kill Brunhilde. The murders, possibly at the
queen’s order, of an abbot and a bishop who opposed her strengthened her hand
as well. But the most important factor in her improved circumstances was that her
son, Childebert, reached his majority and was recognized as a legitimate king by
other Merovingian kings.
For the next three decades, Brunhilde dominated the scene in the Frankish
kingdoms. Although first her son and then grandsons were the titular rulers, she
held the real power in the kingdom and exercised it in both church and state. She
arranged important political marriages for her children, alliances with Visigoth
130 | Brunhilde

rulers in Spain which included the marriage of her daughter, Ingunde, to the
prince Hermenegild. She also corresponded with the Byzantine emperor, who
had captured her daughter and grandson after Hermenegild revolted. She also
conspired to break up marriages of her son and grandsons to limit threats to her
position at court.
Within the kingdom, she strengthened her position further by arranging treaties
with other Merovingian kings and orchestrating the murders of her rivals. More-
over, she corresponded with Pope Gregory I, known as the Great (590–604), and
oversaw the administration of the church and appointment of bishops in the realm.
Her relationship with the pope was an important one, for Gregory who hoped that
the queen would help reform the Frankish church and aid Augustine of Canterbury’s
mission to England. In both regards Gregory was not disappointed, and in return
he supported the queen’s request to elevate one of her favorites to the rank of met-
ropolitan bishop. Her relations with the church, however, were not always happy.
She may have ordered the murder of Bishop Desiderius of Vienne and certainly
exiled St. Columban because they both questioned the behavior and right to rule of
members of her family.
The difficulties she faced with Desiderius and Columban reveal the problems
that arose for Brunhilde after the death of her son Childebert in 596. She contin-
ued to rule as regent for her grandsons, Theudebert II (596–612) and Theuderic II
(596–613), but she faced growing opposition in the kingdoms, especially among
the nobility in Austrasia, where Theudebert ruled, and among the clergy who op-
posed her heavy-handed control of the church. She took up residence with Theud-
eric, whom she set against his brother, claiming that Theudebert was the son of a
gardener. These first efforts failed, but Brunhilde would not be stopped. She broke
the engagement of Theuderic, and worked to maintain her influence at court. In 612
she convinced Theuderic to attack his brother’s kingdom, and this time Theudebert
was defeated, captured, and killed.
In 612, Brunhilde remained at the pinnacle of power, and threatened Fredegund’s
son, Chlotar. But her fortunes quickly changed when Theuderic died of dysentery
in 613. Although she made her great-grandson, Sigebert II, king, she could not put
down the successful revolt Chlotar led against her. She was captured by her former
rival’s son and tried for the murder of 10 kings, including her husband, children,
grandchildren, Merovech, and Chilperic. She was found guilty and condemned to
death in a most gruesome fashion, tied to the back of a wild horse and dragged to
her death. Although she met a most unfortunate end, Brunhilde ruled effectively for
more than 30 years, acting as any Merovingian queen would to defend the rights of
herself and her family against their rivals.
See also: Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Chilperic I; Chlotar II;
Columban, St.; Fredegund; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory of Tours; Merovingian
Dynasty; Visigoths
 Burgundian Code | 131

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Nelson, Janet L. “Queens as Jezebels: The Careers of Brunhild and Balthild in Merovin-
gian History.” In Medieval Women. Ed. Derek Baker. Oxford: Blackwell, 1978, pp. 31–77.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press,
1982.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Burgundian Code

Compiled by the Burgundian king Gundobad (r. 474–516) and officially promul-
gated by his son Sigismund in 517, the Burgundian Code (Lex Burgundionum), also
known as Lex Gundobada or Liber Constitutionem is the formal codification of
tribal law or traditional Burgundian custom. The code, which merged Burgundian
and Roman traditions, sought to define patterns of daily life, marriage, the wergild,
and other matters concerning the Burgundians. A separate law, the Lex Romana
Burdundionum, defined relations between Burgundians and Romans.
The Burgundians entered the Roman Empire in the early fifth century and es-
tablished two kingdoms, the first of which lasted from 413 to 436 and the second
lasted from 443 to 534. Like many of the Germanic peoples who settled in the em-
pire, the Burgundians faced the challenge of regulating relations with the majority
Roman population they governed and of formalizing their own legal traditions. It
is possible that already during the first Burgundian kingdom efforts were made to
transform custom into formal written law, but the codification of the law waited
for the greatest of Burgundian kings, Gundobad. By about 500, the king, drawing
on the precedent of the Visigothic code published in 483 by King Euric, began the
process of establishing a code of laws divided into 105 titles that was intended to
regulate the lives and affairs of the Burgundian people and their relations with the
Romans living under Burgundian authority. The effort was furthered by Gundo-
bad’s son and successor as king, Sigismund (516–523) who officially published the
code in 517 and by Sigismund’s successor, Godamar (524–534) who added to the
written code. The Lex Gundobada, thus, can be divided into three main sections.
The first section, titles 2–42, were compiled by Gundobad and seem to be the writ-
ten version of established Burgundian custom. A second section, titles 43–88, was
compiled between 501 and 517 and reflects the new situation facing the Burgundi-
ans as rulers of a settled kingdom. The final section, titles 89–105, were new laws
issued by Godomar between 524 and 532.
132 | Burgundians

The Lex Gundobada addresses a wide range of topics in its 105 titles and reflects
the character of Burgundian society. There are passages that are concerned with
economic activity, regulating contracts and sales of property; the planting and
preservation of vineyards; and the manumission and conduct of slaves. The Lex
also reveals social distinctions that existed in Burgundian society, which included
slaves and semifree, freemen and serfs, as well as nobles and the king and his fam-
ily. Although there is evidence of social inequities in the code, there is no evidence
that Burgundians and Romans were treated differently—their wergeld was valued
at the same level. Along with the definition of relations between Burgundians and
Romans, the Lex focuses extensively on relations between the Burgundians them-
selves. Some titles consider gender relations, including number 12 which defines
the penalties for abducting women. The code regulates marital and family affairs
including titles that provide guidelines for the arrangement of marriages and the
wedding gift, offer rules for women who seek marriage, and address the issues of
adultery and divorce.
Related to the regulation of marriage and family are the many titles concerned
with inheritance, and these titles address several specific matters such as rules for
sons who die intestate after the death of their father but while their mother still lives
and rules for division between a son and his aunt (like many early codes, the Lex
Gundobada tends to address specific cases rather than establish general legal prece-
dent). There are numerous titles that outline the penalties and procedures for crimes
against slaves and free persons and their property. Among these titles are those that
concern acts of violence, assault on women, theft, knocking out teeth, violation of
crops and other goods and property, bearing false witness, and murder and murder
of royal servants. The code also defines the specific rights of the king and obliga-
tions owed him. The Lex Gundobada regulates a wide range of social, economic,
and criminal matters and although lacking a sophisticated legal philosophy is a step
toward a more abstract sense or royal and legal authority.
See also: Burgundians; Gundobad; Visigoths

Bibliography
Fisher Drew, Katherine, trans. The Burgundian Code: Book of Constitutions of Gundo-
bad; Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Burgundians

Among the most Romanized of the barbarians who settled in the Roman Empire,
the Burgundians established two kingdoms in succession that came to include
 Burgundians | 133

parts of modern France, Germany, and Switzerland and that still bears their name.
The Burgundians and their kings played an active role in the affairs of Italy and
Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries before their final defeat by the Merovingian
Franks and incorporation into the Frankish kingdom. Although their independent
reign was relatively short lived, the legacy of the Burgundians is significant; their
early history forms the core of the Nibelungenlied, and the Lex Gundobada, or
Burgundian Code, which was published in 517, remained influential into the ninth
century.
The origins of the Burgundians remain obscure; a ninth-century tradition iden-
tifies their homeland as Scandinavia, but this is unlikely. Late Roman historians
suggest that the Burgundians and Romans were long-standing neighbors. Oro-
sius believed that they arrived along the Rhine during the reign of the emperor
Tiberius (14–36 ad). Ammianus Marcellinus placed their appearance along the
Rhine by the fourth century when they were enlisted against the Alammani and
maintained that Romans and Burgundians were biologically related. This long
period of contact with the empire may well have affected the attitude of the Bur-
gundians toward the Romans after their crossing into imperial territory, possi-
bly during the mass crossing of the Rhine in 406 and establishment as foederati
(federated allies).
Shortly after their settlement within the boundaries of the empire, the Bur-
gundians became actively involved in Roman political and military affairs and
established the first of two independent kingdoms. In 407 the Burgundians were
enlisted to defend the Rhine frontier against other barbains, and in 411 they joined
with the Alamanni to support Jovinus’ seizure of the imperial throne in the West.
Two years later, Jovinus granted the Burgundian leader, Gundahar, the right to
found a kingdom, whose capital would be Worms. Despite the fall of Jovinus, the
Burgundians remained secure as foederati and maintained good relations with the
empire. This changed, however, as the Burgundians sought to expand their ter-
ritory in Gaul in the early 430s. The Roman general Aëtius attacked in 435 and
unleashed his Hunnish mercenaries in the next year. The Huns killed Gundahar
and virtually wiped out the Burgundians, an event that would be memorialized in
the Nibelungenlied.
Despite this savage assault, the Burgundians managed to endure. Although
they seem not to have had any kings for some two decades after the attack by the
Huns, the Burgundians were resettled along the Rhine by Aëtius in 443 and re-
formed a kingdom that would last until 534. Throughout this period, as they had
during the first kingdom, the Burgundians maintained close ties with the empire
and were proud of their position as foederati. On numerous occasions in the fifth
century, the Burgundians and their kings fought on behalf of the empire. In 451,
they joined the Romans against Attila and the Huns at the battle of the Catalau-
nian Plains, and in 456 they fought as allies of the empire and Visigoths against
134 | Burgundians

the Suebi in Spain. Although Burgundian efforts to expand were pushed back by
the Romans, their ties to the empire remained strong and even deepened when
Ricimer, the brother-in-law of the Burgundain king Gundioc, became magister
militum. Even after Ricimer’s fall, the Burgundians continued to defend Roman
interests against threats from the Alamanni and Visigoths. The Burgundian king
Gundobad served as magister militum from 472 to 474, and his son Sigismund
forged ties with the emperor in Constantinople and was given the title patrician.
The strong ties to the empire were reflected by the relations between Burgundians
and Romans in the Burgundian kingdom where the two groups lived side-by-side
and were treated as equals before the law.
Along with their active alliance with the empire, the Burgundians were
deeply involved with their barbarian neighbors. Under their greatest king, Gun-
dobad (r. 480–516), and compiler of the Burgundian Code (Lex Gundobada),
the Burgundians were involved in a complex set of affairs involving Franks,
Ostrogoths, and Visigoths. In the 490s, as the Ostrogoth Theodoric struggled
for control of Italy with Odovacar, Gundobad expanded into Italy and later, by
496–497, was made part of a system of marriage alliances that included The-
odoric, Gundobad, the Merovingian king Clovis, and members of their fami-
lies. It was at this time that Clovis married Clothilde, Gundobad’s Catholic
niece who shaped her husband’s religious and military programs. As Gregory of
Tours relates, it was Clothilde who encouraged Clovis to convert and to invade
Burgundy, whose kings were Arian Christians. In an alliance with one of the
Burgundian subkings, Godigisel, Clovis entered Burgundy and forced Gundo-
bad to flee to Avignon. The Frank withdrew believing the situation was secure,
but the Burgundians rose against Godigisel and the Franks, capturing and kill-
ing them all. Recognizing the advantages offered by Clovis, Gundobad allied
with him and defeated the Visigoths in 507. They also waged a war against the
Alemanni that practically destroyed them in 508–509, but Theodoric intervened
much to the disadvantage of the Burgundians. Under Gundobad’s successor, Si-
gismund (516–23) and publisher of the Lex Gundobada, the situation worsened.
In 522, Sigismund’s wife and daughter of Theodoric died and Sigismund killed
their son. Enraged and intending on avenging his daughter, Theodoric invaded
Burgundy and was joined by the Franks who together inflicted a savage defeat
on the Burgundians. Sigismund was abandoned by his people and turned over
to the Franks, who killed him. In 524, Godomar, Sigismund’s brother, became
king and presided over the demise of the kingdom. He faced attacks by the
Franks in 524 and 532. In 534, the Merovingians invaded for the last time; they
defeated Godomar and brought an end to the Burgundian kingdom, which was
then incorporated into the Frankish kingdoms.
See also: Aëtius; Burgundian Code; Franks; Gundobad; Merovingian Dynasty; Odovacar;
Theodoric the Great; Visigoths
 Burgundians | 135

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1947.
Fisher Drew, Katherine, trans. The Burgundian Code: Book of Constitutions of
Gundobad; Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kings, 450–751. London: Longman, [Link].
C
Caedwalla (c. 659–689)

According to the historian Bede, Caedwalla was “a daring mad young man of the
royal house of Gewissae” (232) who began his career as a pagan but converted to
Christianity. He was king of the West Saxons for only a few years but initiated the
tradition among West Saxon kings, down to Alfred the Great in the ninth century,
of attempting to rule all of southeastern England.
Caedwalla was a member of the royal line but had been sent into exile during
the reign of his predecessor, King Æthelwalh. In 685, Caedwalla began his strug-
gle for the kingdom, and leaving exile, he attacked and killed Æthelwalh. He was
turned away by his dead rival’s retainers but managed to return and assume the
throne. As king, he was involved in incessant warfare and conquest. He extended
his power throughout southeastern England. Almost immediately after becoming
king, Caedwalla invaded the Isle of Wight, where he was seriously wounded, and
sought to kill all its inhabitants and replace them with people from Wessex. He
took control of Sussex and killed one of its leaders and one of his chief rivals there.
In 686, he invaded Kent and managed to secure recognition as king there as well.
Although he was able to establish his power in several kingdoms, Caedwalla was
unable to keep permanent hold on any of them, with the exception of the Isle of
Wight.
Although he was a ferocious warrior king and pagan, Caedwalla remained on
good terms with the bishops of his kingdom and eventually converted to Christian-
ity. He was a patron of the church in England and may have founded a monastery
at Hoo, in Kent between the Thames and Medway estuaries. According to Bede,
Caedwalla abdicated the throne after roughly two years as king, 688, “for the sake
of our Lord and his eternal kingdom” (279). Although accepting the faith in 688,
the king desired the great honor of baptism in Rome and hoped to die shortly after
baptism so that he could pass to “everlasting happiness” (279). In the summer of
688, Caedwalla left England. He stopped at Calais and donated money for the build-
ing of a church, and he also spent time at the court of the king of the Lombards,
Cunipert. He reached Rome by the spring of 689 and was baptized by Pope Sergius
on Holy Saturday before Easter, April 10, in that year, and was given the name Peter.
As he wished, Caedwalla fell ill and died in Rome 10 days later on April 20, 689.
Although his reign and life were short, Caedwalla left an important legacy for his
kingdom as king and Christian convert.

137
138 | Caesarea

See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Lombards; Wessex

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Caesarea

Commonly known as Caesarea Maritima or Caesarea Palaestinae to distinguish it

from other cities of the same name, Caesarea was an important late Roman port
and city along the Mediterranean coast near modern day Tel Aviv. A provincial
capital under the Romans, Caeasarea is perhaps best known today for the ongoing
undersea archeological excavations that have discovered much of the dynamic and
prosperous city of antiquity.
Built in 22–10 bc by the Jewish king Herod the Great (73–4 bc), Caesarea was
dedicated to the emperor Caesar Augustus (d. 14 ad) and consisted of a traditional
Roman city as well as an important, man-made harbor that would contribute to
the city’s importance as a commercial center connecting the Roman Empire with
Asia. In 6 ad the city was made the capital of the province of Judaea and follow-
ing the Bar Kokhba or Second Jewish War (132–35 ad) Caesarea served as the
capital of province now called Syria Palaestina. Under Byzantine rule, the city
would continue as capital of the province Palaestina Prima. During the Roman and
Byzantine periods, Caesarea was enriched by extensive trade in cotton, oil, wine,
and other commodities, and the city was marked by warehouses and other struc-
tures necessary for trade. Excavation in the city has revealed an amphitheater, aq-
ueducts (restored and updated in the sixth century), public baths, temples, and a
hippodrome. An inscription was found that identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator
of Judaea. An elegant Roman city, Caesarea’s most remarkable feature was its har-
bor, which was built without any natural protective barriers but instead bounded by
two breakwaters of concrete and rubble. The harbor underwent restoration under
the emperor Anastasius in 500, and in the sixth century new fortifications were es-
tablished for the still growing population. In the early seventh century, the city fell
to the Persinas and then shortly after to the armies of Islam, after which the city
declined in importance.
Along with its prominence as a provincial capital, Caesarea was also an impor-
tant religious and cultural center. A Christian community was established there
 Caesarius of Arles | 139

by St. Peter in the early first century, and the church may have survived without
interruption throughout antiquity. It later became the seat of a metropolitan, and
a number of churches were built including a great stone, octagonal church, which
was built in the year 500. In 231 the great Christian thinker Origen settled in the
city and attracted large numbers of students to the school and library he established
there. He also compiled the Hexapla, a work of biblical commentary and paral-
lel Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, in Caesarea, and later Christian scholars
were attracted to the city as a result. In the fourth century, the scholar and historian
and confidant of the emperor Constantine, Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea. The
flourishing Christian culture was accompanied by traditional Greek learning and
literacy and boasted numerous rhetoricians and other classically trained scholars.
The Byzantine historian and chronicler of the reign of Justinian, Procopius, was the
descendant of aristocrats of Caesarea.
See also: Constantine; Justinian; Procopius

Bibliography
Holum, Kenneth G., Avner Raban, Robert L. Hohlfelder, and Robert J. Bull. King Herod’s
Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1988.
Levine, Lee. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Raban, Avner, and Kenneth G. Holum, eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after
Two Millenia. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Caesarius of Arles (c. 470–542)

An important bishop and monk whose influence on the later barbarian churches
was great, Caesarius ruled as bishop during a critical period in the transition from
the Roman to barbarian world. During his reign his city of Arles was controlled by
several different barbarian kingdoms, ultimately becoming part of the Merovingian
kingdom of the Franks. Although he carefully guided his diocese through troubled
times, Caesarius is best known for his pastoral efforts and simple but elegant ser-
mons. A talented preacher, Caesarius introduced the ideas of Augustine of Hippo
to a broader audience. He was also very much interested in monastic life and com-
posed two monastic rules, one for women and the other for men.
Born to a noble family near Chalon-sur-Saône in circa 470, Caesarius’s relatives
included his predecessor as archbishop of Arles. Although he later dedicated his life
to the church, Caesarius showed interest in classical culture and the arts of rhetoric
as a youth. He studied with an acclaimed teacher of rhetoric but, like St. Jerome
and others, experienced a dream that persuaded him to devote himself solely to the
church. His later sermons revealed the consequences of his decision by their lack
of classical allusions. His decision led him to the monastery of Lérins, one of the
140 | Caesarius of Arles

great centers of monastic life, in 490. He remained there until 497, but was forced to
abandon the rigors of the monastic life because of ill health. He left the monastery
for the city of Arles, where he was made a deacon and then ordained priest. He later
became an abbot of a local monastery and, in 504, archbishop of Arles, a position
he held until his death in 542.
His career as archbishop was an important one for the church in Arles and
Gaul. He was confirmed in his position as archbishop by the Visigothic king,
Alaric II, and in 505 was summoned to the king’s court on charges of conspiring
with Alaric’s enemies. Caesarius was acquitted, but he was forced to deal with the
Ostrogothic king Theodoric after Alaric was defeated by the Merovingian king
Clovis (r. 481–511). Although the city was to be ceded to Clovis’s descendants
in 536, in the meantime it remained subject to the Ostrogoths, and Caesarius was
called to appear at Theodoric’s court in 513 on suspicion of conspiracy. While
visiting Theodoric, Caesarius met with the pope, who named him papal vicar to
Spain and Gaul. As archbishop and papal legate, Caesarius assumed important
duties in the church, including convening church councils. He held six councils
during his reign, councils that shaped religious practice and doctrine. The most
important council, at Orange in 529, established the interpretation of Augustine’s
teachings on salvation.
Archbishop in a critical time for the church and society in Gaul (now France),
Caesarius is remembered best for his preaching and monastic rules. His sermons,
which reveal Caesarius as a theologian of no great originality, are models of elegant
simplicity and instruction. He abandoned the rhetoric he had once studied for a
simpler style of delivery, using a less studied manner to comment on the Scrip-
tures. His style of delivery made his sermons, of which some 238 still exist, more
comprehensible to his flock. The sermons, however, were not overly simplistic but
contained important lessons. They disseminated the ideas of Augustine, as well
as other church fathers, to the faithful and included admonitions against supersti-
tion and immorality. He encouraged his listeners to read the Scriptures at home
during dinner and throughout the evening and suggested that those who could not
read should have the Scriptures read to them. He also called on his listeners to
ponder the message of the sermon and to sing the psalms to reinforce the teach-
ings of the faith.
Caesarius is also known for his monastic rule. Although unable because of health
reasons to live as a monk, Caesarius remained dedicated to the monastic ideal dur-
ing his life. An archbishop, he was also an abbot and the founder of a community
of nuns at Arles. It was for this community that he wrote his famous monastic rule.
This important rule seems to have been influenced by the Rule of the Master, and
Benedict of Nursia seems to have borrowed from Caesarius when composing his
monastic rule. Moreover, according to Gregory of Tours, a version of the rule of
Caesarius was adopted by the royal nun Radegund for the convent she founded.
The rule legislated on such matters as the length of the novitiate, personal property,
 Capitulare de Villis | 141

and stability in the monastery, and set the precedent for monastic life in Gaul for
generations to come.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Benedict of Nursia, St.; Clovis; Franks; Gregory of
Tours; Merovingian Dynasty; Monasticism; Ostrogoths; Radegund; Theodoric the Great;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Caesarius of Arles. Caesarius of Arles: Sermons. Trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller.
3 Vols. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1956–1973.
Klingshirn, William E. Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in
Late Antique Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
McCarthy, Maria Caritas. The Rule for Nuns of St. Caesarius of Arles: A Translation
with Critical Introduction. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1960.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Capitulare de Villis

One of the most famous and significant of Charlemagne’s capitularies, the Ca-
pitulare de Villis (capitulary on the royal estates) provides important insights into
Carolingian government and economic life. The capitulary reveals Charlemagne’s
interest in governing local affairs as well as the need for Carolingian kings to at-
tend to such matters. It also shows the economic resources available to Carolingian
kings and the obligations of royal servants to their king.
The Capitulare de Villis is traditionally held to have been issued sometime be-
tween 771 and 800, and most likely closer to the year 800. A later date, of 807, for
the issuance of the capitulary has also been proposed. It was issued by Charlemagne
to improve administration in the kingdom and to end the abuses of the royal trea-
sury and of the king’s residences throughout his vast realm. The capitulary was
also designed to guarantee that certain basic necessities would be found in each of
the residences, so that the king and his court could be well provided for when he
and his retinue visited the various estates in the kingdom. Indeed, the capitulary
was intended to establish the standards by which Charlemagne wanted his estates
maintained and was, thus, an important part of his reform of Carolingian govern-
ment and administration. It was, in fact, one of a number of rulings by the king to
improve administration, and it laid the foundation for similar rulings by his son,
142 | Capitularies

Louis the Pious. The depth of detail in the rulings in the capitulary reveal both the
king’s interest in government and the rudimentary nature of the administration in
Charlemagne’s day.
The capitulary legislated the day-to-day workings of the royal estates through-
out the realm, regulating the materials and laborers found on these estates. In fact,
the capitulary laid out instructions for all economic life in the royal estates. It pro-
vided rules for making wine, salting food, maintaining buildings, and taking care
of animals, as well as a list of the agricultural products to be raised on the estates.
The steward of the palace was to provide an annual statement of the revenues de-
rived from the fields farmed by royal plowmen and from tenant farmers, as well as
from the number of piglets born, various fines, and payments from mills, forests,
fields, boats, and bridges. The steward was also to keep a record of fruits, vegeta-
bles, honey, wax, oil, soap, vinegar, beer, wine, wheat, chickens, eggs, geese, and
other farm products raised each year. The capitulary also mandated an account of
fishermen, smiths, shield makers, and cobblers who worked on the estates as well
as the number of workshops in which they worked. The number of tools on each
estate was also given, and this account reveals that most of the tools were wood
and not iron. Although the Capitulare de Villis is no longer used as a tool to un-
derstand the entire economic and social structure of the Carolingian world, since it
applied only to the royal estates, it remains an important document for understand-
ing Carolingian material culture and political administration.
See also: Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Louis the Pious

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1993.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Capitularies

Carolingian legislative documents, the capitularies were an important tool of gov-

ernment and administration for all Carolingian kings, especially Charlemagne. The
capitularies covered a wide range of topics, from economics and estate management
to religious and political reforms. The term comes from contemporary usage, which
 Carloman, King of the Franks | 143

refers to this kind of document as a capitulare or in the plural capitularia, because

the documents were organized into short sections or chapters (in Latin, capitula).
The capitularies demonstrate the growing importance of writing and the written
word for Charlemagne and all Carolingians; even though the documents did not re-
place the word of the king as the rule or law, they did make known the king’s word.
The capitularies were sent to the special agents of the king called missi dominici,
or messengers of the lord king, who were charged with circulating them through-
out the realm (unless the capitularies contained specific instructions for the missi).
The earliest of the capitularies were issued by Carloman and Pippin the Short
in the 740s, 750s, and 760s, but they were used to a much greater degree under
Charlemagne. Indeed, Charlemagne issued a large number of capitularies as part
of his broader reform of the Carolingian church and state. Some of the most fa-
mous and important Carolingian capitularies were issued by Charlemagne. The
Capitulary of Herstal (779) aimed at general reform of society, and the program-
matic Admonitio Generalis (789) announced the religious goals and ideals of the
Frankish king and laid the foundation for the Carolingian Renaissance by man-
dating teaching and the establishment of schools. Charlemagne also issued a ca-
pitulary shortly after his coronation as emperor of the Romans in 800, restating
the goals he pursued throughout his reign, as well as capitularies that addressed
images, monastic life, and the law. Charlemagne also issued the Capitulare de
Villis, which regulated management of the royal estates. Charlemagne’s successors
Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald continued to issue capitularies throughout
their reigns, but the documents were not used in other parts of the divided empire.
The last capitulary was issued in 877.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Capitulare de Villis; Carloman, Mayor of the Palace;
Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Louis the Pious; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Loyn, Henry R., and John Percival. The Reign of Charlemagne: Documents on Carolin-
gian Government and Administration. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Carloman, King of the Franks (d. 771)

Son of Pippin III the Short and brother of Charlemagne, Carloman ruled with his
brother as king of the Franks from their father’s death in 768 until his own death in
144 | Carloman, King of the Franks

771. Although short, his reign was marked by controversy with his brother, which
could have led to a destructive civil war had not Carloman suddenly died. His death
saved the kingdom from disaster and allowed Charlemagne to rule with a free hand
and subsequently forge one of the great empires of the Middle Ages.
The younger son of Pippin—he was about four years younger than Charlemagne—
Carloman first appears in the Royal Frankish Annals in 754. With his older brother,
Carloman received royal unction from Pope Stephen II when the pope traveled to
the Frankish kingdom to crown Pippin king of the Franks. He was elevated to joint
kingship of the Franks with his brother on their father’s death. Pippin had passed
the royal crown to his two sons and divided the realm between them. Carloman re-
ceived a compact and contiguous territory that included Alsace, part of Aquitaine,
Burgundy, Provence, and other neighboring regions, and he was crowned king at
Soissons in October 768. As king Carloman followed policies similar to those of
his father, especially in regard to monastic policy.
Carloman’s short reign is best known, however, for the strife that existed be-
tween the two brothers. In 769, Charlemagne sought aid from Carloman in the
face of a revolt in Aquitaine led by Count Hunald. Only with great difficulty, made
worse by Carloman’s unwillingness to help, was Charlemagne able to suppress
the revolt. Carloman’s refusal to help may have been part of his strategy to un-
dermine his brother’s authority; certainly it is likely to have contributed to the
strains of an already tense relationship. In 770, Carloman met with his mother,
Bertrada, who then went to Italy to help establish peace between the two broth-
ers. Arranging a marriage with the Lombard king, Desiderius, for Charlemagne,
Bertrada hoped to establish an alliance with the Lombards as a means to promote
harmony in the Frankish kingdom. But Charlemagne repudiated his wife within a
year, and the situation between the Franks and Lombards, as well as that between
Charlemagne and Carloman, worsened. The potentially explosive situation was
resolved by the sudden death of Carloman on December 4, 771. Charlemagne,
with the approval of Carloman’s supporters, dispossessed Carloman’s widow,
Gerberga, and two sons, who fled to the Lombard court of Desiderius. They re-
ceived Desiderius’s protection until Charlemagne conquered Italy in 774, and
they were then turned over to Charlemagne and disappeared from the records at
that point.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Desiderius; Lombards; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short; Royal Frankish Annals

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
 Carloman, Mayor of the Palace | 145

Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Carloman, Mayor of the Palace (d. 754)

Son of the Carolingian Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, Carloman inherited
control of the Frankish kingdoms with his brother, Pippin the Short, on his father’s
death in 741. Together as mayors of the palace, Carloman and Pippin built upon
the legacy of their father and strengthened the position of the Carolingian family in
the Frankish kingdoms at the expense of the Merovingian dynasty. Although they
placed a Merovingian on the throne, Carloman and Pippin were the real powers in
the kingdoms. Carloman was also active in reform of the church, supporting the
activities of the Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface and promoting reform in the
Frankish church. Indeed, his interest in the church and religious life was so great
that he left worldly power for the monastic life. His abdication paved the way for
the establishment of Carolingian royal power by his brother and eventually for the
establishment of imperial power by his nephew Charlemagne.
Although perhaps best known for his retirement to a monastery in 747, Carloman
was an active and vigorous mayor (r. 741–747), who helped his brother Pippin
suppress the many revolts they faced at the outset of their joint rule. Together they
squashed the revolt of their half-brother Grifo, who sought to lay claim to part of
his father’s legacy. They laid siege to Laon and captured Grifo, who was kept in
custody by Carloman until his retirement. The two mayors also faced difficulties
from their sister, Chiltrude, who fled to the court of the Bavarian duke, Odilo. They
eventually defeated Odilo in 743 but were not able to force him from the duchy.
Carloman and Pippin also enforced their authority on subject peoples in Aquitaine
and Alemannia, where Carloman imposed Carolingian authority with a terror cam-
paign. The new mayors were ultimately able to establish themselves in the king-
dom, but only with much difficulty.
146 | Carloman, Mayor of the Palace

The revolts Carloman and his brother faced led them to an important step. Their
father had ruled during the last four years of his life without a Merovingian king
on the throne. It became apparent to Carloman and Pippin, however, that to secure
their position in the Frankish kingdoms, they needed to place a Merovingian mon-
arch on the throne. In 743 they discovered a member of the dynasty in the mon-
astery of St. Bertin, whom they established as King Childeric III. It is likely that
Carloman was the prime mover in the reestablishment of the Merovingian dynasty.
And although portrayed as a poor and powerless do-nothing king by Einhard, the
last Merovingian provided the legitimization that the brothers needed to maintain
their control in the kingdoms.
Carloman, and to a lesser extent his brother Pippin, were active supporters of
Boniface, and both mayors were equally strong supporters of the reform of the
Frankish church, particularly the reform of clerical behavior and education. Boni-
face, who had been protected by Charles Martel, found particularly strong support
for his missionary and reform efforts from Carloman. At one point, the Carolin-
gian mayor granted him the Anglo-Saxon missionary lands around Fulda so that
Boniface could establish a monastery. Carloman also worked with Boniface to
reform ecclesiastical organization in the Frankish kingdoms, to bring it more
fully into cooperation with the papacy. Carloman also presided at several reform
councils in the 740s, with, at times, Boniface and Pippin, to improve the life of
the church in the Frankish kingdoms. Carloman, among other things, promised to
protect the churches from impoverishment and to protect ecclesiastical property
rights.
Carloman’s religious inclinations, revealed by his active support for Boniface
and church reform, were fully displayed in 747 when he announced to Pippin that
he had decided to withdraw from his position of power and retire to a monastery.
He settled his affairs and made donations to a monastery in his domain before de-
parting for Rome. He received the tonsure from Pope Zachary and then built a mon-
astery in honor of St. Sylvester on Mt. Soracte. In 754, perhaps because too many
pilgrims visited him at his monastery, Carloman moved to the monastery at Monte
Cassino. Contemporary sources make clear that Carloman departed voluntarily, but
his decision did not bode well for his immediate family, especially his son Drogo,
who was disposed of by his uncle.
Carloman’s public career, however, did not end with his retirement in 747. In
fact, his decision indirectly had a profound influence on the fate of his dynasty and
of the Frankish kingdoms. As a result of Carloman’s abdication, Pippin was left the
sole mayor, and for all intents and purposes, the sole power in the realm. In 751,
after deposing Childeric III, Pippin assumed the throne of the king of the Franks and
founded the Carolingian royal dynasty. In 754, Carloman directly participated in the
public affairs of the kingdom. At the request of the Lombard king Aistulf, Carloman
 Caroline Minuscule | 147

left his monastery at Monte Cassino to take part in the debate among Pippin and the
Frankish nobility concerning a possible invasion of Italy. Aistulf had been threaten-
ing the pope, Stephen II, who had requested aid from the Frankish king. To prevent
an invasion by Pippin, Aistulf sent Carloman to oppose the invasion by his brother.
Aistulf’s plan failed, however, and the invasion followed shortly after the debate.
Carloman was not allowed to return to Italy but was sent to a monastery in Vienne,
where he died sometime later in the year 754.
See also: Aistulf; Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Martel;
Childeric III; Merovingian Dynasty; Monasticism; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Caroline Books. See Libri Carolini

Caroline Minuscule

A graceful and rounded formal book hand, Caroline or Carolingian minuscule ap-
peared in its mature form during the late eighth century and became the primary
writing style of Carolingian scholars. It caught on quickly after its appearance be-
cause it was a clear and elegant script that was easy to read and was a useful script
for Charlemagne’s efforts at promoting learning and literacy.
The creation of Caroline minuscule has traditionally been associated with the
monastery of Tours and its abbot, the great Anglo-Saxon scholar Alcuin. Invited to
the Frankish realm by Charlemagne to lead his palace school, Alcuin was thought to
have devised the script in the 790s to serve the great king’s educational reforms. The
emergence of the script, however, predates Alcuin’s supposed reform, appearing
in its mature form first in manuscripts from Corbie and Trier in the 780s, and was
most likely not invented by any one scribe or scholar. Caroline minuscule seems to
have evolved over several generations, taking shape in various monasteries in the
western Frankish kingdom before its final appearance. Based on an earlier cursive
and Roman uncial scripts, Caroline minuscule is notable for its elegance, regular-
ity, uniformity, and, perhaps most importantly, clarity.
148 | Carolingian Dynasty

The new script was so popular, in part, because it was easy to read, compared
with other writing styles, and new rules and practices associated with it, includ-
ing separation of words, contributed to its legibility. The letters in Caroline minus-
cule were also easier to write than those in other book hands and thus allowed for
faster production of manuscripts. Once it assumed its mature form, Caroline mi-
nuscule spread through the Carolingian Empire and appeared in Italy in the 820s
and in England by the 10th century. In the 15th century, Italian humanist scholars
reading manuscripts copied in Caroline minuscule believed the script to have been
an ancient Roman hand because of its beauty. Fifteenth-century scholars adopted
Caroline minuscule as the basis for their own writing, which formed the basis of
modern Roman script.
See also: Alcuin; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne

Bibliography
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
McKitterick, Rosamond. “Script and Book Production.” In Rosamond McKitterick, ed.
Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994, pp. 220–47.

Carolingian Dynasty

Ruling nearly all of Christian Europe from the eighth to 10th century, the
Carolingians, as they were known from their tradition of naming a son in every
generation Charles (Carolus in Latin), established a great empire, presided over
important religious reforms, expanded the use of writing in government and society,
and laid the foundation for many of the cultural and political achievements of later
medieval civilization. The Carolingian tradition of royal and imperial coronation
and their governmental ideas served as the model for medieval rulers long after the
demise of the dynasty and the breakup of the Carolingian Empire had led to the
emergence of the medieval kingdoms of France and Germany. Indeed, later medi-
eval kings and emperors looked to Charlemagne, the greatest of the Carolingians,
as a source of inspiration, and the Carolingian ruler was the focus of a great epic
tradition and canonized at the initiative of Frederick Barbarossa. A great cultural
flowering, traditionally called the Carolingian Renaissance, occurred during the
reign of these Frankish monarchs.
The dynasty’s origins are usually traced to the mid-seventh century, when the
Austrasian nobles St. Arnulf, bishop of Metz (d. c. 645), and Pippin I of Landen
(also called Pippin the Elder, d. c. 640) joined together in a marriage alliance. The
fortunes of the family came from its control of the office of mayor of the palace
 Carolingian Dynasty | 149

(major domus), a reward that Pippin earned after helping the Merovingian king
Chlotar II (584–629) overthrow Queen Brunhilde and assume the Frankish throne
in 613. Pippin exploited his position and became one of the most powerful figures in
the kingdom. Although his fortunes ebbed and flowed as the throne passed between
various Merovingian kings, Pippin was able to establish a secure base of power and
wealth, and to pass it on to his son Grimoald (d. 657), who succeeded his father as
mayor when the latter suddenly died.
Grimoald’s career turned out to be an instructive one for generations to come
and a reminder of the vagaries of political power. Grimoald was a popular and
ambitious figure, but the family suffered an almost fatal setback as a result of his
political ambitions. Shortly after his elevation to power, Grimoald accompanied
the Merovingian king ruling Austrasia, Sigebert III (r. 633/634–656), on a military
expedition to suppress the revolt of one of the dukes of the kingdom. The campaign
was a disaster, and the king survived only because of the actions of Grimoald, who
thus was now closer to Sigebert and able to impose his will on the king. Grimo-
ald next expanded his own base of power by acquiring territory and, in what was
to become good Carolingian fashion, forging alliances with monasteries and their
monks. The mayor also persuaded the king to adopt his son as heir because Sige-
bert was still without a son of his own. Subsequent to this arrangement, Sigebert
did have a son, Dagobert, who was to be his heir. On the king’s death, however,
Dagobert was entrusted to Grimoald who deposed Dagobert, sent him to a mon-
astery in distant Ireland, and placed his own son, Childebert the Adopted, on the
throne. Unfortunately for Grimoald, his coup failed. The Merovingian king in
Neustria, Clovis II, who may have assisted in the deposition but was surprised by
Grimoald’s enthronement of his son, invited the mayor and his son to Neustria
where they were captured and executed—a most unhappy end for Grimoald and
his family.
Although forced into the political wilderness for a generation, the Carolin-
gian line would see its fortunes revived. Pippin II, of Herstal (r. 687–714), the
nephew of Grimoald and grandson of Arnulf and Pippin I, recovered the office
of mayor and, with the advice and guidance of his mother Begga, restored the
family to prominence. Pippin’s chances were aided by the mayor of Neustria,
Ebroin, whose ambitions of unifying the realm under his own authority and grow-
ing tyranny brought him enemies, which unsettled the kingdom even more at a
time when the Merovingian kings were losing power. Many Austrasian nobles
who had supported Grimoald rallied to Pippin, who united the Frankish kingdom
when he defeated Ebroin at the Battle of Tertry in 687. As sole mayor, Pippin ruled
in the name of several Merovingian kings, including Theuderic III, Clovis IV,
Childebert III, and Dagobert III. He strengthened his family’s hold on power by
improving relationships with the church and gaining control of monasteries. He
also enforced royal authority over the various parts of the kingdom and expanded
150 | Carolingian Dynasty

the eastern boundaries of the kingdom. For both his family and the kingdom, Pip-
pin’s reign was most beneficial.
Despite his successes, the kingdom fell into civil strife after Pippin’s death. De-
sirous that her descendants should assume the office of mayor, Pippin’s widow,
Plectrude, imprisoned Charles Martel (the Hammer; r. 714–741), Pippin’s son
with his second wife or concubine. But her plans were undermined by a rebel-
lion of Neustrian nobles and Charles’s escape from prison. Although suffering
setbacks of his own, Charles, the first of his family to be so named, laid claim to
his inheritance as mayor, seized much treasure held by Plectrude, and forced her
from power.
Charles Martel’s term as mayor brought increasing prestige and power to the
family. A ferocious warrior, Charles managed to take control of the kingdom in the
720s when he forced the Neustrians to accept his authority, and he won numerous
victories against foreign foes, as his father had done before him. His most impor-
tant and famous victory took place somewhere between Tours and Poitiers in 732,
when he defeated a Muslim army from Spain. Although more battles were neces-
sary to expel the Muslims from the Frankish kingdom, the Battle of Tours con-
firmed offered Martel the opportunity to expand into the sought and enhanced his
reputation as a great warrior. The victory was understood by contemporaries as the
demonstration of God’s favor on the Carolingian mayor.
Charles’s successes were not limited to the military arena, however, because
he further strengthened the alliance between his family and the Frankish church.
Although he alienated much church land to compensate the nobility and ensure
their loyalty, thus seriously weakening the church, Charles supported the church
and its missionary activities. He established strong ties with the royal abbey of
St. Denis, an important political as well as religious act, because the abbey had
long supported the Merovingian dynasty. He promoted the activities of Anglo-
Saxon missionaries, including St. Boniface, and received a proposal from Pope
Gregory III for an alliance against the Lombards in Italy. So great was Charles’s
power in the kingdom by the end of his life that he ruled without a Merovingian
king from 737 on and, following Frankish royal tradition, divided the succes-
sion between his two sons, Pippin III, called Pippin the Short (d. 768) and Car-
loman (d. 754).
The new mayors faced much opposition at the outset of their reign. They faced
resistance from various sections of the nobility and also from their half-brother,
Grifo, who had been granted a number of estates by their father and who desired
to rule with his half-brothers. Carloman and Pippin, however, dispossessed Grifo
from his legacy and imprisoned him. They also suppressed the dissension they
faced and extended their power over Aquitaine and Bavaria. One step they thought
necessary to take was to appoint a new Merovingian king, Childeric III, as a means
to legitimize their rule and restore confidence in the government among the nobil-
ity. At the same time, it was the mayors who held the reins of government and who
 Carolingian Dynasty | 151

asserted their authority over the kingdom. They led military campaigns, supported
the activities of Boniface, held councils attended by nobles and bishops to address
matters concerning the kingdom and the church, and promoted needed religious
and political reform—until Carloman withdrew to a monastery in 747, an action
that left Pippin as sole mayor.
Pippin next took the fateful steps once taken without success by Grimoald.
Secure in his power, Pippin sent two trusted advisors with a letter to the pope,
Zachary (r. 741–752), asking if he who had the power or he who had the title
should be king. Zachary responded as Pippin had hoped. Pippin deposed Child-
eric, the last Merovingian king, and sent him to a monastery for the rest of his life.
In November, 751, Pippin, following traditional Germanic practice, was elected
king by the Frankish nobles, and, to demonstrate the new and more powerful cha-
risma he possessed, he was crowned and anointed by the bishops of the realm,
possibly including the pope’s representative Boniface. Coronation and unction
were repeated in 754 by Pope Stephen, who also anointed Pippin’s sons, Charles
and Carloman, and forbade the Franks from choosing a king from any other fam-
ily. Stephen’s coronation led to the establishment of a firm alliance between Rome
and the kingdom of the Franks and the grant of what is called the Donation of
Pippin to the pope.
Pippin’s reign as king (751–768) was a critical time in the history of the dynasty;
it was Pippin who established the foundation of Carolingian royal policy. He con-
tinued the program of reform of the church that had begun during his shared rule
with Carloman. His efforts included the introduction of Roman liturgical practices
to the churches in his kingdom, the reform of religious life, and the reinforcement
of ties with the influential monastery of St. Denis. He also strengthened ties with
Rome forged in 754. The papacy and its extensive holdings were under constant
threat from the Lombards, who sought to unify the Italian peninsula under their au-
thority. Pippin received requests for aid from the pope, and therefore he undertook
two invasions to protect the pope from his Lombard enemies. He also undertook
the vigorous expansion of the realm, especially in to Aquitaine, and promoted the
idea of sacral kingship, the idea that the king is chosen by God to rule and is God’s
representative on earth. Despite his many achievements, Pippin’s reign is often
overshadowed by that of his illustrious son, Charlemagne.
When Pippin died in 768 he left the kingdom to his sons Carloman and
Charlemagne. Tensions existed between the two brothers, and civil war nearly
broke out, but Carloman’s death in 771 prevented this and opened the way for
the sole rule of his brother, as king until 800 and then as emperor until 814. Char-
lemagne’s success was, in part, the result of his abilities as a warrior, and during his
reign the kingdom enjoyed a dramatic expansion of its territory. Shortly after the
death of Carloman, Charles began a campaign to conquer and convert the Saxons,
which lasted from 772 to 804. This process saw nearly annual campaigns into Sax-
ony, the mass execution of 4,500 Saxons at Verdun, the destruction of pagan shrines,
152 | Carolingian Dynasty

and the deportation of large numbers of Saxons from their homeland. Reviving the
efforts of his father Pippin, but with far greater enthusiasm, Charles invaded Italy,
defeated the Lombards, and made himself king of the Lombards in 774. He over-
came Tassilo, the duke of Bavaria, in 787, and smashed the Avar capital, or ring, in
the early 790s. His first campaign into Muslim Spain in 778, at the invitation of the
emir of Saragossa, led to the disastrous attack at Roncesvalles, after which Roland
and the entire rear guard were massacred, but Charlemagne returned undaunted
to create the Spanish March, a militarized border region that included territory in
Spain beyond the Pyrenees.
A successful empire builder, Charlemagne was also an innovator in govern-
ment. The county was the primary administrative governmental unit and was
ruled in the king’s name by local nobles called counts. The responsibilities of the
counts included maintaining peace and order, implementing royal law, and dis-
pensing justice. A new class of judicial officers (called scabini) was established
to adjudicate local disputes. Special representatives of the king, the missi domi-
nici, or messengers of the lord king, were responsible for overseeing the activities
of the local officials. Two missi, a noble and a churchman, were generally sent

Fourteenth-century illumination depicts the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III

in 800. (The British Library Board)
 Carolingian Dynasty | 153

out together to ensure the proper administration of justice, hear oaths of loyalty,
and publish new laws. Moreover, Charles issued a new kind of law, the capitu-
lary, and increased the use of writing as a tool of administration and government.
The capitularies, so-called because they were arranged in chapters (capitula),
addressed a broad number of issues, including administration of royal palaces,
education, standardization of weights and measures, and legal and religious re-
form. The most famous of the capitularies was the Admonitio Generalis of 789,
which laid the foundation for the cultural revival known as the Carolingian Re-
naissance. Charles himself invited scholars from throughout Europe, including
Alcuin, Theodulf of Orléans, and Paul the Deacon, to participate in his court, his
reforms, and the cultural revival.
Charlemagne was also responsible for reestablishing the imperial dignity in the
former Western Empire, a restoration that occurred when Charles visited Rome to
investigate an attack on Pope Leo III (r. 795–816). On December 25, 800, Charles
attended Christmas mass, and as he rose from prayer, Leo crowned him emperor,
and those in the church hailed him as emperor and augustus. Although doubts about
Charlemagne’s interest in the imperial title were raised by his biographer, Einhard,
who declared that Charles would not have entered the church that day had he known
what was to happen, many of the court scholars had already asserted Charlemagne’s
imperial stature in the 790s. They no doubt noted that the imperial authority was
vacant in the Byzantine Empire because a woman, Irene, claimed to be emperor.
Charlemagne’s building program, especially the church and palace complex at Aix-
la-Chapelle (now Aachen), which was influenced by similar structures in the former
Byzantine imperial capital in Ravenna, Italy, suggests that he was not unaware of
his imperial stature. His dismay was likely over the way the imperial crown was
bestowed; certainly Charles employed the title in his last years and rededicated him-
self to his program of renewal with a new “imperial” capitulary in 802.
Charles first understood the title as a special honor for himself alone, but in
813 he passed on the office of emperor to his surviving son, Louis the Pious (778–
840). Louis’s reign was characterized not only by continued cultural and religious
reforms but also by civil war. Louis made the imperial authority the foundation
of his power and thus emphasized it in ways that his father, who preserved his
royal titles, had not. He also sought to maintain the empire’s permanent integrity
by implementing a well-thought-out succession plan in 817, shortly after a near-
fatal accident. The Ordinatio Imperii, as the capitulary that laid out the succes-
sion was called, provided a place in the succession for each of Louis’s sons; the
younger sons, Pippin and Louis the German, were assigned authority over sub-
kingdoms, and imperial and sovereign authority was granted to his eldest son,
Lothar (795–855), who was to be associated with his father as emperor during
his father’s life and then become his successor as emperor. Dissatisfaction with
the plan emerged almost immediately and led to the revolt of Louis’s nephew,
154 | Carolingian Dynasty

Bernard, in 817. Bernard was blinded, and he died in the forceful suppression of
the revolt. Despite this rebellion, Louis’s reign during the 810s and 820s saw im-
portant achievements, including monastic reform, which was a precursor of later
monastic reform, and governmental reform that provided legal and constitutional
grounds for Carolingian power in Italy.
Despite these positive developments, Louis faced a number of crises in the late
820s and 830s. The birth of a son, Charles the Bald (823–877), to his second wife
Judith, and the reorganization of the succession plan to include Charles, provided
the other sons, and many nobles and bishops, reason to revolt against Louis’s au-
thority. The 830s was plagued by much turmoil in the empire, brought on by the
revolts of Lothar and Pippin and Louis. In 834 Louis was deposed by Lothar, and
Charles and Judith were placed in religious houses. But Louis, despite his ill-
deserved reputation for weakness, regained his throne and ruled until his death in
840, when he was succeeded by Lothar, Charles, and Louis the German.
Civil war intensified in the years after Louis’s death, as his surviving sons strug-
gled for preeminence in the empire. After several battles, including an especially
bloody one at Fontenoy, the brothers agreed to the Treaty of Verdun in 843, which
divided the realm between them, with Charles getting western Francia, Louis
eastern Francia, and Lothar central Francia and Italy as well as the imperial title.
Lothar’s territory was the least defensible, a problem not only because of the threats
he faced from his brothers but also because of the growing threat of Viking, Mus-
lim, and Magyar invasions. His acceptance of the tradition of dividing the inheri-
tance among his own sons further undermined the territorial integrity of the central
kingdom. Indeed, the weaknesses of Lothar’s portion were revealed in the treaty
of Meerssen, 870, which divided the northern parts of Lothar’s territory between
his brothers Charles the Bald and Louis. Charles survived the wars of the 830s and
840s to establish a strong kingship and resurrect the dynamic court culture of his
grandfather. He also assumed the imperial crown and captured Aix-la-Chapelle
before his death in 877.
Although the kings of West Francia preserved the line the longest, until 987
when death and betrayal brought an end to the line, Carolingian power and au-
thority underwent a process of decline beginning in the generation after the death
of Charles the Bald. From the time of Louis II, the Stammerer (r. 877–879), until
the time of the last Carolingian, Louis V (r. 986–987), the dynasty faced a series
of great problems that eroded their power base. The west Frankish kingdom faced
repeated Viking incursions, which the traditional Frankish military was unable to
stop. Instead, local leaders, dukes and counts, began to exercise authority in their
own name and took steps to protect their territories from these invaders. Their abil-
ity to provide some protection offered them greater political authority, and their
gradual acquisition of territory made them increasingly powerful. The civil strife of
 Carolingian Dynasty | 155

the later Carolingians also contributed to their decline, as various kings gave away
significant amounts of land from the royal treasury to ensure the loyalty of the no-
bility. This effort accomplished little more than the gradual impoverishment of the
dynasty, and the growth of increasingly independent duchies. By their fall in 987
Carolingian kings could only command a small region around Paris, where they
held their last important estates.
In East Francia, the dynasty was replaced much sooner, but it nevertheless left
an important legacy to its successors and the medieval empire. After the wars of the
840s, Louis the German continued the Carolingian line in East Francia, but he was
faced with many challenges. He ruled over a diverse kingdom, comprising Bavaria,
Franconia, Saxony, Swabia, and Thuringia. He was plagued by attacks from Slavs
and Vikings and faced the rising power of the nobility, especially the Liudolfings,
and suffered revolts from within his family, including two by his son Carloman
(d. 880). His dependence on the church, especially the monasteries of his realm,
was in part the result of the special problems of his kingdom. He divided the realm
between his three sons, who succeeded him on his death on August, 28, 876, but
it was Louis’s son, Charles the Fat (r. 876–887, d. 888), who received the imperial
title and, for a short time, reunited the empire.
Despite a strong start to his reign and early success against invaders, Charles’s
ill health and the growing success of Viking raiders led to his deposition in 887. He
was succeeded in East Francia by his brother’s illegitimate son, Arnulf of Carinthia
(r. 887–899), who ruled with much early success and was crowned emperor in
Rome. But Arnulf too was plagued by ill health in his later years, and he was suc-
ceeded after his death by his six-year-old son, Louis the Child (r. 899–911). Louis
was the last of the Carolingians to rule in East Francia. His reign was marked by
destructive Magyar invasions and the deaths of powerful nobles who were criti-
cal to the defense of the realm. On the death of Louis, the nobles of East Francia
elected Conrad I (r. 911–918) king. Conrad and his successors inherited a realm
divided into numerous duchies and threatened by foreign invaders, but they also
inherited Carolingian traditions in government and the Carolingian tradition of
strong ties with the church, which laid the foundation for the restoration of the em-
pire by Otto I in 962.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Astronomer, The; Austrasia; Bernard of Septimania; Boniface,
St.; Brunhilde; Carolingian Minuscule; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Charles
the Bald; Charles III, the Fat; Charles Martel; Charles III, the Simple; Childeric III;
Chlotar II; Dagobert; Ermoldus Nigellus; Libri Carolini; Louis the German; Louis the
Pious; Louis the Stammerer; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Notker the Stammerer;
Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen; Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short; Plectrude; Saint-Denis, Abbey of; Tertry, Battle of; Tours; Tours, Battle
of; Vita Karoli
156 | Carolingian Renaissance

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard. Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Becher, Mattias. Charlemagne. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.
Costambeys, Marios, Matthew Innes, and Simon McaLean. The Carolingian World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Ganshof, François L. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolin-
gian History. Trans. Janet L. Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Odegaard, Charles E. Vassi et Fideles in the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1945.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Sullivan, Richard E. “The Carolingian Age: Reflections on Its Place in the History of the
Middle Ages.” Speculum 64 (1989): 257–306.
Ullmann, Walter. The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship. New York:
Routledge, 2010.

Carolingian Renaissance

An intellectual and cultural revival of the eighth and ninth centuries, the Carolin-
gian Renaissance was a movement initiated by the Carolingian kings, especially
Charlemagne, who sought not only to improve learning in the kingdom but also to
improve religious life and practice. Although once understood as an isolated, shin-
ing beacon in an otherwise dark age, the Carolingian Renaissance, or renovatio (re-
newal, or renovation) as it is sometimes called, is now understood to have roots in
the Merovingian world and influence on later developments. Despite its foundations
in an early period, the real impetus for the movement came from Charlemagne, who
sought to reform learning and literacy, improve the education of the clergy, and pro-
vide at least a basic understanding of the faith to all his subjects. Toward this end,
 Carolingian Renaissance | 157

he attracted a large number of scholars from across Europe to assist him. They laid
the foundation for even greater accomplishments in the two generations following
Charlemagne’s death. Indeed, during the reign of Louis the Pious, as well as in that
of Charles the Bald, who consciously modeled his reign on his grandfather’s, Car-
olingian scholars produced beautiful manuscript illuminations, copied and wrote
numerous books and poems, and involved themselves in theological controversies.
Although the renaissance never accomplished the goals Charlemagne intended and
reached only the upper levels of society, it did provide an important foundation for
cultural and intellectual growth in the centuries to come.
Although the roots of the renaissance can be traced to the reign of Pippin the
Short and even back into the seventh century, the movement was inspired by the
reforms of Charlemagne. Indeed, the program of reform and renewal that brought
about the emergence of the renaissance was one of the fundamental concerns of
the great Carolingian ruler. In two pieces of legislation, the capitulary Admoni-
tio Generalis (General Admonition) of 789 and the Letter to Baugulf written be-
tween 780 and 800, established the foundation for the Carolingian Renaissance.
In the Admonitio Charlemagne announced the educational and religious goals
and ideals of his reign, which involved the improvement of Christian society in
his realm and, at the very least, providing all people in the kingdom knowledge
of the Lord’s Prayer and Apostle’s Creed. He sought to improve the moral be-
havior and knowledge of the Christian faith among both the clergy and laity,
and he believed that for people to live good Christian lives they must have an
understanding of the faith.
In chapter 72 of the Admonitio Charlemagne asserted the responsibility of the
bishops and monks of his kingdom to establish schools to teach the psalms, music
and singing, and grammar, so that the boys of the kingdom could learn to read and
write and so that those who wished to pray could do so properly. This program
of religious and educational reform was restated in the circular letter on learning
to the abbot Baugulf of Fulda, or De litteris colendis. In the letter Charlemagne
emphasized the importance of learning and proper knowledge of the faith for liv-
ing a good Christian life. The letter proclaims the need for the creation of more
books and calls on the higher clergy of the realm to establish schools at churches
and monasteries to educate young boys. The Carolingian Renaissance thus grew
out of Charlemagne’s desire to improve the religious life of the clergy and laity of
his kingdom.
To accomplish this end, Charlemagne needed scholars and books, and he man-
aged to acquire both with little difficulty. Indeed, his wealth and power and pro-
gram of religious reform attracted many of the greatest scholars of his age, many
of whom received important positions in the Carolingian church. Among the more
noteworthy scholars to join the Carolingian court were the grammarian Peter of
Pisa and the Lombard Paul the Deacon, who wrote an important history of the
158 | Carolingian Renaissance

Lombards. Theodulf of Orléans was another important figure, who joined the court
from Spain and became a bishop and the author of significant theological treatises
and legislation.
Perhaps the greatest of the foreign scholars to join the court was Alcuin of
York, whose importance was recognized in his own day. Alcuin brought the great
Anglo-Saxon tradition of Bede and the Northumbrian revival of learning to the
Carolingian realm. His was not an original mind, but his contribution to learning
was exactly what Charlemagne needed; Alcuin’s knowledge was encyclopedic,
and his talents as a teacher were widely recognized. Indeed, his learning and
pedagogy are revealed by the number of great students, such as Rabanus Maurus,
the preceptor of Germany, who followed in Alcuin’s tradition. Moreover, Alcuin
brought books to the continent from England and remained in contact with his
homeland throughout his life, which allowed him to import more books needed
for the growth of learning under Charlemagne and his descendants. Alcuin also
has long been associated with an important reform, the creation of the elegant
and highly readable writing style known as Carolingian minuscule. Although
his role is now recognized as less central in the creation of the script, he and
his monastery at Tours did play some role in the development of Carolingian
minuscule, which was to be admired and copied during the Italian Renaissance
centuries later.
The arrival of numerous scholars with their books stimulated learning through-
out the realm, especially at the highest levels of society, where the renaissance had
its greatest impact, as Alcuin and others began to teach and establish schools asso-
ciated with cathedrals and monasteries. The new emphasis on learning contributed
to the increased production of books, so central to the renaissance, and numer-
ous books of Christian and pagan antiquity were copied in Carolingian monaster-
ies. Indeed, one of the great achievements of the renaissance is the preservation
of ancient Latin literature, and the earliest versions of many ancient Latin works
survive from copies done by the Carolingians. Among the ancient Roman writ-
ers whose works were preserved by the Carolingians are Ammianus Marcellinus,
Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Ovid, and Sallust. There were also
important works of grammar and rhetoric copied in Carolingian scriptoria (writ-
ing rooms). But most important to the Carolingian rulers and scholars and central
to their reform effort were the works of Christian authors, many of which were
copied in the scriptoria.
The most important book copied by the Carolingian scribes was the Bible, which
was often divided into different volumes (e.g., collections of the Prophets, histori-
cal books, or Gospels), and a new edition of the Bible was one of Alcuin’s many
achievements. The scribes also copied the works of the great Christian writers of
antiquity and the early Middle Ages, including Bede, Isidore of Seville, Cassio-
dorus, Pope Gregory the Great, St. Jerome, and others. Of course, St. Augustine
 Carolingian Renaissance | 159

of Hippo was also copied extensively, and the monastery at Lyons became a great
center of Augustine studies.
As important as the preservation of ancient manuscripts was, Carolingian schol-
ars did much more than just have books copied. Indeed, the renaissance was marked
by the production of many new books in a variety of disciplines. One noteworthy
area of production was in the writing of history, biography, and hagiography. Caro-
lingian authors wrote numerous saints’ lives, as well as more traditional works of
history and biography. One of the most famous contributions of the renaissance
was the life of Charlemagne, written by his friend and advisor Einhard. The biog-
raphy provides a somewhat idealized portrait of the great ruler, one that borrows
heavily from the ancient Roman biographer Suetonius, but still provides important
insights into the personality, appearance, and achievements of its subject. A later
ninth-century writer, Notker the Stammerer, also wrote a life of Charlemagne for
one his descendants that offers an even more idealized version of the great em-
peror’s life. Charlemagne was not the only Carolingian to be immortalized in a
biography, however. Louis the Pious was the subject of three biographies written
in his own lifetime, including one in verse. Numerous annals were also written
at the monasteries throughout the Carolingian realm, along with the semiofficial
Royal Frankish Annals and the famous history of the civil wars of the mid-ninth
century by Nithard.
Carolingian Renaissance authors also wrote numerous commentaries on the
books of the Bible, as well as treatises on proper Christian behavior. Alcuin,
Theodulf of Orléans, and others wrote a number of treatises defending the Caro-
lingian understanding of the faith against Adoptionists (Christian heretics who
taught that Jesus was the son by adoption) in Spain, icon worshippers in the Byz-
antine Empire, and others who went astray. Manuals of education and Christian
learning, an encyclopedic work by Rabanus Maurus, works of law and political
practice by Hincmar of Rheims, and epistles of almost classical elegance by
Lupus of Ferrieres were among other noteworthy works of Carolingian writ-
ers. Carolingian scholars also wrote Latin poetry. Their work may not be the
most original or inspired, but it demonstrates the degree of sophistication they
achieved, as well as providing great insights into the court of Charlemagne and
its values.
Although initiated by Charlemagne, the renaissance enjoyed its greatest achieve-
ments in the generations following his death. And there is perhaps no better witness
of the intellectual confidence and maturity reached by the Carolingian scholars than
the doctrinal controversies that took place in the mid-ninth century. One dispute,
which concerned the exact nature of the Eucharist, involved the theologians Pascha-
sius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie. An even greater controversy involved the
reluctant monk, Gottschalk of Orbais, and a great number of Carolingian theolo-
gians. The dispute revolved around Gottschalk’s doctrine of predestination and his
160 | Carolingian Renaissance

interpretation of the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo. Gottschalk’s teachings,

which promoted the doctrine of double predestination (i.e., both to hell and heaven),
caused concern among the clergy, especially his bishop, Rabanus Maurus. The dis-
pute attracted the attention of Hincmar of Rheims and the court royal of Charles
the Bald. The king himself called upon the brilliant theologian, also the only Caro-
lingian scholar with an understanding of Greek, John Scotus Erigena. His response
to Gottschalk, however, was misunderstood by those around him and even further
complicated the situation. That notwithstanding, the ability of the Carolingians to
carry on high-level doctrinal debates demonstrates the maturity and sophistication
of the Carolingian Renaissance.
The achievements of the Carolingian Renaissance were not, however, limited
to literary and theological works and book production. Carolingian artists and ar-
chitects created a great number of brilliant works in the plastic arts. The most no-
table architectural monument of the Carolingian age, and one of the few remaining
(because most buildings were made of wood), was the palace complex that Char-
lemagne, with the help of his chief architect, Einhard, built at Aix-la-Chapelle
(modern Aachen, Germany). The palace was a magnificent structure, as the re-
maining portion, an octagonal chapel inspired by late Roman imperial models in
Italy, suggests. Carolingian artists were skilled jewelers and goldsmiths and created
beautiful works in ivory, often used as covers for manuscripts. But perhaps the most
remarkable Carolingian works of art are the miniatures that illuminated numerous
manuscripts of the late eighth and ninth centuries.
Carolingian painting drew from a varied legacy of Roman, Christian, and Ger-
manic influences. It clearly borrowed from ancient Roman models, its themes were
often related to Christian themes and scenes from the Scriptures, and it incorpo-
rated the geometric designs and animal figures popular in Germanic traditions. Il-
lustrations based on the Gospels and the Book of Revelation were popular, as were
scenes depicting King David, an important figure in Carolingian political thought.
Carolingian artists also left stunning depictions of the Evangelists, renderings of
various Carolingian kings, and numerous representations of Christ in majesty, an
image that had both religious and political connotations for the Carolingians. As
with all aspects of the renaissance, Carolingian kings promoted painting, and the
courts of Charlemagne and Charles the Bald were especially noteworthy for their
support of art.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Agobard of Lyons, St.; Aix-la-Chapelle; Alcuin of York; Am-
mianus Marcellinus; Astronomer, The; Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Barbarian
Art; Bede; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Minuscule; Cassiodorus; Char-
lemagne; Charles the Bald; Dhuoda; Einhard; Gottschalk of Orbais; Gregory I, the Great,
Pope; Hincmar of Rheims; Isidore of Seville; Ivories; John Scotus Erigena; Letter to Bau-
gulf; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Notker the Stammerer; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short;
Royal Frankish Annals; Theodulf of Orléans; Vita Karoli
 Carthage | 161

Bibliography
Beckwith, John. Early Medieval Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Brown, Giles. “Introduction: The Carolingian Renaissance.” In Carolingian Culture:
Emulation and Innovation, ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994, pp. 1–51.
Cabaniss, Allen, trans. Son of Charlemagne: A Contemporary Life of Louis the Pious.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1961.
Contreni, John J. “The Carolingian Renaissance: Education and Literary Culture.” In
The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 709–57.
Dutton, Paul. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1993.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Henderson, George. “Emulation and Invention in Carolingian Art.” In The New
Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995, pp. 248–73.
Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. The Carolingian Renaissance.
New York: George Braziller, 1970.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Mütherich, Florentine, and Joachim E. Gaehde. Carolingian Painting. New York: George
Braziller, 1976.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth to the Eighth
Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Carthage

Although best known as the great rival of Rome of the Republic, the city of Carthage
was also an important part of Roman North Africa and a vibrant intellectual and
162 | Carthage

cultural center throughout late antiquity. The capital of late Roman North Africa,
Carthage emerged as an important city for the Vandals and was again a provincial
capital after the reconquest of the Byzantine emperor Justinian. A center of secular
administration, Carthage was also the center of the North African Christian church,
and the site of several church councils as well as conflict between Catholic and Do-
natist Christians.
Soundly defeated by the Romans in the Punic Wars (it is held that salt was sowed
after the third war so that Carthage would never rise again), Carthage gradually
revived in the late first century bc and was the was the site of a colony established
by the first emperor Augustus (r. 31 bc–14 ad) in 29 bc. In the early empire,
Carthage became an important city for the empire and a favorite location of a se-
ries of emperors, who bestowed favors on the city even if none resided there. By
the early third century ad, the population of the city had reached some 300,000,
making Carthage the second city of the western Roman Empire. It retained its
prominence throughout the later imperial and invasion period, in part, because of
its importance as an economic hub. North Africa remained remarkably productive
in late antiquity, and its agricultural produce supplied large parts of the Mediter-
ranean. Carthage was the main exporter of grain and oil to Rome and then into
the sixth century to Constantinople. Carthage remained prosperous as a result and
boasted elegant homes decorated with locally produced sculpture and mosaics,
public baths, and in both the Roman and Vandal periods a mint. It was also an
educational center; the great Christian thinker Augustine of Hippo studied there as
a boy and later established a small school in the city. In 425 the first wall around
the city was built. This demonstrates the relative peace and stability Carthage en-
joyed throughout the late Roman period.
The Christian community at Carthage seems to have been firmly established by
the year 200, and shortly after that the community suffered its first persecutions
and offered its most famous martyr, Perpetua. Despite this inauspicious beginning
and further persecutions during the third and early fourth centuries, the Christian
community at Carthage thrived. One of the greatest of Latin Christian apologists
and church father, Tertullian (c. 160–220), was from the city. One of he city’s
bishops, St. Cyprian (r. 249–258), was also an influential theologian and helped
establish the primacy of the see of Carthage in Africa. In the early fourth century,
Carthage would be the birthplace of the Donatist schism following the consecra-
tion of Caecillian as bishop in 311. The new bishop’s rivals accused him of being
consecrated by a traditor, a Christian who succumbed to pressure during the per-
secutions and sacrificed to the emperor, and was therefore not validly established
as bishop. The schism raged for a century, involving Augustine of Hippo, before it
was forcibly ended by imperial authorities. The city and its bishop hosted a number
of important church councils in the fourth and fifth centuries that addressed mat-
ters of church doctrine and the Pelagian controversy and confirmed the canonical
structure of the Christian Bible.
 Cassian, St. John | 163

The religious schism that long plagued Carthage and indeed all of North Africa
may have contributed to the success of the Vandal invasion in the early fifth century.
In 439, Carthage itself was taken by the Vandal king Gaiseric who would establish
the city as his capital. The Vandal kings introduced Arian Christianity to the city and
North Africa and built new Arian churches in their capital. Ruling from Carthage,
later Vanrdal kings persecuted the Catholic church in North Africa but also patron-
ized local poets and presided over a literary revival in the late fifth century. As it
had been under the Romans, Carthage continued both as an administrative and
commercial and economic center under Vandal rule.
In the early sixth century, the Vandals were defeated by the armies of Justin-
ian’s reconquest. Carthage was taken by Belisarius in 533 and the last of the
Vandal kings, Gelimer, was deposed. The city would serve as the forward stag-
ing post for Justinian’s conquest of Italy from 535 to 555. In the sixth century,
the position Carthage held during earlier Roman rule was restored. Known as
Carthago Justiniana, it became the provincial capital and location of an impe-
rial mint again. Renewed construction took place under the Byzantine emperors
and a great new basilica was erected during this period. In the late sixth century,
the city became the capital of the Exarchate of Carthage, a semiautonomous
province headed by a governor appointed by the emperor. In the early seventh
century, the exarch Heraklios launched his rebellion from Carthage, and as em-
peror, Heraklios considered moving the imperial capital to Carthage to avoid the
pressure of the Persians. The exarchate remained a center of Byzantine strong-
hold until late seventh century, but its economic power collapsed by around mid-
century. In 695, the city was seized by Muslim armies but was quickly retaken
by a Byzantine naval assault. Three years later, in 698, Carthage was taken by
Muslim armies and was replaced by Tunis as the major political and economic
center of North Africa.
See also: Arianism; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Donatism; Gaiseric; Heraklios; Justinian;
Vandals

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2007.
Clover, F. M. “Felix Karthago.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986): 1–16.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.

Cassian, St. John (c. 360–435)

Christian theologian, writer, and monk, John Cassian had a profound impact on the
development of Western monasticism. Cassian introduced the ideas and practices
164 | Cassian, St. John

of the Desert Fathers to Western monks in his foundation at Marseilles and in his
greats work on the coenobitical life, the Institutes Conferences (or Collationes),
which greatly influenced St. Benedict of Nursia and other Latin monks. A defender
of orthodoxy, Cassian was implicated in the development of the unorthodox doc-
trine of Semipelagianism.
Although his birthplace remains a point of debate (either Scythia or Provence),
Cassian was born around 360 to a good Roman family and was given a tradi-
tional Roman education. In the early 380s, Cassian and his older friend Germa-
nus entered the monastic life in Bethlehem, which in coming years would be
shaped by the ideas of Jerome. Desiring to learn more about the monastic call-
ing, Cassian and Germanus left Bethlehem to visit the monks of the deserts of
Egypt, where the first monks had been established. For seven years, Cassian
toured the monasteries of Egypt, listening to the desert fathers and collecting
their teachings, which would form the core of his own later writings on the mo-
nastic life. He and Germanus returned to Bethlehem for a short while in the
early 390s but then returned to the desert for further instruction from the monks
there. They fled the desert in 399 because of a theological controversy involv-
ing the bishop of Alexandria and the desert monks. Settling in Constantinople,
Cassian attracted the attention of John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople,
who elevated Cassian to the rank of deacon. In 405, following the forced depo-
sition of Chrysostom, Cassian went to Rome to defend Chrysostom. While in
Rome, Cassian was consecrated a priest by the pope, and little is heard of him
for some 10 years. In 415, Cassian founded two communities—one male and
female—near Marseilles, dedicating the abbey to St. Victor, who suffered during
the persecutions of the third century. Cassian served as abbot of the monastery
until his death in 435.
Important as a founder of the monastery of St. Victor, Cassian had his great-
est influence through his Insitutes and Conferences, which provide guidance for
the monastic life. His Institutes, written in the 420s at the request of the bishop
of Apt, near Marseilles, is the first monastic rule composed in the Latin West. A
framework for the life of the monks based on the life of the monks of Egypt, the
Institutes emphasizes communal, or coenobitical, living over the eremitical. It pro-
vides instruction on daily living, food, and clothing, and also includes commen-
tary on the eight vices and how to defend against them. His Conferences, a work
composed as a series of dialogues between Cassian and another young monk and
the desert fathers in Egypt. Rejecting the spiritual excesses sometimes associated
with the hermits, Cassian stressed moderation, dedication to the ascetic life, pu-
rity of heart, and frequent communion. Cassian stressed not only the importance
of communal living but also the importance of the interior spiritual life and out-
lined a schedule of daily prayer and thanksgiving for the monks and encouraged
 Cassiodorus | 165

the mystical life. Both works had a great impact on the development of Western
monasticism, and Benedict of Nursia borrowed from Cassian for the composition
of his own Rule, which would replace the Institutes as the primary monastic rule
in Western Christendom.
Cassian was also involved in several doctrinal controversies in his lifetime and
recognized as a skilled but controversial theologian by contemporaries. While in
Egypt, he was involved in debate over the teachings of the great theologian and
philosopher Origen (c. 185–254). At around 430, Archdeacon Leo, the future pope,
requested that Cassian write a treatise on the Incarnation to refute the heretical
teachings of Nestorius. Written in some haste, the work is not generally held as one
of Cassian’s more important or influential works, but it does reveal his devotion to
Catholic orthodoxy. More controversial are his writings on free will, which may
have been in response to the late works of Augustine of Hippo and are sometimes
characterized as Semipelagian, a heresy that asserts the role of the will in the pro-
cess of salvation. Some passages in Cassian’s monastic works have been identified
as being Semipelagian, but Cassian has traditionally been seen as a fully orthodox
Christian.
See also: Benedict of Nursia, St; Jerome; Leo I, the Great, Pope; Monasticism

Bibliography
Cassian, John. John Cassian: Conferences. Trans. Colm Luibheid. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1985.
Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Merton, Thomas. Cassian and the Fathers: Initiation to the Monastic Tradition.
Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2005.
Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cassiodorus (c. 490–585)

One of the great scholars of late antiquity, Cassiodorus, in full Flavius Magnus
Aurelius Cassiodorus, wrote one of the most influential works on later barbarian
Europe and, like, the senator and scholar Boethius, was an important advisor to the
Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric the Great. Like Boethius, Cassiodorus came
from a prominent noble family and rose through the ranks of government. He held
numerous high offices and was secretary to Theodoric. Unlike Boethius, he left gov-
ernment service to dedicate himself to letters and the religious life. He founded a
monastery, Vivarium, where he spent the end of his life quietly and wrote one of the
great classics of sacred learning. He also wrote works of history and theology and
encouraged his monks to copy important manuscripts. His influence lasted beyond
166 | Cassiodorus

his long life. His great library was dispersed, benefiting many later scholars, includ-
ing the great Anglo-Saxon scholar of the eighth century, the Venerable Bede, who
used a Bible once owned by Cassiodorus.
Born to a noble family of southern Italy, Cassiodorus enjoyed a long and ac-
tive life. In the footsteps of his grandfather, who served the emperor and was sent
on an embassy to Attila the Hun, and his father, who served the king Odovacar,
Cassiodorus followed the traditional path of Roman families and devoted him-
self to service to the state. By his time, however, it was no longer the ancient
Roman emperors that he served, but a series of Ostrogothic rulers, most impor-
tantly Theodoric the Great and then his daughter Amalaswintha. Before joining
the royal court, Cassiodorus served in various imperial offices, including the
prestigious office of consul. He was Theodoric’s secretary and wrote many of
the king’s letters to popes, emperors, and kings. He later served as the praeto-
rian prefect of Amalaswintha, whose death precipitated the invasion of Italy by
Justinian.
His services throughout his long career were highly valued, and, unlike Boethius,
he never lost the confidence of his masters. He also conducted a personal corre-
spondence with various popes in Rome, including Pope Agapetus I (r. 535–536), to
whom he suggested establishing a school of higher Christian learning. His service
lasted into the 530s at least, and he appears to have retired to his ancestral estates at
around 538. There is, however, evidence that he was in Constantinople in 550, pos-
sibly in the service of the pope. His retirement from government service, whenever
it finally occurred, found him at the monastic community he founded in 540 or 553
on his family land, which was called Vivarium because of the fish ponds (in Latin,
vivaria) that decorated the estate.
While loyally serving the Gothic rulers of Italy, Cassiodorus began his other life-
long career, the pursuit of learning, especially learning in the service of the faith. It
was in this endeavor, which was demonstrated in his letter to Agapetus and in the
foundation of his monastery, that Cassiodorus left his greatest legacy.
See also: Amalaswintha; Attila the Hun; Boethius; Huns; Jordanes; Justinian; Odovacar;
Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S.J.B. Barnish.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Hodgkin, Thomas. Theodoric the Goth: The Barbarian Champion of Civilization. New
York: G. P. Putnam, 1983.
 Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the | 167

Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
O’Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the (451)

Major battle in June 451 between Attila the Hun and his Hunnish and allied armies
against the Roman imperial forces and their allies, led by the great general Aëtius.
Although it is traditionally known as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains or Bat-
tle of Châlons, J. B. Bury has argued that because of the battlefield’s proximity to
Troyes it should be known as the Battle of Troyes. Whatever the name should be,
the battle was the most important of several that Attila fought as part of his invasion
of the Western Empire in the early 450s. Although the battle ended in a draw, Attila
himself was on the verge of suicide during the fighting and survived only because
Aëtius allowed him to escape.
The battle itself was part of Attila’s campaign in the Western Empire after several
years harassing the Eastern Empire and extracting significant wealth and political
concessions from Constantinople. The invasion of 451 may have been brought on
by the emperor’s sister, Honoria, who, like her aunt Galla Placidia, may have of-
fered her hand in marriage to the barbarian king. Attila’s demands for Honoria and
other things were rejected, and therefore he invaded Gaul, seizing Metz, Rheims,
and numerous other cities before being repulsed at the important city of Orléans.
Despite that setback, Attila caused great destruction and bloodshed and threatened
Visigothic power in Gaul. The Goths were compelled to assist the imperial armies
in defense of Gaul because of the ferocity of Attila’s assault.
After leaving Orléans, Attila moved toward Troyes, where he met the impe-
rial armies of Aëtius, which included Alans, Bretons, Franks, Burgundians, and
Visigoths. Attila’s army was also made up of peoples of numerous nations, includ-
ing his own Huns, Alans, Franks, Gepids, Heruls, and Ostrogoths. On the eve of
the battle, Attila consulted a priest who examined bones of a sheep. The priest pro-
claimed that the Huns would lose the battle but that a great enemy leader would
fall; Attila desired the death of the leader and therefore risked battle. On the day of
the battle, Attila arranged his Huns in the center of his lines and the subject peoples
on both flanks. On the opposite side, Aëtius, with his Romans, commanded the left
flank; Theodoric commanded his Visigoths on the right flank; and the center was
held by the Alans. After major skirmishing on the previous night, the battle began
at three o’clock in the afternoon and went on into the evening.
168 | Charlemagne

It was a ferocious battle, which, according to one contemporary, ended with

165,000 dead, including the Visigothic king Theodoric. The battle went so badly for
Attila that he fortified himself in a circle of wagons, preparing for the final assault
that would have left him dead from battle or suicide. But the Roman commander,
Aëtius, recognized the value of having Attila’s Huns as a legitimate threat to other
barbarian peoples to preserve the balance of power. Consequently, Attila was al-
lowed to withdraw from the battlefield without being annihilated by the armies of
Aëtius. Although the battle ended technically as a draw, Aëtius could claim vic-
tory because he stopped Attila’s advance and killed a large number of his enemy’s
troops.
The battle was a major setback for Attila, who was forced to withdraw from his
invasion following the contest on the Catalaunian Plains. Although he again in-
vaded Italy in the following year, Attila’s aura of invincibility was damaged and his
army seriously depleted by the near disaster on the battlefield between Châlons and
Troyes. Although the importance of the battle is overstated when it is described as
one of the great battles of history, it was an important moment in late imperial his-
tory because Attila’s virtual defeat left him much less of a threat to the Roman Em-
pire. Never a serious threat to the life of the empire, Attila nonetheless demanded
significant tribute from the empire, and anything that weakened his challenge was
a benefit to the emperors.
See also: Aëtius; Attila the Hun; Galla Placidia; Huns; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Bury, John B. The Invasions of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton,
1967.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Thompson, Edward A. A History of Attila and the Huns. Oxford: Clarendon, 1948.
Thompson, Edward A. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Charlemagne (742–814)

The greatest king of the Middle Ages, Charlemagne forged a powerful empire dur-
ing his long reign from 768 to 814 and left an indelible mark on his age and the
generations to come. The son of Pippin the Short, the first Carolingian king, Charles
 Charlemagne | 169

(called Charles the Great, in Latin Carolus Magnus, whence his commonly used
name) inherited an important political and military legacy from his father. He used
that inheritance and expanded upon it, creating a political ideal that would influence
European history for the next thousand years.
The great king was physically and personally imposing as well. A full seven
times the length of his foot in height, according to his biographer Einhard, Char-
lemagne towered over his contemporaries, of lofty stature and of regal bearing
whether seated or standing. Although his neck was thick, his stomach rather pro-
nounced, and his voice a bit higher than his size would suggest, Charles carried
himself in such a way as to make these defects unnoticeable. His health was ex-
cellent until old age, but even then he refused to eat boiled meat as his doctors
recommended. He had long hair, large eyes, and his face was cheerful and full of
laughter.

Equestrian statue of Charlemagne (747–814)

(bronze), French. (Louvre, Paris, France/Giraudon/
The Bridgeman Art Library)
170 | Charlemagne

In his biography Einhard describes a monarch who was most personable and who
loved company. He often had many guests to dinner, where he indulged in food
but drank only in moderation, while German epic tales were told or pages from the
works of St. Augustine of Hippo were read. Moreover, he built a great palace over
a hot spring, where he would swim with many fellow bathers. He seldom went
anywhere without his daughters, whom he loved so much that he could not bear to
be apart from them. His daughters never married, but they did bear Charles several
grandchildren he loved as dearly as he loved his own children. He took great pains
to educate his children and often took them riding and hunting, pastimes at which
he excelled and he enjoyed greatly. He was also deeply religious, according to the
climate of the age, attended mass regularly, and honored the pope, bishops, and ab-
bots. For Einhard, Charlemagne was as great a person as he was a ruler.
The early part of his reign, however, was a time of crisis. In accordance with
Frankish tradition, at his death in 768 Pippin divided the realm between his two
sons, Charles and Carloman. In some ways the division was more favorable to
the younger Carloman, whose kingdom was compact and easier to manage than
the territory given to Charles. Moreover, Charles received territory that had only
recently been fully incorporated into the kingdom and was more susceptible to
revolt at the change of leadership. And in the opening years of his reign Charles
did face a serious revolt in his territory, which was suppressed only with diffi-
culty. The situation was made all the worse by Carloman’s unwillingness to come
to his brother’s aid. Despite efforts to prevent civil war by their mother, Bertrada,
who had recently arranged a marriage for her older son with the daughter of the
Lombard king, tensions ran high between her two sons. The two were on the point
of war when Carloman suddenly died, leaving Charles as the sole Carolingian
king, a situation he exploited by dispossessing his nephews and repudiating his
Lombard wife.
Having survived his brother and a potentially disastrous civil war, Charlemagne
was now able to make his mark as king. His success as king rested on his indomi-
table will and his ability as a warrior, a fact recognized by Einhard, who dedicated
much of his tale of the great king to his military campaigns. One of Charlemagne’s
first actions after Carloman’s death was the conquest of Saxony, a process that
lasted 30 years and had important consequences in later medieval history. The wars
began in 772 as punitive expeditions against Saxon raiders who plundered Frankish
territory, but soon after took on a crusading character. Perhaps inspired by the sup-
port the Anglo-Saxon missionary St. Boniface received from his father, Pippin the
Short, and uncle, Carloman, Charlemagne was determined to convert the pagan
Saxons to Christianity. The great king not only sent armies of warriors into Saxony
to impose Frankish political authority over the inhabitants but also sent armies of
priests to spread the Christian faith. The Saxons, however, refused to accept the
great privilege of being subject to the political and religious power of the Franks
and resisted mightily.
 Charlemagne | 171

One contemporary lamented that the Saxons revolted against Carolingian rule
annually, and Frankish armies had to return to put down the revolts. Charlemagne
would not be refused, however, and he met force with force. He imposed the death
penalty for Saxons who harmed priests or practiced pagan religion, as well as for
those who violated Christian fasts or burned their dead. His warriors destroyed
pagan shrines, massacred 4,500 Saxons at Verdun, and moved many Saxons from
their homeland into Frankish territory. His priests imposed baptism before teach-
ing the Saxons the Christian faith and built churches on destroyed pagan shrines.
Even the great revolt of Widukind (782–785) did not stop the process of conver-
sion and subjugation of the Saxons. Charles’s brutality was tempered by the time
of the second Saxon capitulary of 797, which provided the milk and honey of
the faith instead of Frankish iron. Charlemagne’s conquest and conversion of the
Saxons were completed by the early ninth century, a process that bore great fruit
in the 10th century.
Charlemagne’s activities as a warrior found other theaters as well. He annexed
Bavaria after its duke, Tassilo, failed to honor an oath he had sworn to attend the
court of the Frankish king. Breaking an oath was seen as a violation of God’s will,
and thus again Charlemagne could be seen doing God’s work and ensuring God’s
justice. In the early 790s, in part as a result of the annexation of Bavaria, he was
forced to secure his southeastern frontier. He sent his armies against the remnants
of the Hunnish tribes that had plundered Europe savagely and smashed the central
stronghold of the Huns. Huge wagonloads of treasures were taken from the Huns,
and a good portion was diverted to the pope in Rome.
Great conqueror though he was, Charlemagne’s military record is not without
failure. In the last years of his reign he was unable to respond successfully to the
attacks of the Danes, whose lands abutted the Carolingian Empire as a result of
the conquest of the Saxons. He also suffered a serious defeat in 778. In that year,
responding to the invitation of the Muslim leader of Barcelona to assist him in a
struggle against the Spanish emir, Charlemagne invaded Spain. He found his allies
in disarray and was able to accomplish little in Spain, but worse was to come. As
he crossed the Pyrenees back into France his rearguard was attacked, and it and
its commander, Roland, were destroyed. The memory of the event later provided
the foundation for one of the most enduring epics of the Middle Ages, the Song of
Roland, but this could provide little consolation for Charlemagne, who left Spain
early to respond to unrest in the kingdom and to another in the series of Saxon re-
volts. Indeed, the great king not only faced the occasional military setback, he also
faced a number of revolts during his long reign, including the one led by his favorite
illegitimate son, Pippin the Hunchback.
Despite the occasional failure and revolt, Charlemagne was a warlord to be
reckoned with. He did suppress the revolts he faced, and he extended the bound-
aries of the empire with the creation of the Spanish March, a militarized border
region that included territory on the Spanish side of the Pyrenees. But his most
172 | Charlemagne

important military campaign, after the conquest of Saxony, was his conquest of
the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy. This was also one of his earliest victories
(773–774), following shortly after the death of his brother Carloman in 771. It sig-
naled a dramatic reversal of a Carolingian policy of close ties with the Lombards
that had been in effect, in some ways, since the time of Charlemagne’s grandfa-
ther, Charles Martel. Even though his father, Pippin the Younger, invaded Italy
twice, he did so without the force or the desire that Charlemagne had. Moreover,
it was also a dramatic change in the personal life of the king himself. His mother,
hoping to keep the peace among her sons and with traditional Frankish allies,
had arranged a marriage between her older son and Desiderata, the daughter of
the Lombard king in Italy, Desiderius. But Charles repudiated his wife and broke
with the Lombards, preferring to ally himself with a far greater power, the pope
in Rome. His invasion quickly brought about the defeat of the Lombards and the
capture of their capital at Pavia. His invasion also brought much new territory to
the growing empire, as Charles not only defeated Desiderius but deposed him and
usurped his crown.
The conquest of the Lombards was important for a number of reasons. It brought
Charlemagne into close contact with Rome, provided him the legal right to exer-
cise authority in Italy as the king of the Lombards, brought under his control the
heartland of the old Roman Empire, and gave him the opportunity to visit Rome as
a pilgrim. The first of several visits to the city, his pilgrimage in 774 strengthened
the devotion that Charles and his line had for St. Peter and reinforced the fam-
ily’s relationship with Peter’s successor, the pope. Although relationships with the
reigning pope, Hadrian, were sometimes strained, they were of great importance to
Charles, who wept openly when Hadrian died. Rome supplied Carolingian eccle-
siastics and their king with a great deal of material essential to Carolingian church
reform, including numerous legal and liturgical texts. But more than a source for
religious reform and spiritual inspiration, Rome provided Charles with the political
justification of his power as an anointed ruler.
One of his most important legacies was his idea of kingship. His father before
him had been crowned and anointed by the pope, an act that consciously recalled
the ceremonies at the crowning of the ancient kings of Israel. The influence of the
Hebrew Bible on the Carolingians was great, and the biblical king David was the
model king for the new Frankish dynasty. Charlemagne himself, inspired by his
court scholars, saw himself as a “new David” ruling a new chosen people and was
given the nickname of David by those at court. He saw himself as God’s anointed,
with responsibilities over God’s church and people, a belief that manifested itself
in his relationships with the church in his kingdom and in Rome. In his capitularies,
he instituted moral reform of the clergy, encouraging them to know the mass, to live
a chaste life, and to avoid frequenting taverns. He also reformed the organization
 Charlemagne | 173

of the Frankish church. He introduced liturgical reforms, appointed bishops and

abbots, and employed ecclesiastics in the highest levels of his government. He felt
an obligation to defend the faith from heresy and moral corruption and to extend
the boundaries of Christendom. His conquests accomplished the goal of extending
the faith, and he presided over church councils to protect the faith from internal en-
emies. At his most famous council, at Frankfurt in 794, he and the assembled cler-
ics denounced the Spanish heresy of Adoptionism (teaching that Jesus was the son
of God by adoption), struggled to find the appropriate response to the Iconoclastic
Controversy in the Byzantine Empire, and instituted a series of organizational and
disciplinary reforms.
As an anointed Christian king, Charles felt obligated to ensure justice through-
out his realm, and to accomplish this end he implemented several new adminis-
trative practices and reformed existing ones. The use of writing in government
increased dramatically during Charlemagne’s reign, and the most important in-
strument in his administration was the capitulary, a written decree divided into
chapters (capitula). These laws addressed a broad range of topics, and the great-
est of them, the Admonitio Generalis of 789, outlined Charlemagne’s program
of government. Other capitularies addressed matters of secular and ecclesiastical
administration, religious reform, religious belief and orthodoxy, legal jurisdic-
tion, the price of bread, weights and measures, and general economic matters.
The capitularies were issued, often orally (to be afterward written down), from
the effective center of government, Charlemagne’s court, which moved from
place to place and was attended by the leading religious and secular figures of
the kingdom.
On the local level Charlemagne’s will and desire for justice were implemented by
a number of officers. The most important regional officer was the count, who ruled
over a specific territorial unit. The count was the king’s deputy and received the au-
thority to govern from the king. He was responsible for protecting the interests of
the king and disseminating his laws. The count had the right to punish criminals and
was expected to maintain peace and order. He also owed military and court service to
the king, and could be called on to serve as the king’s special envoy. Another area of
committal responsibility was the administration of justice, and included in that was
the appointment of the scabini. The scabini were a new class of permanent judges
established by Charlemagne to render judgment of legal disputes at the local level.
The most important of the royal officials, however, were the missi dominici, or mes-
sengers of the lord king. These officials, eventually sent out in pairs of one secular
and one ecclesiastical noble, were charged with ensuring the proper application of
royal laws and justice. They were to guarantee that legal cases were resolved with-
out corruption and that the king’s other representatives—counts, judges, and the
like—enforced the law honorably.
174 | Charlemagne

Charlemagne’s sense of responsibility as an anointed Christian king was perhaps

the source of inspiration for his promotion of what is called Carolingian Renais-
sance. Although not the decisive break with an earlier “dark age” it has traditionally
been considered, the renaissance did see a quickening of intellectual pace and a dra-
matic increase in the use of writing in government and the church. Charlemagne’s
goal was to create an educated clergy that could properly say the mass and teach
the fundamentals of the faith to his people. As God’s chosen king, he felt respon-
sible for the salvation of his people and desired that all his subjects know the Lord’s
Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. To do this he needed learned priests and books. He
attracted some of the best minds of his day, including Theodulf of Orléans, Paul
the Deacon, Peter of Pisa, and, most importantly, the great Anglo-Saxon scholar
and teacher, Alcuin of York. These scholars brought with them a devotion to Char-
lemagne’s reforms and a devotion to Christian learning, which they shared with
their students, who then contributed to the increasing sophistication of Carolingian
government and society. They brought great learning with them, as well as numer-
ous books, especially books of the Bible, and they oversaw the production of new
copies of these books. And, beginning in Charlemagne’s day, his efforts at cultural
reform led to the production of a new edition of the Bible, heightened theological
discussion, works of history and poetry, and numerous magnificently illuminated
manuscripts.
By the last decade of the eighth century, Charlemagne was the preeminent fig-
ure of Western Europe. He ruled over the greatest kingdom, presided over councils
and governmental and religious reform, and in many ways rivaled the Byzantine
emperor in status and prestige. Indeed, there was the sense among some of his
court scholars that Charles was more than a king. A letter from Charlemagne to
the pope in 795, a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne in 799, and the palace com-
plex at Aachen, which was modeled on an imperial palace in Ravenna, all suggest
that Charlemagne, or at least those around him, had imperial pretensions. Whether
Charles did harbor the desire to be recognized as an emperor in the 790s is unknow-
able, but the opportunity to become an emperor presented itself shortly after the
ascension of Leo III to the papal throne.
The chain of events that led to Charlemagne’s elevation to the imperial dignity
began in a crisis early in the reign of Pope Leo III. Elected pope in 795 after the
death of the powerful and well-connected Hadrian, Leo faced the challenge of
ruling the church with significant enemies in Rome, especially relatives of the
former pope who were dissatisfied by the election of Leo. Although Charlemagne
supported the new pope and called on him to raise his arms in prayer like Moses
to support the success in battle of the king, Leo’s position remained tenuous. On
April 25, 799, Leo was attacked by Hadrian’s nephews, Paschal and Campulus,
while leading a religious procession through the streets of Rome. He was dragged
 Charlemagne | 175

from his horse and, according to some reports, was blinded and had his tongue cut
out. He was then imprisoned in the monastery of St. Erasmus, and his attackers
alleged that he was corrupt and guilty of adultery and perjury. He escaped from
the monastery and was escorted to the Frankish court by one of Charlemagne’s
dukes in Italy, where he regained the powers of sight and speech. He was wel-
comed by the king and returned to Rome, where he awaited the arrival of the king
to resolve the dispute.
In November 800, Charles and a sizeable entourage ventured to Rome to deter-
mine the fate of the rebels and the pope. After several weeks of meeting with the
pope and the nobility, a great council was held on December 23 where the rebels
were found guilty and condemned to death, a sentence which was commuted to
exile at Leo’s request. Leo himself swore an oath of his innocence, which was
accepted by all. On Christmas day, Charles attended a mass presided over by
the pope, who placed a crown on the king’s head when he rose from kneeling at
the altar. The assembled crowd then arose and proclaimed Charles emperor and
augustus.
The empire had been revived and a new emperor crowned, but according to
Einhard, had Charlemagne known what was going to happen he would not have
attended mass that day. Einhard’s remark has troubled historians ever since. It is
most unlikely that Charles did not know and approve of what was going to happen.
Although the imperial crown offered him little real new power, it surely brought
great prestige. His conquests, his creation of an empire, and his protection of the
church qualified him for the position in the eyes of his contemporaries and most
likely in his own eyes. The construction of the palace and church in Aachen dem-
onstrated his sense of his imperial authority, and his court scholars had spoken
of him in imperial terms throughout the decade. Moreover, a letter from his most
important advisor, Alcuin of York, identified Charlemagne as the greatest power
in Christendom, given the attack on Leo and the vacancy of the imperial throne in
Constantinople (vacant in eighth-century eyes because it was held by a woman).
Indeed, it is quite likely that Charlemagne knew that he was to be crowned emperor
and welcomed the imperial crown, but perhaps he was troubled by the way the
coronation itself took place.
The coronation opened the final phase of Charlemagne’s career, a period of di-
minished activity for the emperor, during which the strains of empire began to show.
The emperor was less active on the military front and faced an increasing Viking
threat, one that his armies had difficulty stopping. He was also less peripatetic than
he had been earlier in his reign, settling primarily at the palace at Aachen. He con-
tinued to pass new laws, however, including a capitulary in 802 that restated the re-
ligious and political program he had long promoted, now presented as the program
of an emperor. By 802 he had also decided on his official title and had come to
176 | Charlemagne

accept and appreciate the honor bestowed on Christmas day 800. In 806 he issued
a succession decree, in which he divided the empire among his three sons but did
not bestow the imperial title, which he may have regarded as a personal honor, on
any of them. In 813 he altered the decree because two of his sons had died, leaving
only his son Louis as his eventual successor. Charlemagne crowned Louis emperor
in a great ceremony at Aachen, which was attended by members of the secular and
religious aristocracy but not the pope. Having settled his affairs, dividing his wealth
among his children and the church, Charlemagne died on January 28, 814.
Although the empire dissolved in little more than a generation after his death,
Charlemagne left an indelible mark on his age and the later Middle Ages. His model
of Christian kingship remained the ideal for much of the rest of the Middle Ages,
and the imperial dignity he created was regarded as the ultimate expression of po-
litical power into the modern era. The close ties he forged with the popes in Rome
influenced political events long after his death, and his reform of the church in his
kingdom revived a sagging institution. The efforts at cultural and religious renewal
that created the Carolingian Renaissance established an important foundation for
later cultural growth in the Middle Ages. Indeed, Charlemagne’s achievement was
unsurpassed in the early Middle Ages, and he was the greatest king of the entire
Middle Ages.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Aix-la-Chapelle; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty;
Einhard; Irminsul; Louis the Pious; Notker the Stammerer; Pippin III, Called Pippin the
Short; Vita Karoli

Bibliography
Becher, Matthias. Charlemagne. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.
Bullough, Donald. “Europae Pater: Charlemagne and His Achievement in the Light of
Recent Scholarship.” English Historical Review 75 (1970): 59–105.
Collins, Roger. Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Dutton, Paul. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1993.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Ganshof, François Louis. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in
Carolingian History. Trans. Janet Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
 Charles Martel | 177

Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
McKitterick, Rosamond, ed. Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Sullivan, Richard E. Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1963.

Charles Martel (d. 741)

Son of Pippin II of Herstal and father of Pippin III the Short, Charles, later known
as Martel (the Hammer), was an important Carolingian mayor of the palace, whose
reign, after a difficult beginning, marked a significant step in the growth of his fam-
ily’s power and the erosion of the power of the Merovingian dynasty. His reign
as mayor witnessed important changes in relationships between his line and the
Frankish church, not all of which were positive from the church’s point of view.
He did, however, support the activities of missionaries, including the great Anglo-
Saxon St. Boniface, in the kingdom and along the realm’s frontier, and was seen as
a champion of the church by the pope in Rome, who sought his aid. Charles is best
known for his victory over invading Muslims from Spain at the Battle of Tours, a
significant, although generally overemphasized, military victory.
Although he eventually came to command the entire Frankish kingdom and was
able to pass this power on to his sons Carloman and Pippin, Charles Martel had few
advantages at the time of the death of his own father, Pippin II, in December 714.
Overlooked in the plan of succession to the office of mayor of the palace, which had
come to rival the authority of the office of king in the early eighth century, Charles
was in fact imprisoned by Pippin’s widow, Plectrude. Charles, whose mother was
one of Pippin’s mistresses and so despised by Plectrude, was rejected for the office
of mayor of the palace in Neustria by Plectrude in favor of her young grandson,
Theodoald, whose father had been designated heir but who was murdered while
praying at a religious shrine several months before Pippin’s death. Despite these
disadvantages, Charles managed to break out of prison and organize a warrior band
to support his claims to power.
178 | Charles Martel

The next few years were critical for Charles, who faced rivals from within his
own family and from other Frankish nobles. His first attempt to acquire power, in
fact, was a failure. He was defeated by the mayor, Ragamfred, who had defeated and
deposed Theodoald, and the Frisian ruler, Radbod, in 715, and forced to withdraw
to his private estates. In the following year Ragamfred, who was supported by the
newly crowned Merovingian king Chilperic II, turned against Plectrude, who had
retired to Cologne and seized a large part of the treasure of Pippin. Charles, in the
meanwhile, had organized a new band of soldiers and fell on Ragamfred as he left
Cologne, inflicting heavy losses on his rival. In 717, Ragamfred and Charles again
met in battle at Vinchy, where Charles again won a major victory over his rival. At
this point Charles felt secure enough to promote his own Merovingian king, Chlo-
tar IV (d. 718), and he seized Pippin’s fortune from Plectrude. He next faced battle
in 719 from Ragamfred and Duke Eudo of Aquitaine, and once again emerged vic-
torious, pushing the Aquitainians out of the kingdom and taking control of Ragam-
fred’s king. Clearly, Charles was now the dominant figure in the kingdom and was
able to appoint a true do-nothing king (as the last Merovingian kings are often
called). Theuderic IV, on Chilperic’s death in 721.
Although he had secured his position as mayor of the palace by the early 720s,
Charles’s authority was not guaranteed, and he continued to expand his power in
the kingdom throughout the 720s and 730s. During the next two decades, Charles
imposed his authority over his fellow Franks and over tributary peoples along
the frontier of the kingdom. In 723 he fought and defeated Ragamfred again, but
Ragamfred remained in control of Angers until his death in 731. In the following
years, Charles defeated the Saxons, Alemanni, Bavarians, and, in the later 730s, the
Burgundians, whose territory he subjugated all the way to the Mediterranean. His
personal resolve and military skill enabled Charles to assume such great stature in
the kingdom that he was able to rule without a Merovingian puppet after the death
of Theuderic in 737.
Charles also extended Carolingian power into Aquitaine, where his former rival,
Eudo, continued to rule until his death in 735. Charles was able to take over Aqui-
taine after Eudo’s death, in part because the duke had sought Charles’s aid against
the Muslim invaders from Spain. Indeed, Eudo faced not only the growing power
of his rival to the north in the 720s but also the encroachment of the Muslims.
Eudo managed, on occasion, to beat back the Muslim invaders with a mixed army
of Aquitainians and Franks, but was clearly on the defensive in the face of succes-
sive successful raids in the early 730s. He had little choice but to seek aid from
Charles, whose willingness to join with Eudo occasioned his most famous military
victory. The raids of the Spanish Muslims had become so serious in the early 730s
that they had begun to enter Frankish territory. One raid reached especially deep
into Frankish territory, and on October 25, 732, somewhere between Tours and
Poitiers, Charles and his ally fought a great battle that stopped the Saracen advance.
 Charles Martel | 179

Although perhaps a bit exaggerated because it was merely a victory over a raiding
party and not an invading army, Charles’s victory at the Battle of Tours was an
important victory and was followed by his continued action against the Muslims,
whom he pushed from Aquitaine by the end of the 730s. His victory and continued
success against Muslim raiders were central to his subsequent reputation and his
acquisition of Aquitaine.
Charles established his control in the Frankish kingdom by his military victories,
but he was able to maintain that control by introducing new means to rule, including
the appointment of family members to key positions in the church and the establish-
ment of important new ties between his family and the church. He made numerous
appointments to episcopal and abbatial office, sometimes deposing the supporter of
a rival from the offices to make his appointment. He deposed one of Ragamfred’s
supporters as abbot of Fontanelle and replaced him with his nephew Hugo, who
was later made bishop of Rouen and Paris. He appointed his lay supporter, Carivius,
as bishop of Le Mans, and made another noble follower bishop of Redon. These
appointments were made repeatedly throughout Charles’s reign, and were made in
both the heartland of the kingdom and regions like Aquitaine that were a new or
restored part of the realm.
Many of the appointments were secular nobles with little training or inclination
for the job, who often did more harm than good to the church. Indeed, by the ninth
century, his reputation for secularizing church lands found him consigned to hell
by religious writers. They did, however, strengthen Charles’s position in the king-
dom, improve his ties with noble families in newly acquired territories, and, ironi-
cally considering the lack of concern for things spiritual the appointments showed,
strengthened his ties with the church. At the very least, appointment of lay follow-
ers to important ecclesiastical offices brought access to the church’s wealth and
lands to Charles.
Despite a poor record of appointments, Charles was not completely neglect-
ful of the church, and his reputation for secularizing church property is generally
exaggerated. Perhaps his most important connection with the church was his sup-
port and protection of the Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface. The great apostle to
the Germans, Boniface was allowed to introduce reform to the Frankish church
and was afforded protection by Charles during his evangelical missions among the
pagan Saxons. Boniface also reinforced Frankish attention to Rome and St. Peter.
The Anglo-Saxon missionary visited Rome, received approval to preach from the
pope, and was made the pope’s representative in the Frankish kingdom. Boniface’s
devotion to Rome was reflected by the Franks, who came to the attention of the
papacy during the time of Charles Martel. So great had Charles’s reputation be-
come that when Pope Gregory III needed help against the Lombards in the 730s he
turned to Charles. The Carolingian mayor could not help the pope at the time, but
the invitation foreshadowed similar communication between Pippin the Short and
180 | Charles the Bald

Pope Stephen II in the 750s. Indeed, the connection between Rome and the Caro-
lingians that began to form during the reign of Charles was to be essential to the
ultimate triumph of the dynasty.
By the end of his life Charles was clearly the dominant figure in the Frankish
kingdom, and he could afford to rule without a Merovingian figurehead during the
last four years of his life. Like a traditional Frankish king, he divided the realm
between his two sons, who both ascended to the office of mayor on their father’s
death in 741. Charles’s reign was critical to the ultimate success of his family. His
military victories and ability to attract supporters from the aristocracy strengthened
his family, and his recognition by the pope elevated Charles and his dynasty above
the other families of the realm. Although the achievement of the kingship had to
wait a generation, the groundwork for Carolingian succession to the throne was
laid by Charles Martel.
See also: Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Eudes of Aquitaine; Gregory
III; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short; Plectrude; Tours, Battle of

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and
Hagiography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar
with Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Charles the Bald (823–877)

Carolingian king and emperor, Charles the Bald, reigned during a time of great
unrest for the Carolingian Empire. As fourth son of Louis the Pious and only
son of Louis with his second wife Judith, Charles was forced to endure the chal-
lenges of his brothers to his father’s authority and to his own legitimate rights of
inheritance. After his father’s death, Charles faced the rivalry of his brothers and
participated in a terrible civil war that led to the division of the empire among
Louis’s three surviving sons. Charles came to rule the western part of the king-
dom, the region that later became France. Although Charles did not receive the
imperial title at the division of the empire, he actively sought after it and laid
claim to it in 875. His pursuit of the imperial title was, in part, the result of his
 Charles the Bald | 181

devotion to the memory of his grandfather, Charlemagne, and the greatness of his
reign. Charles, like his grandfather, actively promoted cultural life in the king-
dom and was the friend and patron of some of the most important scholars of the
Carolingian Renaissance, including Hincmar of Rheims, Rabanus Maurus, and
John Scotus Erigena.
The birth of Charles the Bald in 823 was met with great joy, but also with
some consternation because of the questions it raised about the succession to the
throne after his father’s death. Several years earlier, in 817, Louis the Pious had
held a great council of the leading churchmen and nobles of the empire to deter-
mine the matter of the succession. He devised a system in which the realm was
divided between his three sons, with the eldest, Lothar, recognized as coemperor
and, eventually, sole emperor. Louis’s other two sons, Louis the German and Pip-
pin, were made subkings and were granted authority within their own kingdoms
but were subject to Louis and then Lothar. The birth of Charles complicated this
settlement, a problem made worse because many believed that the settlement was
divinely inspired and to undo it would be an offense against God. But this is pre-
cisely, under the influence of his wife Judith, what Louis did in the late 820s, with
the consequence being revolts of his older sons in 830 and 833–834. During both
the revolts, Charles was packed off to a monastery, where he was to remain without
claim to his inheritance. Charles was rescued both times by his father, who man-
aged to regain, after some difficulty, control of the empire on both occasions. In
837 Charles was granted as his inheritance a sizeable kingdom that included much
of modern France. In the following year, after the death of Charles’s brother Pip-
pin, Louis disinherited Pippin’s sons and granted Aquitaine to his youngest son.
Charles also benefited from the reconciliation his father made with Lothar, who
had been Charles’s godfather, and as a result Lothar and Charles forged an alliance
in their father’s last year.
After the death of Louis the Pious in 840, the alliances forged by Louis broke
down, and the empire fell into civil war. Lothar, who had promised to protect
Charles, now turned against him in an effort to take control of the entire empire.
Charles quickly turned to his other brother, Louis the German, to forge an alliance
against their mutual foe, and for the next three years the three brothers fought for
control of the empire. In 841, Charles and Louis inflicted a stinging defeat on Lothar
at the Battle of Fontenoy, which Nithard, the chronicler of the civil wars, notes was
interpreted as God’s judgment against Lothar, delivered by Charles and Louis. Firm
in their conviction that God was on their side, and in the face of Lothar’s continuing
attempts to draw Charles away from Louis, Charles and Louis swore an oath to one
another in 842. The so-called Oath of Strasbourg was an important moment in the
civil wars, but important also because it contains the first recorded examples of the
Romance and Germanic languages. The alliance held, and in 843, Lothar submitted
and the three brothers accepted the Treaty of Verdun, which assigned the western
182 | Charles the Bald

kingdom to Charles; the eastern kingdom to Louis; and the central kingdom, Italy,
and the imperial title to Lothar.
Over the next two decades and more Charles was involved in continued con-
flict with his brothers for preeminence in the empire and with the sons of Pippin
for control of the west Frankish kingdom. In an effort to safeguard his position
in his kingdom, Charles held a council in Coulaines, near Le Mans, in 843, in
which he promised to protect the property of the church and the nobility and to
secure peace and justice in the realm in exchange for the aid and counsel of the
nobility. This was an important step in the relationships of the king and nobles,
in which Charles sought to establish a reciprocal working relationship. Although
he was not always successful, Charles restructured government and administra-
tion in his kingdom in meaningful ways. Of course, he did not always have the
support of the nobility, but Charles did manage to secure some support for his
authority despite the nobility’s ambitions. Notably, in Aquitaine he managed to
find support despite local patriotism and support for the heirs of Pippin. Indeed,
one of Louis the Pious’s former allies now struggled against Charles, but because
of some local support Charles was able to defeat him and also Pippin’s heir.
But, like his grandfather before him, Charles was forced to recognize Aquita-
inian uniqueness, and he appointed his son, Charles the Child, king of Aquitaine.
Moreover, although he had only mixed support from the nobility, Charles could
count on the full support of the church in his kingdom, particularly from the in-
domitable bishop, Hincmar of Rheims. The church and bishops played a critical
role in preserving Charles’s authority in the face of invasion by his brother Louis
the German in 858.
Relationships with his brothers ebbed and flowed after the treaty of Verdun. At
times, relationships were better with Lothar and at others better with Louis the
German. Indeed, warming relationships between Lothar and Charles may have
precipitated the invasion by Louis in 858. There were also examples, however, of
cooperation between the three, best exemplified in the meeting at Meerssen in 847
to respond to the assaults by the Northmen. But as Charles became increasingly se-
cure in his kingdom, and his brothers and nephews became less of a threat, Charles
turned his attention to the kingdom of his nephew Lothar II, son of the emperor
Lothar. Particularly after 860, Charles was in a position to expand his authority
at the expense of his brothers. He was interested in the dynastic problems of his
older brother’s son and successor, who was unable to provide an heir or to gain the
divorce he desired, and in 862, Charles and Louis agreed to share their nephew’s
territory, Lotharingia, on Lothar II’s death. In 870, the year after Lothar’s death,
Louis and Charles signed the Treaty of Meerssen, in which they agreed to share
their nephew’s kingdom and ignored the claims of Louis II, the emperor who ruled
in Italy. In 872, Pope Hadrian II wrote to Charles and expressed his support for the
king’s claim to the imperial title. Indeed, Charles’s ambitions grew as his control
of the west Frankish kingdom increased.
 Charles the Bald | 183

Seeking to expand his authority and resurrect the glory of his grandfather Char-
lemagne, Charles awaited the proper moment. When Louis II died without an heir
in 875, Charles seized the opportunity to become emperor, and on Christmas day
of that year he was crowned by the pope, John VIII, in Rome. He was opposed by
Louis the German, who sent troops to impede Charles’s progress in Italy and in-
vaded the western Frankish kingdom. Once again, Charles was saved by Hincmar
and returned secure in his kingdom. Charles clearly intended to rule the entire
empire, not just his kingdom, after the coronation. After the death of Louis the
German in 876, Charles marched into Lothar’s old kingdom to take control of
Aachen, the imperial capital. He also threatened to invade the eastern Frankish
kingdom of his late brother Louis, but became ill and was easily repulsed by the
new king, his nephew Louis the Younger. Despite this setback, Charles remained
dedicated to the imperial ideal and his responsibilities as emperor, and thus will-
ingly accepted a call by the pope to come to the defense of Rome.

Carolingian king and emperor Charles the Bald (823–

877) enthroned. After an illumination in the First Bible
of Charles the Bald. (Paul Lacroix. Science and Literature
of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, 1878)
184 | Charles III, the Fat

Preparing for his departure, Charles held a council at Quierzy in 877, and his
proclamations at the council have long been seen as a concession to the nobil-
ity and the confirmation of the rights of hereditary succession. The capitulary of
Quierzy, however, was intended to strengthen royal authority by reinforcing the
king’s right to recognize the successor to the office of count. He departed for Italy
soon after the council but was forced to return when he learned of a revolt by the
nobility and the invasion by Carloman, the eldest son of Louis the German. Worn
out by overexertion, Charles died on his return to the kingdom on October 6, 877.
Although his reign as emperor was short and tumultuous, Charles was one of the
great Carolingian kings and a worthy heir of his namesake Charlemagne.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Fontenoy, Battle of; Judith; Lothar; Louis the
German; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Strasbourg, Oath of; Verdun, Treaty of

Bibliography
Gibson, Margaret, and Janet Nelson, eds. Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports, 1981.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Charles III, the Fat (839–888)

The third son of Louis the German (r. 840–876), Charles the Fat was the last Caro-
lingian to rule over a united empire. Although his reign began with great promise,
ill health and a variety of other problems cut short the emperor’s tenure. His failure
illustrated some of the fundamental problems of Carolingian power and opened the
way for continued decentralization.
Charles became king of Alemmannia on his father’s death in 876 and in 879 he
became king of Italy. After some negotiation, Charles and his wife, Richardis, were
crowned emperor and empress by Pope John VIII (872–882) in Rome in 881. Hope-
ful that Charles would remain in Italy to protect the region, especially the Papal
States, from Muslim raiders from the south, the pope was disappointed when the
new emperor returned north to strengthen his hold on Carolingian lands. In 882 his
claim to power was expanded as he inherited control of Bavaria, Franconia, and
 Charles III, the Fat | 185

Saxony on the death of his younger brother, Louis the Younger (r. 876–882). Rul-
ing over the entire east Frankish kingdom, Charles turned his attention to the most
pressing problem of the day, the Vikings. His siege of an encampment of Northmen
was broken off, but Charles won a diplomatic victory by convincing the leader of
the Northmen to convert to Christianity and to accept the emperor’s niece in mar-
riage. Recognizing his success, the nobles of the West Frankish kingdom offered
Charles the crown on the death of Carloman (r. 879–884), and when the nobility
and bishops pledged their loyalty to Charles at Ponthion in 885 he completed the
reintegration of the empire of Charlemagne.
With increasing authority came greater responsibility, and Charles was faced
with the growing menace of the Northmen in his new kingdom. In July 885, North-
men took Rouen and began the siege of Paris. Although heroically defended by the
count of Paris, the city fell by the summer of 886. The people of the region sent an
urgent request to Charles for aid, and in response he sent one of his most skilled
and trusted military advisors, who was killed by the Vikings shortly after his ar-
rival. Charles himself marched on Paris in October 886 and ransomed the city with
a payment of 700 pounds of silver and allowed the Vikings to ravage Burgundy in
the following winter.
The emperor’s problems were not limited to his difficulties with the North-
men but included a serious health problem: he experienced seizures and suffered
headaches that made it nearly impossible for him to rule. Efforts to relieve the
condition proved fruitless, and Charles’s failure to provide an heir further eroded
his support throughout the empire. In 887, a general rebellion broke out against
him and forced Charles to move to Tribur where he tried unsuccessfully to rally
support. Abandoned even by his loyal supporters, Charles agreed to abdicate in
November 887, retiring to estates in Swabia where he would die on January 13,
888. The empire he had recreated dissolved on his abdication as regional kings
assumed his position.
Despite the dissolution of the empire and his military failures, Charles did make
a positive impact on his own and subsequent generations. Contemporaries regarded
him as a good Christian king who gave generously to the poor, prayed often, and
put his trust in God. One writer even compared Charles with his illustrious ances-
tor, Charlemagne. Of more lasting significance was the emperor’s impact on liter-
ary history. He commissioned Notker the Stammerer, a monk of St. Gall, to write
a biography of Charlemagne, which provides important commentary on Christian
kingship and moral lessons drawn from a somewhat idealized version of its sub-
ject’s life. Charles the Fat himself was also the subject of the Vision of Charles
the Fat, an anonymous tract written at Rheims. In the work, Charles is visited by
a serious of ancestors who warn him of the impending collapse of the dynasty and
encourage him to seek divine favor.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Louis the German; Notker the Stammerer
186 | Charles III, the Simple

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul Edward. The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
McLean, Simon. Politics and Kingship in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and
the End of the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Charles III, the Simple (879–929)

Ruler of the West Frankish Kingdom, Charles called “the Simple” (simplex:
“straightforward” or “without guile”) embodied the strengths and weaknesses of
the later Carolingian kings. Although respected by the clergy of his realm and by
the Saxon ruler of the East Frankish kingdom, Henry I, Charles endured major
challenges to his authority by the nobility of his realm and from invaders from the
north.
Born some five months after the death of his father, Louis II the Stammerer, and
two years after the death of his grandfather, Charles the Bald, Charles the Simple’s
path to the kingship was a difficult one. His two half-brothers and heirs to the
throne died young, and the emperor, Charles the Fat, welcomed him as successor
to the West Frankish throne but abdicated before he could enforce the succession.
Even when supported at around 892 by a faction of the nobility upset by the reign
of King Odo, the son of Robert the Strong, Charles was forced to wait until 898 to
take the throne. Once established as king of the West Franks, Charles pursued the
traditional Carolingian policy of imposing his authority throughout the realm. He
sought to revive royal authority over Aquitaine, forging close ties with leading no-
bles of the region, issuing charters confirming royal estates, and involving himself
with ecclesiastical appointments. He extended his power into the northern part of
his kingdom and was recognized as the king of Lotharingia in 921.
Perhaps Charles’s greatest achievement came in 911when he defeated the invad-
ing Northmen and agreed to a treaty with them. According to the terms of the agree-
ment, the leader of the Northmen, Rollo, was to become the count of Rouen and
preside over a province that would become the duchy of Normandy. In return for
this grant, Rollo and his followers were to convert to Christianity and defend their
new home and the kingdom from further invasions. Despite this success, Charles’s
reign would not be a happy one, and royal authority would be seriously eroded.
Dissatisfied by his focus on Lotharingian affairs, the nobles of the West Frankish
kingdom revolted against Charles in the 920s. In 923, Charles was captured and
imprisoned until the end of his life in 929, leaving behind a kingdom that was
increasingly fragmented and decentralized.
 Childeric III | 187

See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Charles III, the Fat; Louis the Stammerer

Bibliography
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Childeric III (d. 754)

The last ruler of the Merovingian dynasty, Childeric was king from 743 to 751,
but the real power in the Frankish kingdom was held by the Carolingian mayors
of the palace, Pippin the Short and Carloman. Drawn from obscurity and hailed as
the heir to the dynasty after a six-year interregnum, Childeric was a “do-nothing
king” (one of the rois fainéants, as the later Merovingians are traditionally called),
the puppet of the real rulers of Francia. In a memorable passage by Charlemagne’s
biographer, Einhard, Childeric is portrayed in most unsympathetic, almost ridicu-
lous, terms. According to the biography, Childeric had little more than the empty
title of king and had no influence on government beyond his annual visits to court.
Arriving in a rustic oxcart led by a peasant, Childeric would play the role of king,
sitting on his throne with his beard and long flowing hair (long hair was the sym-
bol of Merovingian royal power), where he would receive ambassadors from other
kingdoms. The answers he gave these ambassadors had been thoroughly rehearsed
with the Carolingian mayors. Childeric was not only without political power but
he was also without economic power. He owned only a single estate with a house
and few servants. The estate itself brought him a meager income, and he was de-
pendent upon the good graces of the mayors of the palace for his economic support.
Childeric, thus, was a mere shadow of his illustrious ancestor Clovis (r. 481–511),
the first Merovingian king.
Despite his alleged economic and political weakness, Childeric was not a com-
pletely useless king. It is likely, first of all, that Einhard exaggerated Childeric’s
inadequacies to enhance the reputation of the new Carolingian dynasty, and there
is evidence that he issued charters and possessed more than a single estate. Clearly,
the Merovingian monarch was highly dependent on his Carolingian patrons, but
at his enthronement he declared that he was pleased to be restored to the kingship
and pleased to allow the Carolingians help rule the kingdom. Moreover, he pos-
sessed a certain charisma as a member of the royal line that Pippin and Carloman
did not possess. Indeed, it was that very charisma that the Carolingian mayors
needed to secure their positions in the kingdom. Childeric was raised to the throne
to establish continuity in the kingdom, or at least give the appearance that the tra-
ditional dynasty remained in control of the kingdom and that the good fortune of
188 | Chilperic I

the dynasty would preserve the kingdom. The Carolingian mayors had faced wide-
spread opposition within the Frankish kingdom that was, perhaps, worsened by the
absence of a legitimate king. Their father, Charles Martel, had ruled as mayor with-
out a king on the throne during his last years, and Pippin and Carloman inherited
this situation. To reduce internal opposition, they put Childeric on the throne, and
thus he performed an important political function.
Childeric’s utility, however, came to an end by the close of the 740s. In 747
Carloman withdrew from the world and retired to a monastery. Pippin was thus the
sole mayor of the Frankish kingdom and much more secure in that role than he had
been at the beginning of the 740s. In 750, he sent messengers to the pope in Rome
asking if the person with the title or the person with the power should rule as king.
The pope answered as Pippin had hoped, and in the following year Childeric was
deposed, and Pippin assumed the throne. Childeric was tonsured and placed in a
monastery, where he quietly lived out his days.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Einhard; Merovingian
Dynasty; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kings, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Chilperic I (c. 537–584)

Merovingian king from 561 to 584, Chilperic was the son of Chlotar I (d. 561) and
grandson of the great king Clovis (r. 481–511). His reign as king was marred by
almost constant warfare with his brothers, especially Sigebert, for control of the
kingdom. The relationship between Sigebert and Chilperic was further complicated
by their marriage practices and the enmity between Sigebert’s wife, Brunhilde,
and Chilperic’s wife, Fredegund. Indeed, after the death of the two kings, Brun-
hilde and Fredegund continued the feud until Fredegund’s death in 597. Chilperic’s
ambition, brutality, and corrupt ways are highlighted by his contemporary Gregory
of Tours in Gregory’s History of the Franks.
Chilperic, according to Gregory of Tours, was “the Nero and Herod of our time”
(379), and it is from Gregory that Chilperic’s reputation for violence and deceit
comes. Gregory notes that Chilperic destroyed many villages and brought many
unjust charges against his subjects to seize their wealth. The king persecuted the
bishops, whom he accused of taking all the wealth of the kingdom. According to
 Chilperic I | 189

Gregory, Chilperic’s “god was in his belly” (380), and the king practiced all forms
of vice and debauchery. Chilperic declared to his judges, “If anyone disobeys my
orders, he must be punished by having his eyes torn out” (380–381). Although
Gregory provides a memorable portrait of Chilperic, he was not the only one to
do so, and other evidence provides a less brutal image of the king. The great poet
Venantius Fortunatus wrote a panegyric praising the king for his authority and in-
tellectual talents. Indeed, even Gregory recognizes that Chilperic had some literary
talent and notes that the king wrote two books of poetry and composed hymns and
other pieces for the mass. Chilperic also wrote a book of theology on the doctrine
of Christ, added several Greek letters to the alphabet to reflect pronunciation of
Frankish better, and added to the Salic law.
Although he was more than the brutal king portrayed by Gregory, Chilperic
is best known for the civil wars with his brothers, particularly the blood feud
involving his wife, Fredegund, and his brother Sigebert and his brother’s wife,
Brunhilde. Hostilities did, however, precede his marriage with Fredegund, when
Chilperic, who had inherited part of the kingdom with its capital at Soissons, at-
tacked Sigebert’s kingdom in 562. The attack began 13 years of war between the
two brothers, war that nearly led to the defeat and destruction of Chilperic. He was
aided throughout the struggle by his ambitious and ruthless wife, Fredegund. She
was not Chilperic’s first wife, however. Indeed, Chilperic had previously married
the Visigothic princess Galswintha. This had constituted a break with the usual
practice of the Merovingian kings, who had married lowborn women. Indeed, even
before his marriage to Galswintha, Chilperic took the serving maid Fredegund as
a concubine and, possibly, wife. His marriage to Galswintha was inspired by Sige-
bert, who had previously married Galswintha’s sister Brunhilde. Shortly after the
marriage to Galswintha, who brought a sizeable dowry to the marriage, Chilperic
had her murdered, possibly at Fredegund’s request, and then married Fredegund.
The murder of Galswintha may have worsened an already difficult situation be-
tween Sigebert and Chilperic.
The civil wars between the two brothers were quite fierce. They may have
been the worst wars in Merovingian history. After Chilperic’s initial attack,
Sigebert was able to counterattack and seize Chilperic’s capital of Soissons.
Chilperic was driven from his kingdom and eventually he took refuge with
his brother Guntram, who also faced invasion by Sigebert. In the mid-570s,
Chilperic, allied with Guntram, and Sigebert once again came to blows. The
situation was quite grave for Chilperic, because Guntram had made peace with
Sigebert and Chilperic’s son had been killed in battle by supporters of Sigebert.
On the point of destruction, Chilperic learned that Sigebert had been killed. It
is generally held that the murder was committed by agents of Chilperic’s queen,
Fredegund.
Chilperic exploited his opportunity after the death of Sigebert and invaded his
late brother’s territory. He seized several cities formerly ruled by Sigebert and
190 | Chlotar II

nearly disinherited Sigebert’s heir, Childebert (d. 596). But the intervention of
Guntram saved Childebert and stopped Chilperic’s advance. At the same time,
Chilperic faced the ambitions of Merovech, his son by one of his concubines.
Merovech, having reached his majority and eager to rule as king, sought out
and married Chilperic’s rival Brunhilde. The marriage gave Merovech claim to
a kingdom and returned Brunhilde to the game of Merovingian power politics.
But the couple was no match for the ruthlessness of Chilperic and Fredegund,
and Merovech, failing to secure power, asked a servant to kill him. Gregory, how-
ever, suggests that Merovech was murdered by Fredegund. Whatever the case,
Chilperic survived the challenge and was now, in 581, bereft of any heirs. At
that point, he made peace with Childebert, adopted him, and named him as heir.
For the next three years, Childebert, Chilperic, and Guntram were involved in a
complicated diplomatic and military struggle for predominance in the kingdom.
Although Chilperic acquired the largest share of the kingdom, he was abandoned
by Childebert, who once again allied with Guntram, putting Chilperic on the de-
fensive. Before much further turmoil between the three occurred, Chilperic was
murdered while hunting. He was succeeded by an infant son, Chlotar II, who was
protected by his mother Fredegund and supported by an important segment of
the nobility. It was in fact Chlotar II who ended the civil strife that had existed
since the beginning of his father’s reign when he overthrew Brunhilde in 613 and
unified the kingdom.
See also: Brunhilde; Chlotar II; Clovis; Fredegund; Galswintha; Gregory of Tours; Gun-
tram; Merovingian Dynasty; Salic Law

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Chlotar II (584–629)

Merovingian king from 613 to 629 and the first monarch to rule a united king-
dom since the first Merovingian king of the Franks, Clovis, in the late fifth and
 Chlotar II | 191

early sixth centuries, Chlotar was a successful king who restored the integrity of
the dynasty and laid the foundation for the high point in the dynasty’s history.
The son of Chilperic I and Fredegund, Chlotar established a period of peace and
prosperity for the kingdom and ended generations of civil strife and fraternal vio-
lence that had plagued the realm since the early sixth century. Chlotar improved
relationships with the nobility and the church, reformed the law, established a
rudimentary chancery that was to develop in the generations to follow, and em-
phasized the king’s stature as a sacred figure. The peace and prosperity enjoyed
by the kingdom during his reign continued during that of the reign of his son,
Dagobert, because of important foundations laid by Chlotar and because of the
talents of his successor.
Chlotar was born during a time of great civil strife in the kingdom that was the
result of the competition between his parents, Chilperic and Fredegund, and their
rivals King Sigebert (r. 560/561–575) and his queen Brunhilde. He ascended to the
throne in 584 when his father was murdered by his mother and immediately faced
numerous difficulties that threatened his claim to the throne. One of the most seri-
ous problems was the question of his legitimacy and right to inherit. Many lead-
ers in the kingdom, including the historian Gregory of Tours and King Guntram,
the pious and highly respected Merovingian ruler, expressed doubts about his par-
entage. Only after Fredegund gathered the sworn oaths of three bishops and 300
nobles was Chlotar’s claim preserved, with the aid of his uncle, King Guntram.
He faced further challenges, however, in the 590s, including the ascendancy of his
mother’s rival, Brunhilde, attacks on his own part of the kingdom, and the loss of
important territories. Growing dissatisfaction among the nobility with Brunhilde
and her sons, however, provided Chlotar with the opportunity not only to secure
his place in his own part of the kingdom but to establish his authority over the en-
tire Frankish realm. He led a revolt against Brunhilde that led to her deposition and
brutal execution in 613.
The opening years of Chlotar’s reign, known mainly from the garbled pages of
the chronicle of Fredegar, were marked by an attack on the reign of his predecessor.
The condemnation and savage execution of Brunhilde for numerous murders were
only the start of Chlotar’s war on his predecessor’s memory. To further denigrate
the reputation of his predecessor, Chlotar promoted the memory and saint’s cult of
one of the bishops that Brunhilde had murdered. He also made contact with the Irish
missionary St. Columban, who had been exiled by the queen. Although Columban
did not return, his foundation at Luxeuil received protection from Chlotar. These
actions not only worsened Brunhilde’s reputation, they also improved Chlotar’s re-
lationship with the church in his realm.
Chlotar made significant overtures to the nobility during the early years of
his reign. His success against Brunhilde was due to the support of the nobility,
particularly to the founders of what later became the Carolingian dynasty, Arnulf
192 | Chlotar II

of Metz and Pippin of Landen. They were made important advisors of the king
and rewarded with prominent religious and political offices, Arnulf with the see of
Metz and Pippin with the office of mayor of the palace (major domus). The sup-
port of the Frankish nobility was essential for the success of the king, particularly
because of the shifting alliances of various noble families. During his entire reign
and that of his son Dagobert’s, Chlotar sought to manage these unstable alliances.
His creation of a subkingdom in Austrasia in 622 for Dagobert may have been an
attempt to appease regional interests and draw powerful families in the region closer
to the ruling dynasty. Marriage alliances were also made to maintain good relation-
ships with various noble factions. Dagobert’s mother, Berthetrude, may have been
Burgundian, which would have preserved ties between Chlotar and that part of the
kingdom. After Berthetrude’s death, Chlotar married again, and Dagobert married
Chlotar’s new wife’s sister, both marriages attempted to gain the support of the
wives’ family for the two kings.
Chlotar throughout his entire reign introduced significant legal reforms and is-
sued numerous charters and diplomas. One of his most important pieces of legis-
lation came very early in his reign, when he pronounced the Edict of Paris of 614.
Once seen as a concession to the nobility, the edict bound the king and nobility
closer together and provided them the shared purpose of ruling a great kingdom
and maintaining peace and order throughout the realm. The edict also addressed
tolls, ecclesiastical property, and the restitution of property lost under Chlotar’s
predecessor Brunhilde; in this way Chlotar further denigrated Brunhilde’s memory
and enhanced his own image before the nobility. His activity as a lawgiver had two
further consequences. It forced him to establish a writing office, which in genera-
tions to come evolved into an official chancery, an office that attracted skilled men,
often from the church, who would support his power. The office also enhanced his
reputation as king and reinforced his image as an almost sacred figure, a result that
distinguished him from the nobles who served him and needed him to continue to
act as lawgiver.
By the end of his reign in 629, Chlotar had reestablished the authority of the
Merovingian dynasty and laid the foundation for even greater successes by his son
Dagobert. Chlotar had reunited the kingdom under his sole authority and main-
tained good relationships with the nobility. He reordered and improved relation-
ships with the church in his kingdom, which offered a valuable counterweight to
the nobility should he need it. He reformed the law and enhanced his reputation as
king through his role as lawgiver. Chlotar also redefined the status of the king in
the Merovingian realm—all of which aided his son and established an era of pros-
perity for the dynasty.
See also: Arnulf of Metz, St.; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Clovis; Columban, St.;
Dagobert; Fredegund; Gregory of Tours; Guntram; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin I, Called
Pippin of Landen
 Chrodegang of Metz | 193

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
Lasko, Peter. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Chrodegang of Metz (c. 712–766)

Perhaps the most important ecclesiastic in the Carolingian kingdom in the first half
of the eighth century, after the Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface, Chrodegang was
a committed church reformer and a close ally of the Carolingian mayor of the pal-
ace and later king, Pippin the Short. He assumed the important see of Metz, which
one of the founders of the Carolingian line, Arnulf of Metz, once held. Although not
as zealous in his commitment to Roman-focused reform as Boniface, Chrodegang
nonetheless became papal legate, introduced Roman liturgical forms to the king-
dom, visited Rome, and collected important relics from Rome. He helped Pippin
with his reforms of the Frankish church and composed an important rule for canons.
Born into a noble family, Chrodegang had many important family connections
throughout the kingdom, including prominent ecclesiastics and aristocrats. His
uncle may have been a supporter of the mayor of the palace, Charles Martel, and
Chrodegang himself served in the chancery at Martel’s court. In 742, the year after
Pippin and his brother Carloman succeeded their father, Chrodegang was made
bishop of Metz by Pippin and with the Carolingian mayor began the reform of the
Frankish church. Over the next several decades, in association with Pippin,
Chrodegang introduced improvements to religious life and practice at Metz. He
also expanded the size of his church at Metz and built several new episcopal build-
ings, which could accommodate the Roman liturgical practices and chant that
he introduced to the church in the Frankish kingdom. In 748, with Pippin’s help,
194 | Circumcellions

Chrodegang founded the monastery of Gorze near his see of Metz; the new monas-
tery was guided by the bishop’s reform principles, and monks from Gorze helped to
found new monasteries. While on a trip to Rome sometime between 753 and 755,
Chrodegang was made archbishop and papal legate by Pope Stephen II to replace
the recently martyred Boniface. He also participated in several church councils
held by Pippin that implemented spiritual and institutional reform of church life in
the kingdom.
Chrodegang is best known, however, for the rule of canons (Regula canonico-
rum) he wrote between 754 and 756. The rule, inspired by and based on the mo-
nastic rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, was intended to improve the religious life of
the canons at the cathedral church in Metz and was widely adopted throughout the
Frankish kingdom in the coming years. The rule, which received official sanction
at the Council of Aachen in 816, reflected Chrodegang’s monastic temperament.
Chrodegang’s rule ordered that the canons, clergy serving at a bishop’s cathedral
church, live in a community with a common place to eat and sleep. They were
to care for the sick, possess no personal wealth, and perform the daily round of
prayers. The canons were also expected to spend time reading and studying so that
they could better perform their preaching duties. Chrodegang’s rule was widely
copied in his day and remained the most important rule for canons for several
centuries after his death.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Arnulf of Metz, St.; Benedict of Aniane; Benedict of Nursia,
St.; Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Louis the Pious; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Knowles, David. Christian Monasticism. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Circumcellions

A militant religious group of North Africa, the Circumcellions were closely allied
with the Donatist movement, which rejected the Catholic church alleging that it
 Clothing | 195

failed its role during the persecutions, and emerged as a serious threat to the po-
litical and religious order of Roman Africa in the fourth and early fifth centuries.
Sometimes regarded as members of a nationalist as well as religious movement,
the Circumcellions are known mainly from the accounts of orthodox opponents
like Augustine of Hippo, who described the Circumcellions’ ferocious opposition
to the Catholic church and its imperial supporters. To prove their devotion to the
faith and membership in the true church, they sought out martyrdom—demand-
ing to be executed by Roman soldiers or attacking pagan temples to inspire as-
saults by pagans. Following the inspiration of the Donatist, the Circumcellions
openly fought with Catholics for control of church buildings and the clergy.
Along with their Donatist allies, the Circumcellions would purify churches they
seized and destroy Catholic sacred items to demonstrate the impurity of the Catholics.
In the later fourth century, the Circumcellions became even more aggressive and vio-
lent, staging brutal kidnappings and beatings of Catholic bishops and priests. They
were notorious as well for the vicious blinding of their rivals, which they justified
by reference to Scripture. Their savagery and extreme violence led some Donatist
leaders to reject the Circumcellions and contributed to the empire’s equally harsh
suppression of the Donatist church and the Circumcellion movement. By the time of
the arrival of the Vandals in 429, the Circumcellions seem to have been eradicated.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Donatists

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2000.
Frend, W.H.C. “Circumcellions and Monks.” Journal of Theological Studies, new series,
20 (1969): 542–49.

Clothing

The dress in barbarian Europe was most likely a combination of traditional Ger-
manic clothing and imported Roman fashions. Clothing was relatively uniform
throughout the Roman and post-Roman world, although there was variation across
Europe in style and fabric, including cotton, linen, wool, and, after the seventh cen-
tury, silk. There was also some variation, especially in quality, between the peas-
antry and upper classes. The latter were obviously able to afford higher quality
clothing and often adorned themselves with jewelry. In general, though, clothing
was simple and functional and was adapted to the prevailing climate, with people
in colder regions wearing warmer, heavier clothing.
As with many things, the Roman historian and moralist Tacitus (c. 56–120)
provides a useful description of the clothing of premigration Germans. Although
196 | Clothing

Tacitus’s Germania must be treated carefully since its praise of the Germans is often
simply a means of veiled criticism, its treatment of dress seems relatively accurate,
especially when the information it gives is compared with what is known of some
later barbarian practices. Tacitus notes that the Germans wear a cloak fastened with
a clasp, and the wealthiest wear a close-fitting garment underneath that is “tight and
exhibits each limb” (115) (in other words, trousers, never worn by the Romans).
They also wear the skins of animals, which are carefully chosen and include, among
others, the skins of spotted beasts. He says that they wear animal skins, a practice
disdained in Roman society, because they cannot acquire other material through
trade. Women, according to Tacitus, dress in the same fashion as men, except that
they wear linen garments embroidered in purple and do not extend the garment into
sleeves, leaving the lower arm bare.
Under the influence of their contact with Rome, various barbarian peoples
wore more loose-fitting and flowing clothes along with their furs and tight-fitting
garments. The peasants, whose fashions changed little throughout the Middle
Ages, wore heavy shoes, often of wood, a leather belt, and a simple, short tunic
with narrow long sleeves or half-long sleeves. The wealthier classes wore more
elaborate and expensive versions of this basic outfit, and Carolingian princes and
possibly other nobles changed their clothes every Saturday. Perhaps the best-
known literary depiction of barbarian dress is Einhard’s description of Char-
lemagne’s clothing. He notes that the great king wore “a linen shirt and linen
breeches, and above these a tunic fringed with silk” (77). Charlemagne covered
his legs with hose and wore shoes on his feet. He also wore an otter or ermine
coat to protect himself against the cold and covered everything with a blue cloak.
Einhard explains that this was traditional Frankish dress, which differed little
from that of the common people. A similar outfit was given to King Harold the
Dane by Louis the Pious and included white gloves, a cloak set with a pin, and a
tunic with straight sleeves and jewels.
The standard dress of men during much of the early Middle Ages, therefore, in-
cluded a tunic that reached to the knees and could be gathered with a belt. More than
one tunic was often worn, with the sleeves of the undertunic, the tunica, extending
the full length of the arm and the sleeves of the outertunic, the dalmatica, extend-
ing only part way down the arm. The Franks and other barbarian folk wrapped their
legs with hose or pants, and they wore shoes of wood or boots of leather to cover
their feet. A full-length cloak, the lacerna, covered their clothes. The cloak was
open in the front and held together by a brooch. The primary fabrics were linen and
wool, but silk was popular with those who could afford it. The garments were also
trimmed with embroidery. In the cold weather, a coat of animal fur was worn, with
the fur side turned inward to insulate better and to keep from appearing too animal-
like. Women’s dress was similar. They too wore an undertunic, and covered it with
an outertunic, a full-length gown that reached to the ankles and had long sleeves.
 Clotilda, St. | 197

The outertunic was either held up by chains or open in front to make walking easier,
and over their clothing women wore a cloak, the paenula, which was held closed in
the front by a fibula. Women covered their heads, pulling up a mantle to cover their
head or wearing or headdress. They also wore necklaces, rings, bracelets, brooches,
and jewels with their clothing. By the Carolingian era, women generally wore long
veils, but, as they had earlier, they wore their hair long and braided, laced with gold
thread or ribbon.
Even though a standard form of dress existed throughout most of the early
Middle Ages, there was some variety among peoples. As Einhard again demon-
strates, there were differences in fashion preferences between various peoples.
Indeed, he notes that Charlemagne hated foreign clothing, but wore it twice out
of his respect for Popes Hadrian and Leo III. On two occasions in Rome, Char-
lemagne wore Roman dress, including local styles of shoes and tunic and the
Greek chlamys. The great king also wore more elaborate clothes on feast days
and other occasions of state that included embroidered clothes and shoes along
with a bejeweled sword.
See also: Animals; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Einhard; Franks; Hadrian I, Pope;
Jewelry and Gems; Leo III, Pope; Women

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Tacitus, Cornelius. Agricola and Germany. Trans. Anthony R. Birley. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Veyne, Paul. A History of Private Life. Vol. 1, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Trans.
Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Clotilda, St. (d. 544)

The wife of the great Merovingian king Clovis, Clotilda is traditionally thought to
have played a key role in the conversion of her husband to Catholic Christianity.
She may also have influenced his foreign policy by encouraging a war of conquest
against her uncle in Burgundy. She fulfilled her primary obligation as a Merovin-
gian queen by providing Clovis with four sons, three of whom survived their father
(Chlodomer, Childebert I, and Chlotar I), and a daughter, Clotilda. After the death
of Clovis, Clotilda took the veil and entered a convent. She was later recognized as
a saint because of her religious life and her influence on her husband.
198 | Clotilda, St.

Clotilda was the daughter of the king of Burgundy, Chilperic, and his Gallo-
Roman Catholic wife, Caretena. As a result of her mother’s influence, Clotilda was
raised as a Catholic Christian, even though most of the Burgundian royal family was
Arian Christian. It is possible that Clotilda’s Catholic faith attracted Clovis to her
because he hoped it would smooth relationships with the powerful Catholic bish-
ops of his kingdom. Late sixth and early seventh century sources, however, offer
a less mundane picture of the courtship. Clotilda was orphaned and in exile by the
time she came to Clovis’s attention, her mother and father having been murdered
by her uncle Gundobad. Clovis sent his envoys to secretly observe the exiled prin-
cess, and they informed him of her beauty, elegance, and intelligence. He then sent
her a ring inscribed with his name, a portrait of himself, and a proposal of mar-
riage. She hesitated because Clovis was still a pagan, but the following year, when
he approached Gundobad to ask for her hand, Clotilda’s uncle would not refuse the
powerful Frank, and she married Clovis.
As queen, Clotilda desired nothing more than the conversion of her husband to
Catholic Christianity, and according to the late sixth-century bishop and historian
Gregory of Tours, she was pivotal to that conversion. She encouraged Clovis to
accept Christianity and denounced the immorality and belief in the pagan gods.
She argued that her God was the creator of all things and that her husband’s gods
were nothing more than idols of wood or metal. When their first son, Ingomer,
was born Clotilda had him baptized. The child died shortly after the baptism,
which angered Clovis, who claimed the baptism caused his son’s death. But Clo-
tilda held firm and thanked God that he chose to take Ingomer after baptism,
ensuring the child’s entry into heaven. Clotilda baptized their second son, Chlo-
domer, who became ill shortly after the baptism. Clovis blamed Christ again, but
Clotilda prayed for her son’s recovery, and Chlodomer regained his health. She
continued to urge Clovis to convert, and when faced with certain defeat against
the Alemanni, Clovis agreed to accept baptism should he emerge victorious. Win-
ning the battle, he accepted instruction and baptism from St. Remigius, bishop
of Rheims, who had been ordered to the court by Clotilda. Although it is a won-
derful story, most historians generally discount Gregory’s version of events and
note that Clovis probably converted to Arian Christianity before finally accepting
the Catholic faith. It is still likely, however, that his decision was influenced by
Clotilda and her domestic proselytizing.
Clotilda’s influence on Merovingian affairs extended beyond her likely in-
fluence on the conversion of Clovis. According to work praising her sanctity,
Clothild encouraged Clovis to destroy pagan shrines and to build churches, and
also to support the poor, widows, and orphans. She also influenced affairs in the
kingdom during the reigns of her sons. Gregory of Tours notes that she called on
her sons to make war against the Burgundians, allegedly to avenge the murder
 Clovis | 199

of her parents. Her son Chlodomer led the war, which ended with the defeat of
the Burgundians and the death of Chlodomer, whose children were then raised
by Clotilda.
See also: Alemanni; Clovis; Gregory of Tours; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of Their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, ca.
500–1100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Clovis (c. 466–511)

The most important king (r. 481–511) and founder of the Merovingian dynasty,
Clovis was a “magnus et egregius pugnator” (a great and distinguished warrior) ac-
cording to the bishop and historian Gregory of Tours. At times a brutal and treach-
erous warrior, he unified the Frankish kingdoms and laid a foundation for later
Frankish power and influence that was in part drawn from the more advanced tradi-
tions of the late Roman Empire. He cultivated good relationships with the bishops
in his realm and was the first Frankish king to convert to Christianity.
Clovis waged a series of wars to expand the boundaries of his realm. Although
there exists much debate over the exact chronology of these events and even over
the extent of Clovis’s war making, it is likely that he pursued an aggressive policy
against other Germanic tribes and other Frankish groups that led to the enlargement
of his kingdom. One of his most famous victories was his victory over Syagrius,
the late Roman ruler of the kingdom of Soissons, in 486. He also enjoyed a series
of other victories during his reign over other foes, including the Alemanni at the
Battle of Tolbiac in 496, the Burgundians in 500, the Visigoths in 507, and various
lesser Frankish kings in his last years.
Although Clovis fought a great number of wars during his reign, he was care-
ful, even before his conversion, to maintain the support of the Catholic bish-
ops of Gaul that he had enjoyed from the beginning of his reign. He took great
care to guarantee the support of the bishops by ruling that his soldiers should
not harm the clergy or despoil the lands of the bishops, the tombs of the saints,
or other sacred or church ground. An even greater example of the importance of
the Catholic bishops to Clovis can be found in the story of the chalice of Soissons.
200 | Clovis

According to Gregory, Clovis was approached after his victory by the bishop of
Soissons, who asked that a precious chalice used for Mass be returned to him.
Clovis promised he would return the chalice should it come to him during the di-
vision of spoils, and when he requested it all his warriors, save one, proclaimed
he should have it. The lone warrior refused and cut the chalice in half, offering
the king his share. Later, while Clovis was reviewing the troops, he came upon
this same warrior. Clovis denounced the warrior as a bad example and threw the
latter’s sword to the ground. As the warrior bent to pick it up, Clovis brought
his great axe down on the soldier’s head, reminding him that he had done the
same thing to the chalice at Soissons. Although it is a most unlikely story, the
tale of the chalice of Soissons reveals the importance of the Catholic bishops to
Clovis.
The wars against Syagrius, the Alemanni, and the Visigoths were given re-
ligious significance by Gregory, and, although an unlikely interpretation, it re-
veals the importance of the conversion of Clovis to this Gallo-Roman bishop.
Moreover, there may have been some truth to Gregory’s view of the king, be-
cause Clovis did convert to Christianity. Traditionally, the king’s conversion was
due to the influence of his wife Clotilda, who was a Catholic from the kingdom
of Burgundy. In fact, as Gregory tells us, Clotilda baptized their first son, who
shortly thereafter died. For Clovis this was a sign of the power of the traditional
Frankish gods, but Clotilda remained undaunted. She baptized the second child
as well, who in turn became deathly ill, but her prayers saved the child. Clovis
remained devoted to his traditional gods, nonetheless, until the Battle of Tolbiac.
According to Gregory, the battle was going poorly for Clovis and the king feared
defeat. He vowed to the Christian god that should he win the battle he would then
convert to the Christian faith. And, of course, he won the battle and, eventually,
accepted baptism, along with 3,000 of his followers, at the hands of St. Remigius,
the bishop of Rheims.
Both of these stories are probably little more than pious legend, but Clovis did
convert to Catholic Christianity at some point between 496 and 508. It is no longer
generally held that Clovis converted directly to Catholic Christianity from pagan-
ism but that he converted first to Arian Christianity or at least was sympathetic to
the Arian confession. His conversion did not greatly influence Frankish belief, nor
should Clovis’s Christianity be understood in very sophisticated terms. Clovis’s
conversion remains, however, one of his great accomplishments, because he was the
first German ruler to adopt Catholic Christianity rather than the Arian form. Thus
his conversion solidified relationships with the Catholic hierarchy in his realm and
provided his dynasty with an important source of political and religious support
for generations to come.
In his last years, his power came to be recognized by the emperor in Constan-
tinople, who may have granted Clovis an honorary consulship—perhaps as part
 Clovis | 201

Medieval manuscript illumination of the baptism of Clovis, from the Grandes Chroniques
de France (13th–15th century). (The British Library Board)

of diplomatic struggles with the Ostrogoth, Theodoric—and even in Theodoric’s

kingdom in Italy. Also in his last years, he focused more on domestic policy by
holding a church council at Orléans and by issuing the Salic law. This codification
of the law—putting it into organized, written form rather than simply expecting
people to follow the unwritten, customary law—was an act of some sophistica-
tion, one that reveals the influence of Roman legal and administrative traditions
on the king and suggests that Clovis was a more “civilized” ruler than the tradi-
tional understanding of him implies. Roman influence can also be seen in Clovis’s
adoption of several imperial administrative structures, including the system of tax
collection.
At his death, the kingdom was divided among Clovis’s sons, Theuderic I, Chlo-
domer, Childebert I, and Chlotar I. Traditionally, the partition of the realm has been
seen as a consequence of the Frankish patrimonial view of kingship, in which the
kingdom was understood as the king’s personal possession to be shared among his
family. The division, however, followed the established administrative boundaries
of the Roman Empire, suggesting further Roman influence on Clovis. Whatever the
precise meaning of the partition of the realm, it established a tradition that contin-
ued throughout Merovingian history.
202 | Coins and Coinage

See also: Alaric II; Clotilda, St.; Genevieve, St.; Merovingian Dynasty; Salic Law; The-
odoric the Great

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Daly, William M. “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?” Speculum 69 (1994): 619–64.
Geary, Before France and Germany. New York,: Oxford University Press USA, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Medieval Academy Reprints,
1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Coins and Coinage

An important method of exchange, coins were minted by the Roman emperors and
the various barbarian kings that succeeded them. Coins were minted in gold, silver,
and bronze, and their values and uses varied from time to time and place to place.
They were used as a medium of exchange between kingdoms, bishoprics, duchies,
and counties. Control of the coinage was a great concern for the barbarian rulers of
the early Middle Ages, as it had been of the emperors, but the successor kings had
less success than their imperial predecessors. Later kings, however, did manage to
assume greater control of the coinage and instituted important reforms to make their
coins more stable and useful. The gold coin continued to be the standard, but its
use was limited to large-scale exchange; it was not used for local commerce. The
introduction of the silver coin by Carolingian monarchs and others facilitated local
trade and contributed to, and reveals the existence of, economic growth.
The Romans, as in many other areas, established important precedents for the
Germanic successor kingdoms in terms of coins and coinage. The Germanic suc-
cessor kings learned much from the Romans about coinage, which underwent
important reforms during the reigns of Diocletian (284–305) and Constantine. Al-
though he met with little success in his efforts to institute a major reform of the coin
because of a lack of precious metals, Diocletian did introduced new copper and silver
coins. He also established a significant change in the production of coins by bringing a
number of regional mints under imperial control. His reforms strengthened the coin
and made its value, which had suffered a dramatic political and economic collapse
in the generations before Diocletian’s reign, more uniform across the empire.
Even more significant for the future of Roman, Byzantine, and German coinage
was the reform of Constantine, who introduced a coin that became the standard for
 Coins and Coinage | 203

centuries to come. Building upon Diocletian’s efforts, Constantine produced a

new gold coin, the solidus, which retained its value and purity well into the
Middle Ages; it was minted at 72 coins to the pound of gold. This coin was an
important tool of the government, which used it to pay the soldiers’ salaries, and
archeological discoveries reveal that it was widely circulated. Another popular
and commonly used coin was the triens or tremissis, which was based on the
solidus. The triens valued at one-third of the solidus and was originally minted
in gold and later minted in a mixture of gold and silver. The Romans also used
coins of bronze and, for a time in the second half of the fourth century, silver.
The bronze coins were plentiful, but often debased in value. Roman coinage is
noted for its symbolism, consisting of striking images of the emperors as well as
Christian symbols, which thus conveyed the central political and religious ide-
ologies of the empire.
The various Germanic kings who assumed control over parts of the Western Em-
pire inherited the tradition of coinage from the Romans, even though their coins
lacked the stability and uniformity of the Roman precedents. These kings not only
inherited the practice of coinage from the Romans, but until the sixth century they
continued to mint coins in the name of the emperor, now resident in Constanti-
nople. Among the various peoples that took control of the Western Empire, the
Vandals and Ostrogoths most closely adhered to imperial traditions, minting in
gold, silver, and bronze, and issuing their version of the triens. The Vandal kings
who issued coins include Gunthamund (r. 484–496) and Hilderic (r. 523–530),
who issued silver and bronze coins with their own names on the coins but using
imperial models. The greatest of Vandal kings, Gaiseric (428–477), may also have
issued gold coins.
The Ostrogoths of Italy minted coins that imitated imperial models most
closely, and Theodoric issued some fine coins based on Roman models. Other
Germanic rulers of Italy also minted coins in imitation of their imperial predeces-
sors. Odovacar minted coins in silver and bronze, and the Lombards issued highly
imitative coins until the reforms of Cuncipert (r. 680–688 coruler, 688–700) es-
tablished a uniquely Lombard version. In Spain, Visigothic kings, beginning with
Leovigild, minted coins, issuing a thin, gold version of the triens, and they came
to include their own names and the name of the town in which the coin was struck.
The most important Spanish mints until the early eighth-century Islamic inva-
sion were in Córdoba, Seville, Tarragona, and Toledo. The coins themselves in
the sixth and seventh centuries were of relatively high value and used primarily
for large-scale trade and government purposes. They were generally not used in
local commerce, which contributed to the development of a barter economy at
the local level.
The history of coinage in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England followed a
different path than that in the early continental Germanic kingdoms. In Roman
204 | Coins and Coinage

Britain, coins were minted into the fourth century at London, but in the later fourth
century the mint was closed down, and Britain depended upon mints in Gaul. In
395, the mints supplying Britain were closed, and no coins were imported for the
next two centuries. By the seventh century, however, Merovingian coins began to
appear in England and became the model for the thrymas, the Anglo-Saxon ver-
sion of the triens. The solidus was also minted, but neither coin was minted in
great number or had circulation beyond the kingdom of Kent. As the gold supply
rapidly dwindled, Anglo-Saxon kings turned to a thick silver coin, the sceattas,
which was very similar to Frankish issues on the continent. Further reforms of the
coinage were undertaken in the eighth and ninth centuries by various Anglo-Saxon
kings. Inspired by the Carolingian coins of Pippin III the Short, Offa of Mercia
produced a silver coin that became the basis of the later English penny. Brilliantly
decorated in an innovative style, the penny bore the image of Offa and his wife,
Cynethryth, and other patterns not dependent on Roman models. Offa’s penny,
which came to be valued at 12 to the shilling and 240 to the pound, was copied by
the rulers of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as well as the Viking conquerors of
the ninth and tenth centuries.
In the Frankish lands, Merovingian and Carolingian kings issued a number of
coins and introduced important reforms of the coin. Merovingian kings, begin-
ning with Clovis (r. 481–511), minted coins based on late Roman and Byzantine
models. Clovis and his successors issued both the solidus and triens; the former
was the standard coin, but the latter was more common. Merovingian coins were
mainly minted in gold, but issues in silver and copper existed in small numbers.
The Salic law, for example, lists fines that describe a silver coin, the denarius, 40
of which equaled a solidus. The coins were originally issued with the image of a
current or previous emperor and the Byzantine symbol of victory, but by the mid-
sixth century Merovingian kings had begun to impress their own names on their
coins, rather than that of the emperor. Merovingian coinage increasingly diverged
from late Roman imperial models after the mid-sixth century, and the coin itself
was increasingly debased, in part because of the proliferation of mints and the
lack of control over them exercised by the kings. By the end of the Merovingian
dynasty in the eighth century, the gold coinage was virtually replaced by a silver
coinage.
Frankish coinage underwent a major reform just as Frankish society did in the
mid-eighth century, as a new dynasty, the Carolingian, took the throne. The first
Carolingian king, Pippin the Short, reasserted royal control over the numerous
mints in the kingdom, eliminated private mints, reduced the number of mints in
the kingdom, and made the production of coinage solely a royal right. He also re-
placed the much debased gold coinage with a new silver coin, the denarius, and
struck them with the king’s name. Even greater and more influential reforms of the
coinage were undertaken by Pippin’s son, Charlemagne. In the 790s, Charlemagne
 Coins and Coinage | 205

reformed the coinage throughout the realm and increased the weight of the coin.
The basic coin was the denarius, or penny; it was of pure silver and measured
roughly three-quarters of an inch in diameter, with a weight of 1.7 grams. The coins
were struck in some 50 mints in such towns as Aachen, Cologne, and Mainz and
bore one of three designs: a stylized version of the king’s name in Latin (Carolus),
a temple, and, rarely, a portrait. Charlemagne also developed an accounting system
for the coinage in which 12 pennies equaled a solidus or shilling and 20 shillings
equaled a libra, or pound. His coin and accounting system remained the basis for
European coinage until the 13th century.
Although it remained the standard, Charlemagne’s coinage suffered somewhat
during the ninth century. During the reign of Louis the Pious a small number of
private mints appeared, and later Carolingian kings granted the right to mint to
archbishops and other ecclesiastical leaders. And in Italy, even in Charlemagne’s
time, the coinage was not always consistent with Carolingian models. It was during
the reign of Charlemagne’s good friend, Pope Hadrian I, that the papacy began to
strike coins. Papal coins followed Roman and Byzantine imperial models, but after
Charlemagne’s first visit to Rome included the Carolingian king or emperor’s name
along with the papal monogram. Papal and Carolingian symbols appeared together
until 904, when only the name of the pope appeared on the coin.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Constantine; Leovigild;
Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Odovacar; Offa of Mercia; Ostrogoths; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Blackburn, Mark A. S., ed. Anglo-Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of
Michael Dolley. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1986.
Bursche, Aleksander. Later Roman-Barbarian Contacts in Central Europe: Numismatic
Evidence. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1996.
Dolley, Reginald H. Michael ed. Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies Presented to F. M. Stenton.
London: Methuen, 1961.
Grierson, Philip, and Mark Blackburn. Medieval European Coinage. Vol. 1, The Early
Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Morrison, Karl F., and Henry Grunthal. Carolingian Coinage. New York: American
Numismatic Society, 1967.
Pirenne, Henri. Mohammed and Charlemagne. Trans. Bernard Miall. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1992.
206 | Columba, St.

Columba, St. (ca. 521–597)

An Irish monk and missionary, Columba was an important force in the evangeli-
zation of the Picts in Scotland and the Angles in northern England. He may also
have had followers from among the southern Anglo-Saxons, and thus have intro-
duced Christianity to them before the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury. Bede
notes that Columba was “distinguished by his monastic habit and life,” and that
“whatever type of man he may have been, we know for certain that he left succes-
sors distinguished for their purity of life, their love of God, and their loyalty to the
monastic rule” (147).
Columba was an Irish monk born in circa 521 to the Ui Neill line, one of the
most powerful ruling families in Ireland. He was raised fully in the Irish Celtic
Christian tradition, which emphasized the role of the monastery and its abbot in
the institutional structure and religious life of the church. He was also influenced
by the missionary tradition, as was his younger contemporary St. Columban, and
undertook a pilgrimage to spread the faith. In Ireland, he founded a monastery at
Durrow or, as Bede notes, Dearmach, or Field of Oaks. He is best known, however,
for his missionary activity in Scotland, where he converted the Picts to Celtic Chris-
tianity. He left Ireland with several companions in 563 and converted the people by
his personal example of sanctity, his preaching, and his performance of numerous
miracles. As thanks for his good work, Columba was granted the island of Iona,
where he founded a monastery that was known for its piety and learning. It was
the royal Scottish monastery and may have been the site of the Northumbrian king
Oswald’s conversion. At the very least, Oswald sought aid from Iona to reform the
monasteries in Northumbria.
The community at Iona was organized according to the Celtic, rather than the
Roman Christian, model in which the abbot was the leading figure and all, includ-
ing the bishop, were subject to his authority. And although he notes that Columba
erred on the matter of Easter and other things, Bede clearly honored the piety and
memory of St. Columba.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Bede; Columban, St.; Monasticism

Bibliography
Adomnan. Adomnan’s Life of Columba. Ed. and trans. Alan O. Anderson and Marjorie
O. Anderson. London: T. Nelson, 1961.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
 Columban, St. | 207

Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in

the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Columban, St. (d. 615)

Irish monk and missionary of the late sixth and early seventh century who left
an important legacy on the continent with his establishment of the monastery of
Bobbio in Lombard Italy and of other monastic communities in the Merovingian
kingdoms. His missionary activities were part of the Celtic tradition of peregrina-
tio, or pilgrimage, and foreshadowed the missionary activities on the continent of
Anglo-Saxon monks like Boniface. A man of learning as well as piety, Columban
is the earliest Irish monk whose writings survive in any quantity, and whose
piety and learning had a profound impact on the cultural and religious life of
Merovingian Gaul.
Although his date of birth is uncertain, Columban may have been born around
560 in Leinster in Ireland. He received some education while young and later
entered the monastic community at Bangor, where he acquired an excellent edu-
cation and developed a command of Latin. He was introduced to a wide range
of Christian authors, but probably few if any classical writers. As was true of all
monastery students, Columban studied the Bible extensively and was introduced
to the works of the great Christian fathers, including St. Augustine of Hippo,
Eusebius of Caesarea, and Jerome, among others. He also was introduced to
the rigorous practices of Irish monasticism, which included extreme mortifica-
tion of the flesh, such as standing in the icy waters of the North Sea, hour after
hour, arms outstretched in a cross, in prayer to God. He learned, accordingly, that
humbling of the self was the key to salvation. He also absorbed the Irish tradi-
tion of missionary work—leaving home and family behind to spread the gospel
in strange lands.
It was this tradition that led him to the continent in 590 with a group of disci-
ples. And upon his arrival in Merovingian Gaul he began the work of a missionary,
reforming the flawed practices of the Frankish church and establishing important
new religious institutions to improve religious life. He was granted territory by the
Merovingian king of Burgundy, Guntram, and used this grant to establish a famous
monastery at Luxeuil, as well as monasteries at Annegray and Fontaines. These
houses, especially Luxeuil, soon attracted numerous converts, particularly from the
Frankish aristocracy, because of the rigor of the monastic life there. Columban’s
disciples were not all men, however, but included numerous Frankish aristocratic
women, because the Irish monk cultivated friendships with women and recognized
their spiritual equality. As a result, Frankish noble men and women supported his
208 | Columban, St.

monastic reforms and founded monasteries, including so-called double monasteries

of monks and nuns. He introduced Celtic Christian religious practices, including
the practice of private penance.
His community was not just a center of disciplined religious life but also a cen-
ter of learning, focusing on the study of the Scriptures and the church fathers. He
reinvigorated a tradition of learning in the Frankish kingdom that had lain dormant
and encouraged his monks to read and improve their rudimentary Latin skills. Al-
though it is uncertain whether he encouraged the study of classical authors, his own
writings show clear influence of Virgil and other Roman literary greats. Columban
himself left an important literary legacy with his monasteries. Perhaps most impor-
tant was his monastic rule, the earliest Irish monastic rule known to us. The rule
instructs the monks on matters of silence, food and drink, religious duties, and mo-
nastic perfection, and it is infused with Columban’s ethical teaching and religious
rigor. His literary corpus also includes sermons, poems, and letters, including one
to Pope Gregory I, called the Great, in which he defends the Irish means of deter-
mining the date of Easter.
Although well received by many Frankish nobles, Columban was not so well
received by the Frankish clergy. His indictment of the lax ways of the Frankish
church and his efforts at reform alienated a number of native church leaders. He
also ran afoul of Frankish religious leaders for his continued endorsement of Irish
practices that differed from those of the Roman church, including the Irish way to
tonsure and way of reckoning Easter. Perhaps even worse, Columban refused to
recognize the authority of the bishops, because in the Irish tradition the authority
of the abbot was supreme over monks, priests, and bishops. His strict discipline
also caused difficulties with the powerful queen Brunhilde. He frequently criti-
cized her way of life. In 611, he visited the court of Brunhilde and her grandson
Theuderic and refused to bless Theuderic’s children because, Columban said,
their mothers were prostitutes. Enraged, Brunhilde chased Columban from the
kingdom.
After his expulsion from the Frankish kingdom, Columban wandered the conti-
nent for a while before settling in the Lombard kingdom in Italy. He received a grant
of land from the Lombard king and founded another very important monastery at
Bobbio in 614. Like Luxeuil, Bobbio was a center of learning and religious life
and attracted converts from the local population as well as other Irish missionaries.
Although Columban died in the following year, 615, he left an important legacy
in Italy and the Frankish kingdom as a result of his learning and dedication to the
monastic life, and his work prefigured the activities of later Irish and Anglo-Saxon
missionaries on the continent.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Boniface, St.; Brunhilde; Gregory the Great; Lombards; Merovin-
gian Dynasty; Monasticism
 Comitatus | 209

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Clarke, Howard B., and Mary Brennen, eds. Columban and Merovingian Monasticism.
Oxford: British Archeological Reports, 1981.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Comitatus

A Latin term meaning “retinue” or “war band,” comitatus was coined by the Roman
historian and moralist Tacitus (56–117) in the Germania, his account of early Ger-
manic society. The comitatus was a social grouping in early Germanic society that
existed from the first century to the migration period and into the early Middle Ages.
It was primarily a military institution involving a warrior chieftain and his retainers.
The group was bound together by mutual obligation between the war leader and
his follower: warriors offered absolute personal loyalty and service to the warrior
chief who in return extended special protection to his warriors. The comitatus, with
its central principle of loyalty and service, was traditionally regarded as one of the
building blocks of the later medieval institution of feudalism, a view that has been
challenged in recent times.
The term comitatus was also used to describe imperial Roman institutions.
In the first century ce it referred to the personal associates of the emperor. By
the third century it came to mean the entire military and civilian entourage that
travelled with the emperor. Under Constantine (r. 306–370), the term was used
specifically for the military corps that surrounded the emperor. Comitatus or its
variant comitatenses was also used from the fourth century, especially after the
military reforms of Constantine, to identify the mobile force that was led by the
emperor on military expeditions, distinguishing that force from the stationary
frontier guard.
See also: Constantine; Leudes
210 | Constantine

Bibliography
Southern, Pat and Karen Ramsey Dixon. The Late Roman Army. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1996.
Tacitus. Agricola and the Germania. Ed. James Rivers. Trans. Garrett Mattingly. London:
Penguin Classics, 2010.
Wolfram, Hewig. The Roman Empire and Its Gertmanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas Dunlap.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Constantine (d. 337)

Roman emperor (r. 306–337) who, with Diocletian (r. 284–305), restored order to
the Roman world and laid the foundation for the empire’s success for centuries to
come. His achievements were numerous, including the establishment of a new capi-
tal at Constantinople and reform of the coinage. He is important also for his military
reforms and his introduction of many Germans into the Roman military, beginning
a process known as the barbarization of the Roman army. He is particularly impor-
tant for his conversion to Christianity and for becoming the first Christian emperor
of the Roman Empire. Indeed, his activities as a Christian emperor had great con-
sequences for the church and for the Germanic peoples who inherited the empire
in the fifth and sixth centuries.
Constantine rose to power in the early fourth century in the wake of his father’s
death and the retirement of the leading Roman emperor, Diocletian, and his col-
league Maximian. Diocletian had spent the preceding 20 years creating a delicate
system of shared government that was designed to prevent the political and military
collapse of the preceding half century. After he retired in 305, with the hope that
his succession plan would succeed, he instead witnessed the rapid destruction of
that system. It was in the civil wars that followed the retirement of Diocletian that
Constantine rose to power.
One of the most critical moments in Constantine’s struggle for power came in
the year 312, when he fought his rival Maxentius, Maximian’s son, for control of
the Western Empire. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, one of the bridges across the
Tiber River to Rome, was won by Constantine, and it brought him possession of the
ancient capital and the Western imperial title. His victory was preceded by a great
vision that was the starting point, if not actual cause, of Constantine’s conversion to
Christianity. In his biography of the emperor, the bishop and church historian Euse-
bius of Caesarea reports that Constantine himself told the bishop of the miraculous
events that preceded his victory. As Eusebius wrote, the emperor explained that, he
saw the sign of the cross in the heavens bearing the inscription “In this sign con-
quer,” and later that night Jesus visited Constantine in his dreams and confirmed the
meaning of the vision. The emperor’s victory confirmed the validity of the vision
 Constantine | 211

and led him to accept Christianity. And it was indeed in the following year that, with
the Eastern emperor Galerius, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which legal-
ized Christianity in the empire. He then ruled the empire with a colleague in the
east, first Galerius and then Licinius, until 324, when he defeated Licinius in battle
and reunited the empire. He founded a new capital, Constantinople (now Istanbul,
Turkey) in 330 and ruled as sole emperor, although often with his sons as Caesars
(subordinate co-emperors), until his death in 337.
Constantine’s reign had significant consequences for the Germanic successor
kingdoms that emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Western Empire, as well
as for much of early medieval Europe in general. As the first Christian emperor he
established an important model for numerous kings and emperors, including the

Head of Constantine the Great (d. 337), the first

Christian Roman emperor, from a colossal statue, dat-
ing from about 325 to 337. (Allan T. Kohl/Art Images
for College Teaching)
212 | Constantine

great Frankish rulers Clovis and Charlemagne, as well as for early medieval writ-
ers like Gregory of Tours. His relationships with the church set an important prec-
edent for later rulers in both the barbarian kingdoms and the Byzantine Empire (as
the Eastern Empire came to be called). On two occasions, both interestingly after
military victories, one that brought him control over the western half of the empire
and the other over the entire empire, Constantine convened church councils to de-
cide major issues of the faith. The second of the councils, at Nicaea in 325, was the
first ecumenical council of the church and included representatives from throughout
the empire. Constantine presided over the council and participated in debate, and
his presence set the model for the involvement of the emperor in the affairs of the
church and asserted the right and responsibility of the emperor to convene church
councils. The most important concern of the council involved the debate initiated
by the presbyter Arius over one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, the
relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Rejecting the ideas of Arius,
the council proclaimed the essential unity of God the Father and the Son, or as the
Nicene Creed declares “We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from
true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.”
Constantine’s involvement in the Council of Nicaea may also have led to the
denunciation of the teachings of Arius and the declaration of Arianism as a her-
esy. Constantine, however, wavered in his support for orthodoxy and allowed the
growth of Arianism in the empire. Consequently, the Germanic tribes living along
the imperial frontier were evangelized by Arian Christians, and many of the tribes
that converted to Christianity accepted the Arian version. Constantine’s religious
legacy, therefore, was mixed. He provided a positive model of Christian rulership
for later kings and emperors, but also contributed to the conversion of many barbar-
ians to Arian Christianity, a process that later caused difficulties for Arian Christian
kings, like Theodoric the Great, who ruled over Catholic Christian subjects in the
post-Roman world.
Constantine’s other legacy to the late Roman and early medieval world was his
recruitment of Germans into the Roman army. It is one of the paradoxes of Con-
stantine’s reign that he was criticized by contemporaries and has been remembered
by historians for the so-called barbarization of the army when he strove to identify
himself as a conqueror of the barbarians and the “Triumpher over the barbarian
races” (Triumfator, Debellator, Gentium barbararum). But, indeed, he both waged
war against the Germans and other peoples along the frontier and expanded the ex-
isting policy of promoting Germans to high-ranking military posts.
His wars against the Germans were intended to stabilize a frontier that had proved
particularly porous during the crisis the empire faced in third century and to provide
Constantine a glorious military record to parallel his successes in the civil wars.
Toward those ends, he waged wars against a number of Germanic peoples along
 Constantine | 213

the frontiers. He fought border wars with the Alemanni along the Rhine River in
an attempt to preserve the integrity of that frontier, which had been an important
point of entry for the Germans in the third century. The emperor also faced the
Visigoths along the Danubian border in the late 310s and early 320s. Here again
he sought to restore the stability of the old frontier and even extend Roman power
to the limits established by the emperor Trajan in the early second century. Con-
stantine responded to Visigothic incursions into Roman territory with a series of
battles that allowed the emperor to repel the invaders and extend Roman authority.
Constantine’s victories forced the Visigoths to surrender. The extent of his expan-
sion beyond the Danube remains uncertain, however, and the Visigoths launched
another attack in the mid-320s. Constantine sent his son against them, who suc-
cessfully defeated them and extracted a treaty that required the Visigoths to defend
the empire. Unfortunately for the empire, Constantine’s successes were short lived,
and by the end of the fourth century, at the latest, his settlements had broken down,
and various Germanic tribes had crossed into the empire.
Despite actively fighting the barbarians, Constantine also enrolled many of
them in the army. Although this policy was not new, Constantine included larger
numbers of Germans than any of his predecessors, which caused serious problems
for the empire in the following century. The army itself had increased in size to
meet internal and external threats, and in Constantine’s time may have numbered
as many as 600,000 men, a number that included traditional Roman legionnaires
as well as auxiliary soldiers (auxiliae). The auxiliaries were more numerous in
Constantine’s army than they had traditionally been, in fact more numerous than
the legionnaires. It was this contingent that was made up mostly of Germans, so
that the army was nearly half immigrant. And the Germans found places at all
levels of the Roman army. The highest-ranking officers and Constantine’s per-
sonal bodyguard were Germans. Constantine also reorganized the army, dividing
it into a frontier force and a central strike force, and German soldiers were in both
units. Constantine’s use of Germans thus did contribute to what has been called
the barbarization of the army, a process that, in some ways, undermined Rome’s
ability to defend itself against other Germanic invaders. On the other hand, it al-
lowed the barbarians to identify themselves with the empire and its values and
thus become Romanized.
See also: Arianism; Charlemagne; Clovis; Constantinople; Gregory of Tours; Theodoric
the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1981.
Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity, A.D. 150–750. London: Thames and Hudson,
1971.
214 | Constantinople

Burckhardt, Jacob. The Age of Constantine the Great. Trans. Moses Hadas. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
Grant, Michael. Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1994.

Constantinople

The modern day Istanbul, Constantinople was the capital of the Roman and
Byzantine Empire. Founded on the old town of Byzantium on the straits of the
Bosphorus, Constantinople would become the greatest city of the Mediterranean
throughout late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. The center of imperial govern-
ment and administration, Constantinople was also the seat of the patriarch of Con-
stantinople, the head of the Byzantine church. Constantinople also boasted some of
the most influential architectural and artistic monuments of the early Middle Ages,
most notably the magnificent church, the Hagia Sophia.
Responding to changing political and cultural needs and recognizing the grow-
ing importance and wealth of the eastern half of the empire, the Roman emperor
Constantine founded his capital, the “New Rome,” on May 11, 330. The emperor
established the city on the site of Byzantium, which had been founded as a Greek
colony in 658 bc, for a number of reasons. It was better placed strategically to
exploit the wealth and population of the eastern Mediterranean and offered other
important geographic advantages—it was situated on a hilly peninsula and sur-
rounded on three sides by water. It was both easily defensible and open to trade
between Europe and Asia. Perhaps of more significance for Constantine was that
the new city would be free of the pagan associations of the old capital of Rome
in Italy; Constantinople would be a great new Christian city and the capital of a
Christian Roman empire.
Although its population was modest at first, Constantine’s city had all the trap-
pings of a major imperial center. The emperor expanded the size of the old city
and built extensive new walls around the city. He also imported statuary from
throughout the empire to decorate his capital and exploited the two harbors on
the peninsula. Along with these features, Constantine built or completed many
of the structures traditionally found in imperial cities. Constantinople included
a number or broad elegant streets, such as the Via Egnatia, which moved from
the southwest gate into the heart of the city and connected with other major
thoroughfares. The greatest of these was the Mese, a colonnaded avenue lined
with shops and statues. The city center, the Augusteum, was a vast open forum
surrounded by the great public buildings, including the Senate House, a hippo-
drome, and public baths. It was also the site of the imperial of Great Palace, a
complex including residence, courtyards, gardens, and rooms for public business.
 Constantinople | 215

Under Constantine and his successors Constantinople emerged as the religious

heart of the eastern and later Byzantine Empire. In 381 it was declared the seat
of a patriarch and, beginning with Constantine, was the location of a number of
church councils. Constantine built the first churches in the city, including the
Hagia Irene, and he and his son built the Hagia Sophia, which would come to
symbolize the city.
Despite the growing threat of the barbarian invasions—the city would face chal-
lenges from Avars, Huns, and Visigoths—Constantinople grew in size and impor-
tance over the course of the later fourth and fifth centuries. The population surged
dramatically during this period, reaching between 500,000 and a million by the end
of the fifth century and beginning of the sixth, and forced the construction of new
walls to accommodate the growing numbers and to provide further protection from
the threats posed by the barbarians. In 418–419, the emperor Theodosius II erected
60-foot high triple-walled fortifications that endured throughout the history of the
city and whose ruins remain today. Emperors throughout the fifth century built pub-
lic monuments, including aqueducts and an elaborate water system to supply the
numerous public fountains, baths, and private water needs of the city and its popu-
lation. Other construction during the century included roads, three new forums, and
a new residence, converted from a pagan temple, for the praetorian prefect. The
public building was matched by the construction of private homes by the nobility
that were lavishly decorated with marble and mosaics and gold and ivory, which
kept the numerous artisans that inhabited the city very busy. Tenement housing of
timber was built for the less wealthy that not only accommodated their growing
numbers but also contributed significantly to the risk of fire.
The extensive construction reflected Constantinople’s increasing prominence
in the Mediterranean. By the year 500, it was clearly the largest and most impor-
tant city and was the unrivaled leader of the empire, especially after the fall of
the Western Empire in 476. Even before the loss of the west, Constantinople had
surpassed the cities of the west in size and importance, a process that was accel-
erated after the defeat of Roman armies at Hadrianople in 378. It was also during
this period that the status of Constantinople as a Christian capital was fully real-
ized by further construction of religious monuments. In the late fourth century,
Theodosius built a church dedicated to St. John the Baptist which housed the
skull of the saint. Numerous other churches and urban monasteries, including the
influential monastery of St. John Stoudios, were built in the fifth century. From
Constantinople, the emperor and patriarch worked to maintain orthodoxy and
restrict the growth of heresy.
By the opening decades of the sixth century, Constantinople had reached its
peak but events in the century would profoundly alter the fates of the city. In 532
the capital endured a terrible riot against the emperor Justinian that nearly toppled
the emperor and destroyed large sections of the city. The Nika Revolt exploded as
216 | Constantinople

rival factions in the city joined forces and sought to overthrow Justinian, who was
on the verge of flight before ordering the brutal suppression of the rebellion and
killing some 30,000 people. During the revolt, however, rebels had set fire to the
palace of the city prefect and the imperial palace. The fires spread rapidly and led
to widespread devastation throughout the city and the destruction of its most prized
building, the church of Hagia Sophia. Having survived the Nika Revolt, Justin-
ian and city administrators energetically undertook the reconstruction of the city,
rebuilding the great public sites destroyed in the violence. Justinian oversaw the
restoration of the imperial palace and the addition of a beautiful new church of Sts.
Sergius and Bacchus at the palace complex. He also ordered the reconstruction of
the Church of the Holy Apostle, but his most enduring and important work involved
the rebuilding of the church of Hagia Sophia, which reemerged as the central church
of the empire and testified to the Christian character of the empire and its capital.
Commissioning Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus, academic geometri-
cians rather than master builders, Justinian intended to build something innovative
and majestic. The church was unlike anything seen before. Consecrated in 537, the
church was built with four massive piers joined by four arches and topped by a great
dome 100 feet across. The interior was even more spectacular; the nave consisted
of a vast open space with walls and columns of multicolored marble and adorned
with mosaics of gold and silver and precious gems depicting scenes from the Bible.
Justinian’s construction projects revived the city and assured its continued existence
as a place of beauty and majesty and as a center of religious and secular authority.
A second disaster, however, would prove more devastating than the Nika Revolt.
In 542 bubonic plague struck the empire, and Constantinople lost up to 40 percent
of its population and only in the 10th century would the population again reach as
much as 500,000.
The disasters of the sixth century had a lasting impact on Constantinople and
contributed to its decline in the coming centuries, a decline worsened by a num-
ber of internal and external events over the next several centuries. In the early
seventh century, the empire was involved in a major war with its old rival, the
Persian Empire. In 626 the Persians laid siege to the city, forcing the emperor
Heraklios to consider flight to Carthage. He stayed in Constantinople, however,
and managed to turn to tide against the Persians and eventually seizing their
capital at Ctesiphon. The Persian conflict did lasting damage as it contributed
to disruptions of trade with Egypt, the source of the grain that fed the people of
Constantinople. For a time, the population of the city plummeted to between
40,000 and 70,000 people. While the empire was busy with the Persians, the
Balkans were overtaken first by the Avars and then by the Bulgars, who added
to Constantinople’s woes by laying siege in 626, 813, and 913. An even greater
challenge arose in the seventh century in the deserts of Arabia as Muhammad
spread the faith of Islam and Muslim armies marched into Byzantine territory and
 Constantinople | 217

across North Africa. Muslim conquests further isolated Constantinople from its
old trade contacts, and Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople twice in the
seventh century, in 674 and 678.
The most serious threat to the existence of the city and the entire empire, however,
came during the Muslim siege of 717–718 and signaled the Muslim desire to make
Constantinople their capital (a desire finally realized in 1453). The fear that the
Muslim advance caused in the city is revealed by the widespread belief in the city
that it was a sign of the apocalypse and that a Muslim victory would secure the
rise of the Antichrist. Armies from Syria and Asia Minor joined with a fleet sailing
up the Aegean in a three-pronged attack designed to overwhelm the city and its
defenders. The emperor, Leo III the Isaurian, however, devised a successful plan
of defense that was aided by one of the most severe winters the city ever faced and
by the support of the church and the Virgin Mary, whose icon was paraded around
the city walls during the height of the siege and felt to have secured the victory.
Leo pursued a more mundane defense, organizing a flotilla of ships to attack the
Muslim navy with “Greek fire,” a substance that would burn even under water and
was devastatingly effective weapon. He also coordinated military attacks against
the Muslim with the Bulgars and ultimately saved the city, even if Muslim armies
continued to harass the empire throughout the century. After turning the Muslims
away, Leo restored and strengthened the walls of Constantinople to provide added
security, but he also pursued a policy of iconoclasm that divided the city’s popu-
lation and contributed to the growing schism between Constantinople and Rome.
Despite the difficulties brought on by the Iconoclastic controversy, Leo assured
the survival of Constantinople as the head of a Christian empire for centuries to
come and laid the foundation for a renaissance in Constantinople in the ninth and
tenth centuries.
See also: Avars, Constantine; Hadrianople, Battle of; Huns; Justinian; Leo III, the Isaurian;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Freely, John, and Ahmet S. Cakmak. Byzantine Monuments of Constantinople.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Harris, Jonathan. Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Oxford: Continuum Books,
2007.
Procopius. Procopius, Vol. 7: On Buildings. Trans. H. B. Dewing and Glanville Downey.
Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1940.
Sherrard, Philip. Constantinople: Iconography of a Sacred City. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1965.
Trumbull, Stephen. The Walls of Constantinople A.D. 324–1453. Oxford: Osprey Pub-
lishing, 2004.
218 | Corpus Iuris Civilis

Corpus Iuris Civilis

The most exhaustive codification of Roman law, the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Body
of Civil Law) was published by the Byantine emperor Justinian beginning in
529 and would have a lasting impact on the development of medieval and even
modern European law. The result of several years of intense work, the Corpus
was composed in Latin and published in three main groups—Code of Justinian,
the Digest or Pandects, and the Institutes—and was intended to bind the em-
pire together. A fourth work, the Novels, was issued later in Greek by Justinian
and included the new laws of the emperor. Along with the great church of Con-
stantinople, the Hagia Sophia, the Corpus Iuris Civilis remains Justinian’s most
enduring accomplishment.
Upon assuming the office of sole emperor in 527, Justinian was faced with a
number of challenges concerning the unity and integrity of the empire, the place
of the emperor over his subjects, and relationships between the emperor and the
church. Justinian realized that one of the greatest achievements of the Roman and
Byzantine empires was the law, but he also understood that the law needed seri-
ous reform if it were to maintain its place in binding the empire together. Although
Roman law had undergone previous codification, most notably the Theodosian
Code of the early fifth century, it was in significant disrepair. Even the Theodosian
Code proved inadequate by the age of Justinian, in many places the code was out of
date and was little more than a compilation of Roman laws. Beyond that, Romans
had issued laws for a Republic and an Empire and for a society that was once pagan
and then Christian, and as a consequence the legal code was riddled with contra-
dictory and antiquated laws. Justinian understood that more needed to be done to
bring the law up to date and to make it applicable to the needs of his day. He turned
to the government official and scholar Tribonian to head a committee of lawyers
and scholars whose responsibility would be to issue a new and up-to-date legal
code for the Empire. The emperor issued a decree on February 13, 528 that initi-
ated the process and by 534 the main elements of the Corpus had been published.
In the eighth century, an abridgement of the Code in Greek was published so that
it could be understood by a Byzantine population that no longer knew Latin, and
the emperor Leo IV (r. 886–912) issued the Basilica, the translation into Greek of
the entire Corpus Iuris.
Work on the Corpus Iuris Civilis began in 528 and continued until 534 when
the final work of the codification of the law was completed. The first part of
the Corpus Iuris Civilis, the Code of Justinian, was published on April 8, 529.
Divided into 12 books, the Code drew on the Theodosian Code as well as pri-
vate legal codification and contained the constitutions of the Roman emper-
ors from Hadrian (r. 117–138) to Justinian himself. The Code, which had the
force of law from the will of Justinian, became the official law of the empire
 Corpus Iuris Civilis | 219

and no imperial law not included in the Code could be cited in the courts.
New laws from Justinian necessitated further work, and a second edition of
the Code was published in 534. The second part to be published, the Digest or
Pandects, was the largest of the three and was divided into 50 books. Begun
in 530 and published in 534 the Digest was a work of jurisprudence and con-
tained the commentaries of the great Roman legal scholars from the second
to the fourth centuries. It was designed to eliminate obsolete and contradic-
tory explanation of the law and provided an orderly and systematic approach
to Roman law. As with the Code, the Digest was the authoritative commentary
on the law and no new commentaries were permitted. Along with the Code
and Digest Tribonian and his committee issued a shorter work, the Institutes,
which was an introductory textbook for students of the law. Based largely on
the work of the second-century legal scholar Gaius, the Institutes was divided
into four books and formally established as law in 533. The main work of the
Corpus Iuris was supplemented by a number of new laws, the Novels, that Jus-
tinian issued mainly in Greek until his death in 565 but most of which were
issued between 535 and 539. A collection of 159 of these new laws and nine
constitutions of his successors was compiled in 580.
The Corpus Iuris Civilis with its vast collection of law and legal principle
would have a lasting influence on Byzantine and later medieval and early modern
European laws. The Corpus provided the essential text of the law as well as an
approach to the scientific study of the law for lawyers and government adminis-
trators for centuries to come. Throughout Justinian’s great codification, important
and influential guidelines were established. The Corpus preserved the basic divi-
sion in the Roman tradition between public and private law. Laws for the transfer
of property were reformed, and a new definition of the family and its internal re-
lationships and relationship with society was instituted. The Corpus asserted the
guiding theory of imperial government, which stated that all power is derived from
God and is entrusted by God to the emperor, whose laws, in turn, are sacred. In
a famous passage, the Corpus declared that whatever concerns the prince has the
force of law. Paradoxically, the codification also defined the source of authority as
the people, with all power deriving from the consent of the governed. The Corpus
preserved the distinction between the sacred and secular but further defined the
relationships between the emperor and the church and asserted the Christian
nature of the empire.
See also: Justinian

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
The Digest of Justinian. Ed. Alan Watson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1997.
220 | Corpus Iuris Civilis

Honoré, Tony. Justinian’s Digest: Character and Compilation. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2010.
Justinian’s Institutes. Trans. Peter Birks and Grant Mcleod. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1987.
Metzger, Ernest, ed. A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1999.
Radding, Charles, and Antonio Ciaralli. The Corpus Iuris Civilis in the Middle Ages.
Brill: Leiden, 2006.
D
Dagobert (608–638/639)

The son of Chlotar II and grandson of Fredegund, Dagobert was the last great and
effective king of the Merovingian dynasty. Indeed, under Dagobert, the dynasty
reached its high point, only to begin a gradual decline in the generation after his
death. Despite the dynasty’s misfortunes after his death, under Dagobert the king-
dom enjoyed internal peace and prosperity and success against foreign foes. Like
his father, Dagobert was active in the administration of law and may have promul-
gated two law codes for the Franks. He also, like Chlotar, maintained good relations
with the church and its missionaries and also founded the important monastery
of St. Denis in Paris, which came to serve as a royal tomb and the burial place of
Dagobert himself.
Dagobert benefited from the successes of his father, Chlotar II, who had restored
the unity and peace of the kingdom after years of civil strife involving Brunhilde
and Fredegund. Dagobert also played an important role in his father’s efforts to
preserve the authority of the dynasty over the entire kingdom. In 622, Dagobert
was made subking of Austrasia, possibly as a concession to the local aristocracy
and certainly at least to bind the Austrasian nobility closer to the ruling dynasty.
Although it is slim, the evidence that exists suggests that Dagobert ruled the region
well during his father’s lifetime and was aided and greatly influenced by Chlotar’s
ally and mayor of the palace, Pippin of Landen, the ancestor of the Carolingian
dynasty. At his father’s death in 629, Dagobert assumed control of the entire king-
dom. According to Fredegar, this was a poor time in Dagobert’s reign, when the
king sank into debauchery and avarice, exploiting particularly the resources of the
church. It was Pippin, according to Fredegar, who reprimanded the king and turned
him back on the proper path. Indeed, Pippin was one of Dagobert’s most important
and trusted advisors and joined the king when he moved his capital from Metz in
Austrasia to Paris in Neustria. Dagobert moved to establish himself as the ruler of
Neustria, and thus of the entire realm as well as Austrasia, which he had ruled since
622. Although he managed to secure his place in his father’s kingdom in Neustria,
Dagobert’s move unsettled the nobility in Austrasia and forced Dagobert to ad-
dress the concerns of the nobility, including perhaps the regionalism that may have
motivated the nobles. As his father had done, Dagobert appointed his five- or six-
year-old son Sigebert III (d. 656) as subking of Austrasia in 634. He also appointed
his younger brother Charibert (d. 632) subking in Aquitaine, a very independent

221
222 | Dagobert

region that the Merovingians had yet to bring completely under their authority. Al-
though he may have been making concessions to regionalism, Dagobert may also
have intended the creation of subkings as a means to bind the kingdom more se-
curely under his authority.
Whatever his goal, Dagobert seems to have succeeded in binding the kingdom
more fully together under his authority; he was also, like his father before him,
an active lawgiver. The king took tours throughout his kingdom—itinerancy was
a key to the success of most early medieval rulers—dispensing justice. Fredegar
notes that Dagobert “struck terror” into the hearts of the people of Burgundy when
he toured that region in the late 620s. He also toured Austrasia with similar ef-
fect in 630. He resolved legal disputes on these tours and dispensed high justice
from the royal court, and the proceedings were guided by specific ritual and writ-
ten texts. After 631, however, it seems that Dagobert ceased taking judicial tours
and dispensed justice from his capital in Paris, a testimony to the sophistication of
Merovingian legal practices and the peace and order of Dagobert’s reign. Moreover,
the king may also have codified Frankish legal codes. His name is associated with
several legal codes of the early seventh century, including the Lex Ribuaria (Law
of the Ripuarian Franks) for the Austrasian kingdom. He also may have been in-
volved in the codification of the laws of the Alemanni and the Bavarians. Like his
father before him, Dagobert’s activities as a lawgiver were intended to enhance his
stature as king and to set him apart from the nobility, which needed the king all the
more because he dispensed justice.
Dagobert also built upon his father’s legacy of good relations with the church,
an association important as a counterbalance to potential trouble from the nobil-
ity and as a support for his increasingly elevated conception of kingship. Like
Chlotar, Dagobert consulted with the bishops and accepted their advice. He also,
of course, oversaw the appointment of bishops and took steps to ensure the good
quality of his appointments. The king promoted the activities of missionaries and,
in general, oversaw the administration and well-being of the church in his king-
dom. His most important relationship, however, was with the monasteries of his
kingdom, especially the monastery of St. Denis near Paris. Dagobert developed a
special relationship with the community, which he founded in 624, and he often
made lavish donations to it. According to a late, and probably unreliable tradition,
Dagobert felt especially indebted to St. Denis because the saint had protected him
from Chlotar’s anger during a quarrel Dagobert and his father had. According to
Fredegar, Dagobert embellished the church at the monastery with gold and many
precious stones. The king also made numerous grants of land to the monastery
and in a charter granted the abbey the right to hold a fair on the saint’s feast day,
October 5. The fair brought great economic benefit to the monastery and attracted
increasingly larger crowds as the saint’s popularity grew. St. Denis gradually be-
came the patron of the dynasty, and Dagobert and many of his descendants were
buried at the monastery.
 Desiderius | 223

At his death in 638/639, Dagobert was succeeded by his sons Sigebert III
(d. 656), who had ruled as subking in Austrasia since 632, and Clovis II
(d. 657). They inherited a kingdom that was at peace and enjoyed much pros-
perity, as well as close relations between the king and a very powerful church.
The office of king had been greatly enhanced, and law and administration had
been improved by Dagobert and Chlotar before him. Both Sigebert and Clovis
enjoyed some success, and Clovis and his wife Balthild further strengthened
ties with the church. But the growing power and ambition of the aristocracy
was a bad omen, and signs of trouble began to emerge. Within a few gen-
erations of Dagobert’s death, the dynasty began its irrevocable decline, and
the so-called do-nothing kings (rois fainéants) began to assume the throne.
Dagobert’s reign, however, was the high point of the history of the Merovin-
gian dynasty, and Dagobert was one of the greatest kings of the line.
See also: Austrasia; Balthild, St.; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Chlotar II; Frede-
gund; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen; Rois Fainéants;
Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Bachrach, Bernard S., trans. Liber historiae Francorum. Lawrence, KS: Coronado, 1973.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Desiderius (eighth century)

Successor of Aistulf and king from 757 to 774, Desiderius was the last of the kings
of the Lombards. His fate was linked with the rise of the Carolingian dynasty and
the complex diplomatic relations between the Carolingians, Lombards, and popes
224 | Desiderius

in Rome. He pursued the traditional, aggressive policy of Lombard kings and at-
tempted, with some success, to unify Italy under Lombard rule. His threatening
posture toward Rome and the papal territories led to his conflict with the popes,
who sought aid from the Carolingian dynasty. Pippin the Short intervened diplo-
matically on the pope’s behalf, and his son Charlemagne invaded in defense of
the papacy, absorbed the kingdom of the Lombards into the growing Carolingian
Empire, and deposed Desiderius as king and exiled him to a Frankish monastery.
Although he eventually suffered defeat as a result of his bad relations with Rome,
Desiderius began his reign as king in the good graces of Rome. His election as king
of the Lombards on March 3 or 4, 757, in fact, was supported by the pope, Stephen II
(r. 752–757). The succession to Aistulf was a complicated affair: Desiderius, a
former official in Aistulf’s government and duke of Tuscany, appears to have been
a likely candidate, but he faced strong opposition from another Lombard noble,
Ratchis. Desiderius, however, appealed to the pope for support in his efforts to ob-
tain the crown and met with representatives of the pope. In exchange for promises
to return papal cities seized by Aistulf, Desiderius received military backing from
the pope. Stephen also secured for Desiderius the support of the Carolingian king
Pippin, who had already invaded Italy twice in the 750s to punish Aistulf for harass-
ing the pope. This important backing from Rome secured the election of Desiderius
and the retirement of Ratchis.
The reign of the new king opened with the promise of good relations between
Rome and the Lombards. In 758, Desiderius visited Rome as a pilgrim and prayed
at the tomb of St. Peter, indicating his devotion to the Apostle and to his succes-
sor, the pope. But matters changed quickly for the pope, now Paul (r. 757–767),
as Desiderius returned to the aggressive and expansive policy of his predecessors.
The new king imposed his will on the southern Lombard duchies of Benevento
and Spoleto. Even worse, Desiderius refused to return the papal cities as he had
promised, despite repeated requests from the pope, and he even seized new ter-
ritory near Rome. He also negotiated with representatives of the Byzantine em-
peror in southern Italy, entering into an arrangement that would have seen the
further erosion of papal authority in Italy and the further loss of papal territory.
In response, Pope Paul sent numerous letters over the next several years to King
Pippin for aid against Desiderius. Pippin was no longer interested in military in-
volvement in Italy and was content to intervene diplomatically. In 760, Pippin’s
envoys convinced Desiderius to agree to return cities to the pope, but the Lom-
bard king still did not follow through on the agreement, and the situation wors-
ened for the pope.
During the reigns of Paul and his successor Stephen III (r. 767–772), the situa-
tion deteriorated for Rome, as Desiderius increased his power throughout Italy and
benefited from a tumultuous papal election in 767. Moreover, Desiderius benefited
from the turmoil in the Carolingian kingdom at the death of Pippin and succession
 Desiderius | 225

of his sons Carloman and Charlemagne in 768. Charlemagne faced a revolt in part
of his kingdom and received little help from his brother, and the two were on the
point of civil war after Charlemagne suppressed the revolt. The tensions between
the two brothers made intervention in Italy unlikely, but Desiderius, now at the
height of his power, benefited further by the diplomatic initiative of Pippin’s widow,
Bertrada. In an attempt to resolve the crisis between her sons and improve their
international standing, Bertrada negotiated a marriage alliance between her dynasty
and the Lombard. Desiderata, the daughter of Desiderius, was married to Bertrada’s
son Charlemagne. The alliance bound the Carolingians with the Lombards and the
powerful duke of Bavaria, Tassilo, who was married to another daughter of Desid-
erius. Clearly a coup for Desiderius, whose greatest rival, the pope, lost his most
important ally, the king of the Franks. Although forced by the agreement to return
territory to the pope, Desiderius surely gained more than he lost in the agreement.
Indeed, the letters of complaint sent by the pope to the Carolingians reveal the great
dissatisfaction Rome felt over the treaty.
Desiderius’s triumph did not last long, as the alliance collapsed and an aggres-
sive Carolingian king took sole control of the throne. In 771, Carloman died and
his widow and sons fled to the Lombard capital of Pavia. Desiderius pressured the
pope, now Hadrian (772–795) to recognize Carloman’s heirs as king, but the pope
felt less threatened by Desiderius because of other changes in the Carolingian king-
dom. Charlemagne, now free of the threat of his brother, repudiated the marriage
alliance and expressed greater support for the pope than even his father had. The
new pope, mindful that Desiderius had not fulfilled his side of the agreement with
Bertrada, was willing to strike at the king’s allies in the papal administration and
establish a stronger alliance with Charlemagne. Desiderius, with Carloman’s sons
at his side, marched on Rome, threatening a siege and demanding the coronation
of the Carolingian princes. Hadrian threatened Desiderius with excommunication,
which stopped his advance, and wrote to Charlemagne for aid.
The new king first attempted to negotiate a settlement with Desiderius, but the
Lombard’s refusal forced Charlemagne to invade in 773. His armies quickly broke
the Lombard forces, which preferred flight to battle in the face of the powerful
Carolingian army. Desiderius’s kingdom quickly collapsed, as the southern duchies
detached themselves from his authority and surrendered to the pope. Charlemagne
laid siege to the capital of Pavia, where Desiderius had taken up residence, and
captured the city in six months. The Carolingian king also took the city of Verona,
Lombard Italy’s second most important city, where Desiderius’s son, Adelchis,
had gone with Carloman’s family. The invasion of Italy brought Carloman’s fam-
ily and Desiderius into Charlemagne’s control. We hear little of either after 774.
Desiderius was sent into exile in a monastery in Charlemagne’s kingdom. Despite
his many talents and early success, Desiderius overplayed his hand in the struggle
with Charlemagne, who could not allow Desiderius to ensure the coronation of his
226 | Dhuoda

nephews or to harass the pope. Desiderius’s ambition brought about the end of the
independent Lombard kingdom and the coronation of Charlemagne as king of the
Lombards in 774.
See also: Aistulf; Bertrada; Carloman, King of the Franks; Carolingian Dynasty;
Charlemagne; Lombards; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rome; Tassilo

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Dhuoda (c. 803–845)

Carolingian noble and wife of the powerful Bernard of Septimania, Dhuoda is best
known for the Liber manualis (Handbook), which she wrote for her son William.
The text is the only known work by a female Carolingian author and is an example
of the mirror for princes, a literary genre defining the proper duties of the nobility.
The Liber calls on William to do his duty to God and his father and country. It also
reveals much about the character and desires of Dhuoda, as well as her deep long-
ing for her son, who had been separated from her by her husband. Long discounted
for its unconventional Latin, Dhuoda’s work is now generally recognized for its
emotional and spiritual content and is a held to be a great contribution to medieval
women’s literature.
Little is known of Dhuoda’s life, other than what she reveals in the Liber, but
other things can be discerned about her life from her husband’s career. She was
born, probably in 803, into the higher nobility, but the exact location is uncertain.
It is generally assumed that she was born in the northern part of the Carolingian
Empire, an area where her name is common. It is possible, however, that she was
born in the south, where her husband later sent her to oversee his estates, something
he would have been more likely to do if she was from the south and had relatives
 Dhuoda | 227

in the region, which would have increased her chances for success in administer-
ing her husband’s possessions. She married Bernard, as she tells us, on June 29,
824, at the imperial palace at Aachen. Her husband was a high-ranking noble who
was closely related to the Carolingian family and who was an important ally of the
emperor Louis the Pious. Bernard was sent to oversee the Spanish March, a bor-
der region between Islamic Spain and Christian Europe. Dhuoda accompanied her
husband on his travels until the birth of their first son, William, on November 29,
826. She was then sent to Uzès, where she remained apart from her husband and
her son for most of the rest of their married life.
Dhuoda’s stay in Uzès was lonely and troubled. Bernard was generally away,
and was the focus of the rumor that he was involved in an affair with the emperor’s
wife, Judith. Although the rumor remained unsubstantiated, Dhuoda surely heard
of it and was surely bothered by it. She was surely also discomfited by the civil
wars of the 830s between the emperor and his sons, which also involved her hus-
band. He did, however, survive the contest and rumors of the 820s and 830s, and
he visited her in Uzès shortly after the death of Louis the Pious in 840. The visit
was long enough to bring about the birth of their second child, Bernard, on March
22, 841. Her husband’s participation on the losing side in the Battle of Fontenoy
on June 25, 841, brought further heartbreak for Dhuoda. Her son William was
sent to Charles the Bald as a hostage to secure Bernard’s loyalty after the battle.
Shortly thereafter, her other son, not yet baptized, was sent to her husband’s side
in Aquitaine.
In late 841, without either of her two beloved sons with her and abandoned by
her husband yet again, Dhuoda began work on her Liber, which she completed on
February 2, 843. She may have faced even more unhappiness after completion of
the book. Her husband was executed by Charles the Bald for treason in 844, and
her son William, joining with the rebels to avenge his father, was captured and ex-
ecuted in 849. It is likely that Dhuoda witnessed her husband’s execution, but less
likely that she lived to see her son’s death, since she probably died within a year or
so of the completion of the book for William. She mentions her illnesses through-
out the book, and she left detailed information for her funeral, including the epi-
taph for her tomb.
Dhuoda’s surviving son, Bernard, may have been an influential figure in the his-
tory of later Aquitaine as well as the father of the founder of the great monastery
of Cluny. Although she had a most illustrious descendant, Dhuoda’s own claim
to fame is her Liber manualis, translated as Handbook for William, a work of 73
chapters plus introduction, prologue, and epitaph (Thiébaux 1994, 161–162). The
work was intended as a guidebook for William at the royal court of Charles the
Bald. It was clearly influenced in style and content by the Bible, the works of the
church fathers, various Christian writers and poets (e.g., Venantius Fortunatus and
Isidore of Seville), Roman grammarians, and the Roman poet Ovid. It is a deeply
228 | Diet and Nutrition

personal work that reveals Dhuoda’s loneliness and longing and love for her son;
the love is shown in the poem in the prologue, “Dhuoda greets her beloved son
William. Read.” She hoped that her book would be one that William turned to often
for advice and as a means to maintain a connection with his mother. Dhuoda out-
lined his duties as a prince, particularly his obligations to his lord. In a possible
reference to the turmoil of the 830s, she tells her son not to show disloyalty to his
lord. She also reminded him of his spiritual responsibilities and encouraged him
to love God, pray, and accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For Dhuoda her son’s
worldly and spiritual duties were closely intertwined. Indeed, she saw a heavenly
reward for her son if he fulfilled his duties as a virtuous prince in this world. She
also stressed family obligations. William should honor and obey his father and look
after his younger brother. Dhuoda also asks her son to pray for her and to honor
the financial obligations she has incurred as a result of maintaining her husband’s
estates. With this most human and humble request, Dhuoda closes her book, and,
despite the hardships of her life, seems at peace with the world and ready to find
her heavenly reward.
See also: Bernard Hairyfeet; Bernard of Septimania; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the
Bald; Fontenoy, Battle of; Isidore of Seville; Judith; Louis the Pious

Bibliography
Dhuoda. Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman’s Counsel for Her Son. Ed. and
trans. Carol Neel. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999.
Dronke, Peter. Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from Per-
petua (d. 203) to Marguerite Porete (d. 1310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Thiébaux, Marcelle, ed. and trans. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology.
2nd ed. New York: Garland, 1994.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Diet and Nutrition

The early medieval diet, particularly for the peasant class, was a notoriously poor
one. Many of the fruits and vegetables popular in the modern world were unknown
in the early Middle Ages, and some vegetables, such as celery, were known only
 Diet and Nutrition | 229

for medicinal purposes. The majority of the calories in the early medieval diet were
made up of carbohydrates, but there were occasions when meat, mostly chicken or
pork, was eaten. The diet of the wealthy and powerful, of course, was much better
than that of the peasants, who lived barely above the subsistence level.
The evidence for the diet can be found in a variety of written sources, but un-
fortunately not from any contemporary cookbooks, examples of which are known
from ancient Roman and late medieval times. One valuable source for diet is the
Rule of Benedict, which, although valuable only for understanding the restricted
diet of monks, does provide examples of the things found on early medieval din-
ner tables. Benedict, who was more sympathetic to human weakness than some
monastic regulators, allowed the monks two meals a day; at the “sixth and ninth
hour” the monks were offered two cooked dishes. And, when available, a third
dish was allowed that contained apples or vegetables. The monks could have a
one-pound loaf of bread each day, but were not to eat “the flesh of quadrupeds”
unless they were sick or weak. Benedict also allowed his monks roughly 16
ounces of wine each day or twice that quantity of beer, but also cautioned against
drinking too much. Other monastic diets could be more or less stringent than that
in St. Benedict’s rule. Some monks more ascetic than Benedict ate only gruel and
vegetables. One saint ate only mushrooms, and the Carolingian monk Walafrid
Strabo recommended a diet that included bread, fish, and wine. Other monaster-
ies sometimes offered more extravagant fare, including quantities of chicken,
geese, and cakes.
More extravagant than anything the monks could contemplate were the menus
of early medieval kings and nobles. Unlike the monks or the peasants, meat was
the mainstay of the diet of kings and aristocrats. In a passage from his life of
Charlemagne, Einhard reveals that the preferred means of preparation was roast-
ing, because the great emperor refused to follow doctor’s orders to eat boiled meat.
Pork, fresh, smoked, or salted, was a popular meat, and beef and mutton were also
part of the nobility’s diet. Meats were prepared in a variety of ways, including
in the form of bacon and sausages. The diet was further supplemented by meat
brought in from the hunt, and included rabbit, which was also a domestic food ani-
mal. The dishes of the wealthy were highly seasoned with pepper, cumin, cloves,
cinnamon, and other spices. Honey was also used for both food and drink, and
both beer and wine were popular at the tables of the powerful. The Capitulare de
Villis of the early ninth century, which regulated management of the royal estates,
provides further information on the diet of the Carolingian nobility. Charlemagne
ordered that his various estates should be stocked with a large quantity of chickens
and geese, which would provide a ready supply of food as well as large quantities
of eggs. Cheese, butter, a variety of fruits and vegetables, and fish were also found
at the tables of the nobility, and fish was particularly important for seasons of re-
ligious fasting. Finally, bread was an important source of calories even for kings
230 | Donation of Constantine

and nobles, but it was of the highest quality white bread rather than the coarser
grains the peasantry often ate.
The diet of the peasants was clearly the least varied of all the diets of the early
Middle Ages, and the diet most dependent on grains as a source of calories. The
poor lived on a bare subsistence diet, and a significant portion of their income went
to pay for food and drink. The diet of the peasants consisted of porridge or bread,
the latter becoming more common as the use of mills increased in the early Middle
Ages, made from barley, buckwheat, oats, rye, and several types of wheat. Another
important source of calories was beer, the production of which underwent improve-
ment in the Carolingian period with the introduction of hops, which acted as a pre-
servative. Moreover, the beer or ale consumed in this period was quite thick, almost
the consistency of soup and practically a meal itself. The diet was supplemented
by vegetables that were grown in small gardens by the peasants’ homes. Peasants
often grew onions, leeks, and cabbages in these gardens. Peas and beans, important
sources of protein, were also found in the peasants’ gardens; they were grown more
extensively after the ninth century as new agricultural techniques were introduced.
These legumes improved the nutrition and health of the peasants greatly. The peas-
ants also derived protein from various meats, although not to the same extent as the
nobility did. Peasants had access to fish in some local ponds and rivers, and prob-
ably also ate some chicken and pork. Indeed, one of the most common images of
early peasant life is that of the slaughtering of a pig in midwinter. Thus although
it was not without some variety, the peasant’s diet was a simple fare, generally in-
volving a simple meal of bread, beer, and stewed vegetables.
See also: Agriculture; Animals; Benedict of Nursia, St.; Capitulare de Villis; Carolingian
Dynasty; Charlemagne; Einhard

Bibliography
Duby, Georges. Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Trans. Cynthia
Postan. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.

Donation of Constantine

One of the most important and well-known forgeries of the early Middles Ages,
this document presented itself as issued by the fourth-century emperor Con-
stantine, conferring great power on the pope. The date of composition and the
purpose of the Constitutum Constantini, or the Donation of Constantine, re-
main unclear. This uncertainty has led to a variety of interpretations, which
often vary as a result of the date assigned to the document’s creation. It has
 Donation of Constantine | 231

been described as a tool intended to support the efforts of the popes to improve
ties with the new Carolingian dynasty after the deposition of the last Merovin-
gian ruler, Childeric III, in 751 or following the coronation of Pippin in 754.
It has also been seen as a document designed to undermine Byzantine territo-
rial rights in Italy, particularly in light of Byzantine failures to protect the pa-
pacy from its enemies, the Lombards. The Donation, the great papal historian
Walter Ullmann notes, may have been intended simply to free the papacy from
the confines of an antiquated and ineffective Byzantine imperial government
framework as part of its long-range program to establish a papal monarchy in
Europe. Thomas Noble notes that the document may have served to establish
an independent, papal territorial power in central Italy. The Donation, whatever
its origin, enjoyed a long career, whether used in defense of or in opposition to
papal authority, until proved a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1439.
The general consensus among historians is that the Donation was written in the
750s, although some have dated it later in the eighth century and have interpreted
its meaning in light of the history of Charlemagne. It was most likely written by
a Lateran cleric, possibly with the knowledge of Pope Stephen II, and was asso-
ciated with the coronation and Donation of Pippin, the first Carolingian king of
the Franks. The forgery was based upon legends that had existed in some form or
other since the fifth century, legends that told the story of the relations between
the Roman emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester I. The opening section of
the false Donation outlines the events associated with Constantine’s conversion
in the early fourth century. This section of the forgery, which clearly borrows from
the legend of Sylvester, includes the story of Constantine being cured of leprosy by
Sylvester and then, grateful for this miracle, Constantine accepting instruction in
the Christian faith from the pope. Also in this section, Constantine asserts the im-
portance of Rome as the city of the apostles Peter and Paul and as such proclaims
the place of its bishop as the ultimate authority in matters of orthodoxy. In the sec-
ond part, Constantine makes his famed donation to the papacy. Before departing
for his new capital in the east, Constantinople, he grants the pope supremacy over
the episcopal sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and all the
churches of the world. He also grants temporal authority to the pope and his suc-
cessors over “Judaea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy, and various islands” (17).
And, most importantly, Constantine bestows on the pope “our palace [the Lateran],
the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts, and cities of Italy or of the west-
ern regions” (17). This final donation was clearly meant to imply that the imperial
dignity in the Western Empire was being passed from Constantine to the pope and
his successors and that the popes had the authority to appoint new temporal rulers
over the lands of the Western Roman Empire.
Although its origins remain unclear, the later history of the Donation is more
definite. The forgery was involved in the struggles between church and state and
232 | Donation of Pippin

manipulated by advocates on both sides. In the late ninth century, Frankish bish-
ops inserted the Donation into canon law collections as a means to secure eccle-
siastical property rights. In the 11th century emperors and popes passed judgment
on the document according to their own political and religious agendas. It was
denounced by many leading political figures in the later German empire, includ-
ing Otto III (d. 1003). Various popes pointed to it to support for their territo-
rial claims in Italy and rights to primacy in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Indeed,
the Donation of Constantine had perhaps even greater influence on political and
religious affairs after its composition sometime in the eighth century than it did
when it first appeared.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Childeric III; Constantinople; Donation of
Pippin; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rome

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul Edward, trans. The Donation of Constantine. In Carolingian Civilization:
A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1993, pp. 13–19.
Henderson, E. F., trans. Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages. Rev. ed. London:
George Bell and Sons, 1892, pp. 312–329.
Noble, Thomas X. F. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. 3rd ed. London:
Methuen, 1970.

Donation of Pippin

Traditional name of the oral or written promise made by the Carolingian king
Pippin the Short to Pope Stephen II (r. 752–757). The Donation of Pippin was an
important step in the establishment of the papal states and in the solidification of the
alliance between the pope and the Carolingian kings. Later held to have confirmed
the forged document in which Constantine supposedly granted great power to the
papacy, Pippin’s donation was a grant of land in central Italy, to which the king had
no legal claim, to the pope. The promise was made in the context of the papacy’s
struggle with the Lombard king Aistulf, during which the pope declined support
from the Byzantine Empire, and the elevation to the royal throne of the Carolin-
gians. It appeared, therefore, at a critical time in the history of the early Middle
Ages and had a significant impact on the history of the papal states.
The Donation of Pippin came into being in the context of the creation of the
blossoming papal-Carolingian alliance and in the wake of the coronation of Pippin
as king of the Franks. In the face of mounting pressure from the Lombard king
 Donation of Pippin | 233

Aistulf, Stephen was forced to find a new protector. Technically still a subject of the
Byzantine Empire, the pope received little support from the emperor, who could do
little even to protect Ravenna, the imperial capital in Italy. With the fall of Ravenna
to Aistulf, the imperial presence in Italy was ended, as was any semblance of impe-
rial protection for Rome. Aistulf’s aggression led Stephen to seek aid from Pippin,
whose elevation to the kingship owed something to Stephen’s predecessor Pope
Zachary. The Lombard king’s reluctance to yield to Frankish and papal requests to
return some of his conquests to Rome forced Stephen to take more drastic action.
In January 754, therefore, the pope arrived at the royal palace at Ponthion in the
Frankish kingdom, where he was warmly received by Pippin, and remained in the
Frankish kingdom until the summer of that year.
In April, Stephen met Pippin at Quierzy (near Soissons, France) and received
promises from the king for the restoration of lands in central Italy. This prom-
ise, which according to papal accounts included the Exarchate, imperial territory
including Ravenna and the surrounding region, and Roman duchy, papal territory
in central Italy, is often identified as the Donation of Pippin, but it does not exist in
written form and may have been delivered only orally. Whatever the case may be,
an alliance formed between the king and pope, which was strengthened in July of
that year when Stephen anointed Pippin and his sons Charlemagne and Carloman
and declared them the true kings of the Franks.
Although the promise at Quierzy is often seen as the Donation of Pippin, it has
been suggested that a later document is the actual donation. This document, the
Confession of St. Peter, is a list of cities that submitted to the pope; it was compiled
by Pippin’s representative following the king’s campaigns in Italy. The Confession
was made necessary by Aistulf’s continued aggression in central Italy and Pippin’s
invasions in defense of the pope in 755 and 756. After defeating Aistulf a second
time in 756 and imposing a peace on him, Pippin sent his supporter, the important
abbot of St. Denis Fulrad, to collect the keys of the cities and territories in central
Italy. The keys and the list of the cities were then placed on the altar of St. Peter in
Rome and thus may constitute the true donation.
The donation, whether the promise of 754 or the document of 756, marked an
important moment in the papal-Carolingian alliance and growth of the papal states.
It confirmed the pact between Stephen and Pippin and either precipitated or con-
cluded the king’s forays into Italy. It was confirmed by Charlemagne in 778 and by
Louis the Pious in 817, both of whom sought to strengthen their ties with the pope.
The donation also, it should be noted, involved territories that were technically not
Pippin’s to give. The lands Pippin restored to the pope were imperial territories, and
the empire’s inability to control them further demonstrated the end of the imperial
presence in central Italy. Clearly, the empire’s loss benefited both the papacy and
the Carolingian dynasty.
234 | Donatism

See also: Aistulf; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Donation of Constantine; Franks;

Lombards; Louis the Pious; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Zachary, St.

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from a.d. 715 to a.d. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Donatism

Religious schism of North Africa of the fourth and fifth centuries, Donatism ad-
opted a rigorist practice of Christianity and opposed reconciliation with so-called
lapsed Christians who were accused of making concessions to imperial perse-
cutors. The Donatists rejected the authority of “lapsed” priests and the validity
of the sacraments they offered. The Donatist Church in Africa was a powerful
force that found numerous supporters throughout the fourth century including
violent extremists known as Circumcellions. Opposition from the imperial au-
thorities and St. Augustine of Hippo helped bring an end to the movement in the
fifth century.
The origins of the movement can be traced to the time of the persecutions of the
emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) in the years 303–305. The edict enacting the per-
secutions ordered the burning of churches and destruction of Christian scriptures.
In response, some members of the Christian clergy turned over Bibles and other
sacred texts (sometimes the soldiers were given random texts as a means to placate
the authorities without surrendering sacred texts) to the Roman authorities to be
destroyed. Other Christians staunchly opposed these concessions and refused to
surrender the holy books and denouncing those who did turn over the sacred items
as traditores (betrayers). They further came to believe that the traditores among the
clergy rendered themselves unworthy of their office and that their personal unwor-
thiness made the sacraments they celebrated invalid. In 304, one group of impris-
oned Christians proclaimed that the traditores would not gain entry into paradise
with the martyrs who suffered during the persecutions.
 Donatism | 235

The schism itself broke out in 311 when the bishop of Carthage, Mensurius, died.
His successor Caecilian was consecrated shortly thereafter, but one of the conse-
crating bishops, according to the Donatists, was a traditor and so had lost the au-
thority to participate in the ceremony. Although Caecilian was deposed by a council
at Carthage in 312, the emperor Constantine came to support him as the legitimate
bishop. The bishop’s opponents, now led by Donatus, for whom the movement was
named, protested this decision. Further councils in Africa continued to declare in
Caecilian’s favor, but even more important was the council of Arles in 314, which
had been summoned by Constantine and which condemned Donatism. Donatus and
his followers, however, remained strong in their opposition to those they believe
had betrayed the true church. And Donatus and his followers were not without their
successes. In 336, Donatus forced a council to meet to determine if his followers
were to be rebaptized, and in 346 he appealed to the emperor Constans (r. 340–350)
asking if the emperor would declare Donatus as bishop of Carthage. The emperor
did not and unrest associated with the movement led to the exile of Donatus and
his followers to Gaul, where Donatus died in 355.
The reign of Julian (360–363), called the Apostate because of his repudiation of
Christianity, provided the Donatists the opportunity to reassert themselves in North
Africa. Exiles returned and found support among the leaders of North Africa as well
as the general lay population. During the course of the fourth century, accounts of
the martyrdoms of those who died during the persecutions of Diocletian emerged
to support the Donatist cause. Donatist leaders repeated assertions that theirs was
the true church and that to become members of that true church Christians would
need to be rebaptized. They also repeated their belief that the purity of the sacrament
depended on the purity of the priest administering it, defining the extreme rigorist
position of the movement that held that the priest must be without sin and rejecting
the traditores as well as their sacraments and clergy they consecrated.
The resurgence of the movement, however, would not last. Violence associ-
ated with the movement and its supporters the Circumcellions and support by
leading Donatists of a revolt against Roman rule undermined the popularity of
the Donatist Church. The emphasis on purity caused difficulties leading to fur-
ther schism within the church as questions were raised by members of the church
about the sinfulness of its priests. Support for the Donatist position was further
undermined by the vigorous attacks launched by the greatest figure of the African
church, and one of the most important of all Christian theologians, Augustine of
Hippo. Author of a number of treatises against the Donatists, Augustine promoted
moral persuasion as well as the coercive power of the state to compel the Donatists
back into the Catholic Church. In 405, a council at Carthage requested that the
emperor Honorius impose penalties on the Donatists, which he did but in 409
rescinded the order. Despite this grant of toleration, Honorius approved of com-
pelling the Donatists to attend a public debate at a council to be held in Carthage
236 | Donatism

in 411. Representatives of the Donatists attended and faced Augustine in a debate

lasting three days, which concluded with the condemnation of the Donatists. Fur-
ther restrictions against them followed in 414 and in 415 the death penalty was
imposed on Donatists. Although no longer a force in Africa, the Donatist Church
survived and was only finally destroyed with the arrival of Islam in North Africa
in the seventh century.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Carthage; Circumcellions; Constantine; Honorius

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2000.
Frend, W.H.C. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
O’Donnell, James J. Augustine. London: Profile Books, 2005.
Tilley, Maureen. Donastist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in North Africa.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1997.

Do-Nothing Kings. See Rois Fainéants

E
Ebroin (d. 680)

Frankish mayor of the palace of the Neustrian kingdom of the Merovingians.

Ebroin was a powerful figure who dominated politics in the Merovingian kingdom
for much of the third quarter of the seventh century. Although deposed for a time in
the 670s, Ebroin managed to recover his control of the office of mayor and dreamed
of unifying the kingdoms of the Merovingians under his authority—a dream real-
ized by the rival Carolingian dynasty and its leader Pippin of Herstal following the
Battle of Tertry in 687. Before his period of disgrace, Ebroin engineered the retire-
ment of Balthild, the Merovingian queen and saint, and, after his return to power, he
appointed and controlled several Merovingian kings. His reign as mayor, however,
was widely viewed as tyrannical, which led to a fierce rivalry with Pippin and his
family, as well as his murder by a frightened noble in 680.
Ebroin rose to power in the wake of the overthrow of the Carolingian pretender
Grimoald in the late 650s. Although of unknown family, Ebroin was the most dom-
inant figure at the Merovingian royal court of Balthild and her son Chlotar III
(d. 673), and he assumed the office of mayor of the palace for the Neustrian king-
dom in 659. In 664 Balthild retired to the monastery she founded at Chelles, possi-
bly because of a coup led against her by Ebroin, whose thirst for power outweighed
his sense of loyalty. He then served as mayor, and the real power in Neustria, under
King Chlotar until the king’s death in 673.
After the death of Chlotar, the kingdom experienced a short period of crisis,
which began with the fall of Ebroin and ended with his return to power. At the
death of the king, Ebroin, without consulting the other nobles of the kingdom,
raised Chlotar’s brother, Theuderic III (d. 690/691) to the throne. Ebroin’s high-
handed act angered the other nobles of the kingdom, who offered the throne to
the Merovingian king in Austrasia, Childeric II (d. 675). Ebroin and his king were
overthrown, and both were tonsured and placed in a monastery—Ebroin received
this punishment only after much pleading by several bishops, who thereby saved
his life. But the reign of Childeric over both Austrasia and Neustria was a short and
troubled one; not long after his elevation to the Neustrian throne a falling out with
some of his key supporters occurred. Moreover, Childeric alienated the Neustrian
nobility by his reliance on his loyal Austrasian supporters. He also developed a
reputation as a brutal and tyrannical king who violated the rights and traditions of
the nobility, actually beating one magnate. The Neustrian nobility, including many

237
238 | Ebroin

of Ebroin’s supporters, orchestrated an assassination plot against the king and his
wife Bilichild in 675. Their death opened the door for the return of Ebroin and his
king Theuderic III to power in Neustria.
Beginning in 675, Ebroin carefully and brutally established his control over the
king and kingdom. Although outmaneuvered by a former ally, Bishop Leodegar,
at first, Ebroin soon gained control of the king and took the office of mayor of the
palace at the expense of his old ally. In fact, Leodegar was one of the many victims
of Ebroin’s ruthless quest to control all of the Merovingian kingdom. The bishop
had his lips, eyes, and tongue cut out and was finally killed in 678 or 679 at Ebroin’s
order. Although he eliminated a powerful political rival, Ebroin gained little from
his brutal treatment of the bishop, whose tomb became a center of miracles shortly
after his death. But the bishop was only one of Ebroin’s victims, who included other
bishops and priests imprisoned or exiled because they had sided with the mayor’s
rivals. Many members of the nobility also suffered persecution in Ebroin’s quest
for power. Indeed, not only nobles and bishops in his own region of Neustria but
also those in Austrasia were among Ebroin’s victims. The most notable, of course,
was the king, Dagobert II, who had been promoted in 675 to the Austrasian throne
by Childeric’s mayor of the palace, Wulfoald. In 679, the king was ambushed by
Ebroin and killed, as Wulfoald may also have been, since he is no longer heard of
after that time.
By the end of the 670s, Ebroin had made himself master of almost the en-
tire Merovingian kingdom and had nearly reunited Austrasia, Neustria, and Bur-
gundy, the three parts of the Merovingian realm, under the nominal authority
of Theuderic. His success, together with the ruthless policies by which it was
achieved, inspired great unrest in Austrasia and the opposition of noble families
there, led by the early Carolingian Pippin of Herstal. Ebroin’s power became even
greater in 680, when he decisively defeated Pippin in battle and treacherously
murdered Pippin’s brother Martin. But Ebroin’s triumph was short lived; not long
afterward he was murdered by a royal official afraid of being Ebroin’s next vic-
tim. And not long after the murder, Ebroin’s dream of unifying the kingdom was
realized by his rival Pippin.
See also: Austrasia; Balthild, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria;
Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Tertry, Battle of

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
 Education and Learning | 239

Education and Learning

Traditionally seen as the “Dark Ages,” the early Middle Ages were not without their
cultural and intellectual achievements. Although these achievements were mod-
est in comparison with the great accomplishments of the ancient world as well as
the later medieval world, education and learning did not disappear in barbarian
Europe. Even in the worst of times, during the collapse of the Roman Empire and
the invasion of various barbarian peoples, education continued, even if only in the
monastery schools. Indeed, the monasteries remained the great centers of learning
throughout the early Middle Ages and were responsible for preserving many of
the great works of antiquity. Moreover, under Charlemagne’s direction, a “renais-
sance” in learning and literature emerged in the late eighth and ninth centuries. Al-
though once thought to have been a shining moment in an otherwise dark time, the
Carolingian Renaissance was only the most dramatic example of cultural activity
in the early Middle Ages.
The various barbarian peoples that entered the Roman world had their own
traditions of education, of course, but these did not focus on the written word.
Indeed, theirs was a practical education that emphasized those things necessary
for success in tribal society. Many of their educational practices continued even
after they settled in the Roman Empire and created their own kingdoms. Boys
were taught how to ride, hunt, and use weapons. Girls were taught how to spin
and weave wool and how to use the distaff and spindle. These customs continued,
but the successors of the Romans also borrowed from the educational practices
of the ancient world.
The practices of classical education had a long history in Greece and Rome
before the arrival of the barbarians in late antiquity. Education was for boys only
and involved the skills necessary for success in the public arena. Consequently,
the focus of classical education was on grammar and rhetoric. Boys studied the
various parts of speech, grammar and syntax, and rhetoric to speak eloquently
and persuasively. Their models were Cicero, Caesar, Quintilian, Seneca, and
others, some of whom continued to be the focus of learning after the end of
Roman rule in the west. Although it suffered decay as a result of the entry into
the empire of various Roman peoples, the classical tradition was preserved. And
in the sixth century important transitional figures emerged who embodied the
traditions of the past and laid the foundations for later learning. Among the more
important figures were two from the early sixth century, Boethius, discussed in
his entry, and, especially, Cassiodorus, who compiled two works on sacred and
profane letters that encapsulated the best of the Roman and Christian tradition.
His work on sacred letters remained at the heart of education for centuries after
his death.
Although an important body of learning and pedagogical techniques survived
the so-called fall of the Roman Empire, the ancient schools did not. As a result,
240 | Education and Learning

a new center of education emerged in the early Middle Ages, the monastery. Even
though the primary purpose of the monastery was spiritual, education and learn-
ing remained an important component of the religious life. Indeed, it was recog-
nized that a good education in Christian letters was essential for the success of
the religious life, and monks were required to select a book from the monastery
library at least once a year. Consequently, monasteries were centers of book pro-
duction, as the monks needed to copy the books so that members of the community
could read. One of the greatest contributions of the monks was their preservation
of many important ancient Christian and pagan classics. They also established
schools in the monasteries, based on ancient patterns, to instruct the young boys
who were enrolled in the various communities by their parents. It was not only
Christian letters that were taught, but classical as well, since the greatest writers of
Latin—the language of learning and the Church—were pagan Romans. The most
important books of grammar, by the fourth-century grammarian Donatus and the
early sixth-century grammarian Priscian, contained a fair sampling of the works
of the great classical Roman poets. The traditions of education and learning, there-
fore, were preserved in the monastic communities of barbarian Europe, and some
monasteries, such as Jarrow and Wearmouth in England, were recognized as great
centers of learning.
Although he was not the only ruler to promote education and learning, Char-
lemagne, in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, is perhaps the most notewor-
thy and influential proponent of learning in the early Middle Ages. He himself, as
his biographer Einhard notes, tried mightily to learn to read and write. Another
biographer, Notker the Stammerer, noted that the great king would often visit the
schools to watch over the progress of the students and would take time to encour-
age the studious and chastise those who were less than diligent. Moreover, he
made learning the center of the reform and renewal of religious life in his great
kingdom, issuing the capitulary Admonitio Generalis and the Letter to Baugulf
to improve learning and the knowledge of Scripture throughout his kingdom. He
mandated the construction of schools at monasteries and churches throughout his
realm so that the bright young boys of the realm could learn to read and write.
His legislation thus encouraged the monks and clergy of the kingdom to teach
children who were not members of their religious communities. Charlemagne
also encouraged the monasteries to continue their practice of copying important
works of Christian and classical Roman literature. Although his renaissance was
only marginally successful, his efforts to improve the standard of education and
learning in his kingdom demonstrate the importance of education to early medi-
eval rulers.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Boethius; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian
Renaissance; Cassiodorus; Charlemagne; Letter to Baugulf
 Edwin | 241

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul, ed. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broadview,
1993.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond, ed. Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through
the Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1976.

Edwin (c. 585–633)

Formidable Northumbrian king from 616 to 633; the first ruler of that kingdom
to convert to Christianity. A successful warrior, who may have also possessed a
substantial fleet, Edwin extended his authority over Britons and Saxons, accord-
ing to Bede, and was recognized with the title bretwalda, or ruler over several
kingdoms. His stature as a king in England made his conversion important and
raised the concerns of other kings, including the pagan Penda and his Christian
ally Cadwallon.
Edwin came to the throne in Northumbria after a long exile. The heir to the throne
of Deira, Edwin took refuge at the court of a powerful king south of the Humber
River. The reigning king in Northumbria, Æthelfrith, demanded his return, but the
southern king, Raedwald, refused. The two came to war; Æthelfrith was defeated
and killed, and his sons fled into exile. Edwin was welcomed as king of Deira and
Bernicia, and eventually succeeded Raedwald as overlord south of the Humber.
Indeed, by 626 he was the most powerful figure in England. He married a daugh-
ter of Aethelberht of Kent and had contacts with the Merovingian dynasty on the
continent. He took possession of the Isle of Man, conquered sections of north
Wales, and established a loose confederation, one that foreshadowed more stable
and lasting unions. But his invasion of territory ruled by the Britons had dire con-
sequences for his kingdom and his line. He threatened the kingdom of the Briton
Cadwallon, the last great native British king. With his pagan ally, Penda of Mer-
cia, Cadwallon launched a counterinvasion of Northumbria in 633. In October of
633, Edwin fought a great battle in Hatfield Chase against Cadwallon and Penda
in which he was defeated and killed. Edwin’s son Osfrid was killed during the
battle while protecting his father. And another son, Eadrid, was forced to submit to
242 | Edwin

Cadwallon and then was killed by him. Edwin’s line was thus destroyed, as was his
kingdom and political confederation.
Although he was a powerful king whose authority over much of England fore-
shadowed later English political organization, Edwin’s real importance lies in
his conversion to Christianity. Even though the faith did not survive in Northum-
bria in the generation after his death, Edwin established a significant precedent
by his conversion. Edwin’s conversion, according to Bede, was accompanied by
the miraculous. His wife, Æthelberg, daughter of King Aethelberht of Kent, was
a Christian, and when he proposed a marriage alliance, Edwin was told that she
could not marry a non-Christian. He said that he would not interfere with her re-
ligion and would consider adopting it once he had had the opportunity to exam-
ine it. He delayed this conversion until several further events passed. He survived
an assassination attempt sent by the king of the West Saxons, and witnessed the
birth of a daughter, for which he thanked his pagan gods. Bishop Paulinus assured
him that it was prayers to Christ that brought Edwin life and happiness. Edwin
declared that only when he was victorious over his attempted murderer would he
convert, and shortly thereafter he defeated the West Saxon king. He delayed bap-
tism still, however.
Bede notes that it was a sign offered by Paulinus that finally persuaded the king
to convert. While at the court of Raedwald, Edwin, knowing that he was about to
be betrayed, had a vision in which he promised a stranger that he would submit to
the stranger’s teachings if his kingdom were restored to him. The stranger placed
his hand on Edwin’s head as a sign and shortly thereafter Raedwald was persuaded
by his wife to protect Edwin. Later, Paulinus placed his right hand on Edwin’s
head and asked if he remembered his promise. The final sign convinced Edwin to
convert, and on Easter, April 12, 627, he accepted baptism at the hands of Bishop
Paulinus. At that moment, Edwin became the first of many later Northumbrian
kings to accept Christianity.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Merovingian Dynasty; Penda

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
a.d. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.
 Einhard | 243

Einhard (c. 770–840)

Frankish writer and biographer who was a member of Charlemagne’s court school.
One of the great success stories of Charlemagne’s efforts to revive learning in his
empire, Einhard is best know for his Vita Karoli (Life of Charlemagne), a biogra-
phy of the great Carolingian emperor. The Life is the first biography of a major po-
litical figure since antiquity and reveals the debt of Carolingian writers to classical
models. Despite its debt to ancient Roman biography, Einhard’s work is one of the
most important sources for the life of Charlemagne and one of the great works of
medieval writing. It is not Einhard’s only achievement, however, because he also
wrote numerous letters, a theological tract, and an important work of hagiography.
Highly interested in architecture, he most likely was the supervisor for the construc-
tion of Charlemagne’s palace and church at Aachen, the grandeur of which Einhard
mentions in his biography.
Born around 770 in the Main Valley to noble parents, Einhard was sent to re-
ceive his education at the monastery of Fulda, one of the great centers of learning
in the Carolingian realm. In the early 790s, he joined Charlemagne’s palace school
at Aachen, where he was taught by the greatest of the Carolingian scholars, the
Anglo-Saxon Alcuin. He remained at court for a while and earned the friendship
of his great hero, Charlemagne. In 806, the emperor sent Einhard to Rome as an
ambassador and may have entrusted him with other missions. In 813, Einhard was
the first to recommend that Charlemagne make his son, Louis the Pious, coem-
peror and heir. In the years after Charlemagne’s death in 814, Einhard remained at
the court of Louis the Pious and was appointed advisor to Lothar, the oldest son of
Louis. A lay abbot, Einhard retired from the court in 830 with his wife Imma to the
monastery he founded on lands granted by Louis at Seligenstadt. He built a church
there as well, where he deposited the relics of the saints Marcellinus and Peter, and
he died there on March 1, 840.
Although Einhard had numerous accomplishments in his life, his greatest con-
tribution to medieval Europe was the Life of Charlemagne. Despite his assertion
that he lacked the skills necessary to write the biography, Einhard’s work is one
of the most important of the Carolingian Renaissance. His writing reveals the ex-
tent of his learning and bears clear echoes of many Roman and Christian Latin
writers, including Cicero, Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Orosius, and Sulpicius Severus.
His most important debt, however, was to the great Roman writers of the early
Roman Empire, Suetonius and Tacitus. Suetonius’s De vita Caesarum (Lives of the
Caesars), particularly his life of Augustus, has often been recognized for its influ-
ence on Einhard. More recently, Agricola, the biography of the Roman noble Agri-
cola by Tacitus, has been suggested as a model of secular biography that provided
the format and vocabulary for Einhard’s work. But Einhard’s work was no slavish
copy of Suetonius or Tacitus. It was based also on Einhard’s intimate knowledge
244 | Einhard

of his subject. The work addresses the major wars of Charlemagne, his diplomatic
activities, and building projects. Einhard provides information on the great ruler’s
family life, including the king’s too strong love of his daughters (whom he would
not allow to marry), personal appearance, and personality. Einhard also includes
discussion of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne and makes the still controver-
sial statement that had Charlemagne known what was going to happen that Christ-
mas day he would have not gone to church. The life concludes with an extended
discussion of Charlemagne’s death and includes a copy of his will.
The purpose of the biography and its date of composition remain uncertain,
and the former is surely conditioned by the latter. Einhard’s life is clearly biased
in favor of its subject. He notes in his preface that he must write so as not to allow
“the most glorious life of this most excellent king, the greatest of all princes of this
day, and his wonderful deeds, difficult for people of later times to imitate, to slip
into the darkness of oblivion” (52). He offers only passing criticism of the king, and
blames rebellions on the nobles or one of Charlemagne’s wives rather than on any
action of the king. The work is clearly intended to prove the greatness and virtue
of its subject. Beyond Einhard’s regard for Charlemagne and sense of obligation,

Einhard and Archbishop Turpin writing the history of

Charlemagne, from the Chroniques de France, 1494.
(Biblioteca Nazionale, Turin, Italy/The Bridgeman Art
Library)
 Ermoldus Nigellus | 245

it is likely that the work was intended as a commentary on political affairs in the
Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne. A letter of 830 establishes
that date as the latest it could have been written. And if the biography were writ-
ten in the late 820s, it was surely a commentary on the difficulties that Louis the
Pious faced by that time, as his sons and the nobility began to stir against him. It
has also been suggested that the biography was written early in the reign of Louis
and within only a few years of Charlemagne’s death or even shortly after the death
of its subject in 814. Certain internal evidence supports an early composition, and
if the work were completed in early 814 or the late 810s it was intended to support
the claim of Louis as Charlemagne’s divinely ordained heir to imperial power. The
biography also helped define the nature of imperial power for the Carolingians, an
issue Louis himself pursued. Whether the life was composed in 814, circa 817, or
circa 830, it is one of the most important biographies of the Middle Ages, and one
that provides an image of the ideal Christian ruler.
See also: Alcuin of York; Anglo-Saxons; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Lothar;
Louis the Pious; Notker the Stammerer; Vita Karoli

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. David Ganz.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 2008.
Einhard. The Translation and Miracles of the Saints Marcellinus and Peter. In Carolin-
gian Civilization: A Reader. Trans. Paul Edward Dutton. Peterborough, ON: Broadview,
1993, pp. 198–246.
Geary, Patrick. Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. Rev. ed.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In Carolingian
Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Ermoldus Nigellus (fl. 820s)

Carolingian poet and monk of Aquitaine, Ermoldus Nigellus (Ermold the Black)
was an important figure of the Carolingian renaissance in the early ninth century.
He wrote a number of poems that depict the realities of contemporary warfare most
dramatically and that provide insightful and at times amusing comments about his
246 | Eudes of Aquitaine

contemporaries. His work often focusing of historical subjects is steeped in the

writings of the ancient Romans, and in this way he reflects one of the main develop-
ments of the Carolingian Renaissance. He also wrote two panegyrics to his patron,
Pippin, the Carolingian ruler in Aquitaine and son of the emperor Louis the Pious.
His most important work, however, is the poem In honorem Hlodovici imperato-
ris. The poem was written around 826 and was intended to restore Ermoldus to the
good graces of the emperor. Ermoldus had been exiled for encouraging Pippin to
rebel against his father and hoped that the poem honoring Louis would allow him
to return.
The poem in four books of 300 couplets provides important historical informa-
tion about the early reign of Louis and offers effusive praise of the quality and char-
acter of the emperor, comparing Louis to the great Christian emperors of Rome and
other historical figures who adorned the emperor’s palace at Ingelheim. The poem
seems to have been successful since Ermoldus was likely recalled to court in 830
and is sometimes identified as Louis’s chancellor.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Louis the Pious

Bibliography
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In Carolingian
Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
Laistner, M.L.W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1957.
Noble, Thomas F. X. ed. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: Lives by Einhard, Notker,
Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer. University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2009.

Eudes of Aquitaine (died c. 735)

A powerful duke of Aquitaine in the late seventh and early eighth centuries, Eudes,
or Odo, exploited the weakness of the Merovingian dynasty to assert greater inde-
pendence from the Franks but faced increasing difficulties preserve this indepen-
dence because of mounting pressures on both of his frontiers. From Spain to the
south, Eudes suffered Muslim raids that increased in number and intensity during
his reign as duke. He also endured a challenge from the Frankish kingdoms to the
north, as the powerful Carolingian mayor, Charles Martel (r. 714–741), sought to
extend his authority into Aquitaine.
Assuming ducal authority in the late seventh century, Eudes most likely in-
herited the position from his father. By 718 he had involved himself in the civil
strife occurring in the Frankish kingdoms—Aquitaine had long been drawn into
the Frankish sphere and was a region of great wealth and importance. He joined
 Euric | 247

the Frankish king Chilperic II and his mayor of the palace in the king’s struggles
against his rival and his mayor Charles Martel. Martel would ultimately triumph
in this struggle and then turn his attention to the south. At the same time, how-
ever, Eudes was plagued by raids from the Muslims of Spain. They had taken
control of much of the Iberian peninsula in the 710s and had begun raiding across
the Pyrenees. In 720, they took Narbonne, and in 721 they laid siege to Toulouse.
Eudes met them outside the walls of the city and drove them from Aquitaine even
though he failed to retake Narbonne. This was not the end to Eudes’s problems,
as he continued to face pressures from both Islamic Spain and Frankish Gaul.
In 725, the Muslims moved back across the Pyrenees, taking Carcassone and
moving up the Rhone River and reaching Autun before returning to Spain laden
with the spoils of war. These raids were matched by Martel’s continued designs
on extending his control over Aquitaine. In response to both threats, Eudes ar-
ranged a marriage between his daughter and the Muslim leader Othman. This
alliance, however, did not resolve the crisis, in part because of Othman’s death
at the hands of Abd al-Rahman. Muslim raids continued into Aquitaine, accord-
ing to sources hostile to the duke, Eudes invited them in to assist him against
Charles Martel.
Whatever the case, the Muslims laid waste to much of Aquitaine and moved
deeper into Christian Europe, forcing Eudes to turn to his Frankish rival, Charles
Martel. As a result, Eudes and Charles Martel joined forces and defeated the Mus-
lims at the battle of Tours in 732, a victory that did not end Muslim raids but greatly
diminished their threat to Aquitaine and the Frankish kingdom. Although Eudes
played a key role in the battle, the real winner was Charles Martel who was her-
alded throughout Christendom for defeating the Muslims. He took advantage of his
victory and further pressured Eudes, who retired to a monastery in 735 and died
that year or, possibly as late as 740. His successor was forced to swear fealty to
Charles Martel, reducing further the independence of the duchy that Eudes worked
so hard to secure.
See also: Aquitaine; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Merovingian Dynasty; Tours,
Battle of

Bibliography
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Euric (c. 420–484)

Visigothic king who ruled over much of southern Gaul (now the south of France)
and parts of Spain from his capital at Toulouse. Euric broke a long-standing alliance
with the Romans and established an independent kingdom within the boundaries
248 | Euric

of the Western Empire that was one of the first and most successful successor
kingdoms; it had a population of some 10 million people and an area of some
300,000 square miles. A successful warrior, Euric commissioned a legal code, the
Codex Euricianus (Code of Euric), with the aid of Roman jurist. He was also an
Arian Christian and, unlike his predecessors as kings of Toulouse, pursued an anti-
Catholic religious policy that alienated his Roman subjects.
Euric seized power over the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse, which had formed as
a federate ally of the empire around 418, in 466 when he murdered his brother The-
odoric II. The assassination was most likely not over political or religious policy,
but rather was a simple power grab by Euric. His thirst for power was further re-
vealed in his relations with the Romans and other barbarian peoples in the coming
decades. In the opening years of his reign, Euric negotiated with other barbarians
against the Romans and ended the treaty the Visigoths of Toulouse had with the
Western Empire. In 468 and again in 472 and 473, Euric sent armies into Spain,
where they had great success, capturing cities such as Pamplona and Tarragona to
the west and along the coast, respectively.
Ultimately, Euric controlled nearly all of the Iberian peninsula, seizing it from
both Roman and barbarian powers. In 469 he sent armies into northern Gaul, and
from 471 to 475 he continued the conquest of much of Gaul. By 475, Euric had
extended his power across a region that stretched from the Atlantic coast to the
Loire and Rhone rivers. His wars to the north included struggles with the Franks,
who had already made overtures toward expansion into that region. Euric’s power
was at its height, and he commanded both land and naval forces; this successful
naval command was unique among the unseaworthy Visigoths and reveals the
extent of Euric’s success. Moreover, many former Roman military leaders had
joined Euric’s army, which only enhanced his power and reputation. A new treaty
between the empire and the kingdom of Toulouse was signed in 475, which recog-
nized the new state of affairs. When Roman government was ended in the Western
Empire in 476, Euric waged war against Odovacar, then king in Italy, to force the
new power to recognize the Goth’s claim in Gaul. And despite aid from barbarian
allies of the empire, Odovacar was forced to accept Euric’s claims. After creat-
ing a great kingdom, Euric died quietly in late 484, and was succeeded by his son
Alaric II (r. 484–507).
Along with the creation of a sizeable kingdom in the remnants of the West-
ern Empire, Euric is best remembered for his legal code. Although uncertainty
remains about whether the existing code is the one promulgated by Euric, it is
certain that in 475 the king issued a series of laws. The code was written in Latin
with the help of Roman lawyers, but did not adopt the Roman legal tradition,
which was best represented by the codification of Justinian in the next century.
Euric’s codification did not involve only tribal law, however, but did include royal
statutory law. Although not universal tribal law, the Codex Euricianus, was, most
 Euric | 249

likely, universal in scope and applied equally to Euric’s Visigothic and Roman
subjects. The code itself addressed a wide variety of issues, including the use of
charters, last wills, lending and borrowing, and other matters concerning relations
between Romans and Visigoths. The law code also recognized, for the first time,
the institution of private retainers.
In terms of religious policy, as with relations toward Rome, Euric’s reign marked
a change in Visigothic practice. Unlike his predecessors, who had adopted a policy
of tolerating and cooperating with their Catholic Christian subjects, Euric took
a harder, less tolerant line. Although to identify his policy as one of systematic
persecution of Catholic Christians may be an exaggeration, his attitude toward the
Catholic church in his kingdom was hostile. He prohibited the bishops of his realm
from communicating with Rome. He prevented the appointment of new Catholic
bishops to various sees in his kingdom and banished others, including the arch-
bishop of Bourges. He took steps to restrict the ability of the Catholic church and
its clergy to operate freely and was accused of keeping churches deserted. But his
opposition to the church moderated somewhat after the empire recognized his ter-
ritorial conquests. Euric’s restrictions on the church were, in part, the result of his
inability to incorporate it into the state. Once the political situation eased, so did
his oppression of the church associated with the empire. That notwithstanding,
his earlier hostility toward the church caused tension between him and his Roman
subjects that undermined his ability to govern.
See also: Alaric II; Arianism; Justinian; Odovacar; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
Longman, 1983.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2nd rev.
ed. Trans. Guido Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Thompson, Edward A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
F
Family

As in all societies throughout history, the family was the basic building block of late
antique and early medieval society. The structure, definition, and size of families,
however, evolved over time, as the nature of society itself changed. That notwith-
standing, the family remained an important institution throughout the period, even
when the ascetic and monastic movement emerged and challenged conventional
family life. Indeed, during the fourth to eighth centuries the family became an
even more stable and important institution, and the evolution of marriage customs
in the same period further reinforced the structure of the family and its importance
in society.
According to Tacitus (c. 56–117), the Roman moralist and historian, the premi-
gration Germanic family was a tight-knit unit. He notes that mothers nursed their
own children, who often ran about naked and dirty, which allowed them to develop
their bodies fully. Children were raised with minimal pampering and were only
married once they had reached maturity. Adultery was rare, according to the Roman
writer, and women caught in adultery were severely punished. The importance of
the marriage vow and of family was taken very seriously, and women were expected
to share in their husbands’ labors in the field and even in war. Not only was the
nuclear family bound closely together, but the extended family was as well. Mem-
bers of the family were expected to participate in family feuds, and nieces “are as
highly honored by their uncles as by their own fathers” (118). This idyllic picture,
which may have more to do with Tacitus’s desire to criticize contemporary Roman
mores than any desire to reveal the reality of the Germanic situation, bears a grain of
truth; the close bonds of the family in later barbarian Europe supports the portrayal
in Tacitus of the premigration German family.
The family of the early Middle Ages was shaped not only by premigration Ger-
manic tradition, but also by Roman and Christian traditions. Indeed, as the various
Germanic peoples settled in the former Western Empire, they came into contact
with Roman legal traditions and Christian views of the family. According to Roman
law, the father was the paterfamilias, who had complete control over all his chil-
dren as long as he lived. Although the life-and-death authority once exercised by the
Roman father—according to legend, the founder of the Republic, Brutus, executed
his own son for the son’s betrayal of the city—no longer was in force by the fourth
century of the Common Era, the father retained significant power in the family,

251
252 | Family

which reinforced Germanic tendencies in that regard. Christian teachings empha-

sized friendship and charity within the family, and Christian theologians strove to
define the importance of marriage, creating the monogamous traditions that shaped
marriage and the family by the eighth century.
In the early Middle Ages, however, the family was in a somewhat fluid state
owing to the various marriage customs of the Germanic peoples. Indeed, loose mar-
ital practices allowed for a much broader definition of family than that of a mother,
father, and children. Polygyny was practiced, at least by kings and nobles, into the
eighth century, and all children were welcomed by their father; illegitimate children
even shared in the inheritance. Indeed, Charles Martel was born to an illicit union
and rose to command the Frankish kingdom in the early eighth century. And the
history of Gregory of Tours is filled with the multiple marriages of the Merovin-
gian kings and their numerous concubines and children. This situation changed,
however, under the Carolingian dynasty, which sought to promote monogamous
marriages and thus stabilized family structure.
The family was also an economic unit. Marriages involved exchanges of often
significant amounts of moveable wealth and property and were arranged to promote
the economic interests of both sides. The family household was the center of much
economic activity. It was there that the basic economic activities of the period took
place. Cooking, brewing beer, baking, and spinning were done in the home. Women
also prepared candles, soap, and other necessities for the family, and animal hus-
bandry and farming were performed at this level. And all members of the family
participated in the economic activity of the household. At the head of the household
was the father, and all members of the family were subject to his authority.
It has been customary to maintain that children were raised with little sentimen-
tality or affection. Indeed, it has been suggested that the chances for the survival
of children were so slim that it is likely that little attention was paid to them be-
fore they were seven years old or so and that even then they were treated roughly.
Corporal punishment, as contemporary legal codes reveal, was practiced, fathers
could sell their children into slavery, and there is even some indication that infan-
ticide was practiced, as it had been in ancient times. This view, however, has been
challenged, and anecdotes from the histories of Einhard, Gregory of Tours, and
others suggest that there was a great deal of family affection in the early Middle
Ages. Charlemagne, for example, loved his daughters so dearly that he would not
let them marry and always kept them by his side. He would go riding and hunting
with them, and loved them and the illegitimate children they had with members of
the royal court. Moreover, even the most ferocious Merovingian queens, Brunhilde
and Fredegund, revealed their maternal sides quite clearly in the protection of their
children. They struggled mightily against each other to promote the interests of
their sons, and Brunhilde wrote the emperor tearfully seeking his aid in protecting
 Fastrada | 253

her daughter, who had been lost in North Africa. The situation of children was also
improved by the reforms of the Carolingian dynasty, which strengthened marital
practices and family structure.
See also: Brunhilde; Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Einhard; Franks; Fredegund; Gregory
of Tours; Marriage; Merovingian Dynasty; Women

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. New York:
Harper and Row, 1987.
Goody, Jack. The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Tacitus. The Agricola and the Germania. Trans. Harold Mattingly. Rev. trans. S. A.
Hanford. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Fastrada (d. 794)

The third wife of the great Carolingian king Charlemagne, Fastrada played a criti-
cal role in her husband’s reign, according to the biographer Einhard. She was from
the eastern part of the Frankish empire, and her marriage to Charlemagne dem-
onstrates the position of women and marriage in the Carolingian kingdom in the
eighth century. She also appears in a most negative light in Einhard’s biography of
Charlemagne.
After the death of Charlemagne’s second wife, Hildegard, in 783, the great king
married Fastrada. She was the daughter of a powerful east Frankish count, and
the marriage between Charlemagne and Fastrada was an important political ar-
rangement, one that reconciled the king to the powerful east Frankish nobility.
The marriage produced two daughters, Theoderada and Hiltrude, of whom little
else is known. Useful as the marriage may have been politically, Fastrada herself
influenced political events, if Einhard is to be believed, less positively. He accused
the queen of great cruelty and of influencing her husband to perpetrate actions
254 | Fontenoy, Battle of

“fundamentally opposed to his normal kindness and good nature” (76). As a result,
Charlemagne faced two conspiracies during his marriage to Fastrada. The first re-
volt occurred in 785 and involved a number of nobles from the eastern part of the
kingdom, and the second involved his favorite bastard, Pippin the Hunchback, in
792. Both revolts were suppressed, and Einhard blames the revolts on Fastrada
and her negative influence on Charlemagne. Although Fastrada’s exact role in the
origins of the two revolts is unclear, it is likely that she had some influence on her
husband and, at the very least, played an important role in the creation of marriage
alliances in the Carolingian kingdom.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Einhard; Franks; Marriage; Women

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Collins, Roger. Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Fontenoy, Battle of (841)

A major engagement during the civil war between the surviving sons of Louis
the Pious, the Battle of Fontenoy was a brutal and bloody struggle. The battle oc-
curred on June 25, 841, and involved the emperor Lothar and his nephew Pippin II
of Aquitaine (d. 864) against the kings Charles the Bald and Louis the German.
Although the battle was terrible and resulted in the defeat of Lothar, it proved not
to be decisive; Lothar continued to struggle against his brothers. However, the out-
come of the battle can be described. It was recognized as a significant contest by
contemporaries and is memorialized in poetry and in the history of Nithard, a com-
batant in the battle.
According to Nithard, the battle was the result of fortuitous circumstances
for Charles the Bald and Louis the German in late spring 841, as well as of the
 Fontenoy, Battle of | 255

unwillingness of Lothar to agree to peace. Indeed, Lothar refused to make any con-
cessions to his brothers concerning the government of the empire and refused to
limit his powers as emperor. He was bolstered in his defiance by the arrival of his
nephew Pippin II, whose troops and opposition to Charles strengthened Lothar’s
cause. Charles and Louis, however, also enjoyed good fortune when they were able
to join their armies together, and Judith, Charles’s mother and widow of Louis the
Pious, had also recently arrived with a sizeable force.
The growth of the armies on both sides increased tensions between them and
made battle between them more likely. Even though contemporary accounts make
it seem that war was unavoidable, Charles and Louis attempted to negotiate a set-
tlement and sent peace offers to Lothar on June 23. His refusal forced his brothers
to prepare for battle on June 25. According to Nithard, they returned to camp to
celebrate the feast day of St. John the Baptist (June 24). This was surely regarded
as an omen by the two kings, who sought the judgment of God in battle and knew
that the liturgy of the feast of St. John celebrated release and salvation. Charles and
Louis then made ready for battle the next day, which they planned to begin at the
eighth hour. As Nithard notes, the armies rose at dawn and established their posi-
tions, and two hours later the battle began. Both sides fought bitterly, and casualties
were heavy. Both Louis and Charles enjoyed success during the battle, and Lothar
and his army were forced from the field.
For Charles and Louis, divine judgment had been rendered. They had defeated
their brother and secured their positions in the empire. The victory reinforced their
alliance, which was confirmed in the Oath of Strasbourg in the next year. The bat-
tle also secured Charles’s political survival and strengthened his hold on Aquitaine
and the western Frankish kingdom, which he claimed as part of his legacy from
Louis the Pious. But the battle was not the decisive victory for which Charles and
Louis had hoped. Despite the overwhelming defeat he suffered, Lothar managed to
continue the war against his brothers and insisted on his authority over the entire
empire.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Judith; Lothar; Louis the German; Louis
the Pious; Nithard; Strasbourg, Oath of

Bibliography
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
256 | Franks

Franks

A group of West Germanic peoples, the Franks became the most important of all
the barbarians to establish a kingdom in the old Roman Empire. In two succes-
sive dynasties, the Merovingian and Carolingian, the Franks ruled large sections
of Europe from the late fifth to the late tenth century and laid the foundation for
medieval and modern France and Germany. They emerged along the Rhine River
in two main groups: the Ripuarian Franks along the Middle Rhine, and the more
important Salian Franks along the Lower Rhine. Their origins remain obscure, as
demonstrated by the uncertain meaning of their name, which has been interpreted to
mean “the brave,” “the fierce,” “the wild,” and “the free.” The last term may provide
the key to the best understanding of their origins as small tribal groups of Germans
living along the Rhine who had not been made subject to other barbarian peoples.
Whatever their exact origins, the Franks went on to become the most important and
influential of the successors of the Roman Empire and boasted a long line of illus-
trious kings and queens, including Clovis, Clothild, Brunhilde, Fredegund, Pippin
the Short, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious.
The Franks themselves developed the legend that their origins could be traced
back to the Trojans, thus giving them an origin as impressive as that claimed by
the Romans. This tale was as legendary as that of Rome’s Trojan origins, and the
Franks appear in history for the first time in the third century, when they exploited
the weakness of the Roman Empire and invaded Gaul. They ravaged throughout
much of Gaul in the later 250s and even reached the borders of modern Spain.
They seized much booty before being defeated by Roman armies. The Franks
continued to cause problems for the empire throughout the third century, until
the empire managed to settle its own internal crisis. At that point, under the great
emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305), the Franks, and many other Germanic invad-
ers, were defeated and settled. The Franks themselves concluded a treaty with the
empire that allowed them to settle as foederati (federated allies) of the empire.
During the fourth and fifth centuries the Franks maintained a mixed relationship
with the Roman Empire. Many Franks served in the Roman armies and rose high
in the military and civil ranks of the empire. They often supported the empire dur-
ing invasions by other peoples and were instrumental in the defense of Gaul. In-
deed, they joined with the Romans against the invasion of Attila the Hun and fought
against the Huns in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451, a critical battle in
the history of the empire. In the fifth century, however, the Franks also struck back
against the empire. In 406, when the Rhine frontier collapsed, the Franks and many
other Germanic peoples crossed into the empire to begin carving out territories for
themselves. At the same time, a group of Salian Franks located at Tournai began to
rise to power. And it was this group of the Salian Franks, under the leadership of
the ancestors of the Merovingian dynasty, that rose to predominance; the greatest
 Franks | 257

king of the Merovingian line, Clovis, then gradually established a great kingdom
across much of northern Europe.
The Merovingian dynasty lasted from the time of Clovis (r. 481–511) until the
time of Childeric III (r. 743–751). The kingdom formed by the kings of this line
extended from their traditional homeland across much of modern France. Their
success was due, in part, to the conversion of their first king, Clovis, to Catho-
lic Christianity rather than Arian Christianity, which most of the other barbarians
chose and which differed from the Catholic Christianity of the Roman population.
The dynasty was ultimately replaced by the Carolingian dynasty. The first Caro-
lingian king, Pippin the Short, deposed the last of the Merovingian kings and as-
sumed the throne in 751. He was succeeded by his son, Charlemagne, the greatest
of the Carolingian line, who built a great empire, initiated a religious and cultural
revival, and was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III on December 25, 800. The dy-
nasty survived until 987.
The Franks, unlike many of their barbarian contemporaries like the Huns, were
not horsemen, and their military was comprised mainly of foot soldiers. But like
their contemporaries they were nonliterate—literacy and all that accompanies it
came only with contact with the Romans. They did have law, or at least custom,
which was first codified under Clovis in the Salic law. They also seem to have traded
with the Romans, at least in the fifth century, because of the Roman glassware found
in many Frankish graves of that period. Grave goods, especially those found at the
royal tomb of Tournai, tell us other important things about the early Franks, not the
least of which is that they remained devoted to their traditional gods into the late
fifth century. Christians buried their dead without material goods, but the Franks
buried a variety of goods, including weapons (swords and battle axes), horse heads
with their full harness, gold and silver coins, and gold buckles and jewelry. The
gold jewelry was typical of Germanic metalwork. There were cloisonné brooches
that were made of gold and inlaid with garnets and precious gems. One tomb con-
tained a large number of brooches in the shape of cicadas, which were symbols of
eternal life. The buckles and other jewelry were also decorated with designs, often
elongated animal designs know as the “ribbon animal style.”
See also: Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Childeric III; Clotilda; Clovis;
Fredegund; Jewelry and Gems; Gregory of Tours; Louis the Pious; Merovingian Dynasty;
Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Tournai

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S., trans. Liber historiae Francorum. Lawrence, KS: Coronado, 1973.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
258 | Fredegar

James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.

Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Fredegar (fl. c. 642)

Name associated with an anonymous Burgundian chronicler of the mid-seventh

century, who is the most important source for Frankish history after Gregory of
Tours. The chronicle attributed to Fredegar, traditionally divided into four books,
is a composed of various other sources, including Gregory’s history, compiled by
as many as three authors. Most scholars, however, detect only two authors at work.
The important and original section of the work is the fourth book, which chronicles
events from 591 to 642. It thus provides important information on the Merovingian
kings of the early seventh century as well as on the formative period of the Caro-
lingian family. Sometime in the eighth century Fredegar’s chronicle was taken up
by another anonymous author, who continued the history to 768, the first year of
the reign of Charlemagne.
Little is known of the author or authors of the work, and the name Fredegar is as-
sociated with manuscripts of the work only in the 16th century. From evidence in his
chronicle, however, it is possible to suggest that Fredegar, or at least the author of
the new material on the seventh century, was a Burgundian layman of some standing
who was active in the 640s and may have died around 660. He clearly had access
to royal archives and to ambassadors from Lombard, Visigoth, and Slavic lands. He
also had access to church archives, even though his focus was not that of a cleric.
His Latin, in Wallace-Hadrill’s words, was “highly individual,” and other commen-
tators have said much worse. But the chronicle, especially the fourth book, remains
a most important source of information for a pivotal point in Frankish history.
The work itself is mostly derivative, with the exception of the original fourth
book. The first three books, or five chronicles depending upon the arrangement of
the text, are drawn from a number of earlier chroniclers and historians, with oc-
casional editorial remarks and interpolations by the chronicler. Fredegar included
works of St. Jerome, Isidore of Seville, and Gregory of Tours, and other Frankish
chroniclers, among others. The fourth book, or sixth chronicle, is Fredegar’s own
 Fredegund | 259

and shows a remarkable knowledge not only of Frankish political life but also of
affairs in the Byzantine Empire. Although haphazardly organized and not writ-
ten on an annual basis as the chronicle format would suggest, the work nonethe-
less captures a vital moment in the history of the Merovingian dynasty. Fredegar’s
chronicle begins with the last years of Queen Brunhilde, whom Fredegar clearly
dislikes; he must have recorded her grisly demise with some pleasure. His great
heroes were Chlotar II, who overthrew Brunhilde, and his son Dagobert I, and it
is thanks to Fredegar that we know a good deal about their reigns. It is also in the
fourth book of Fredegar’s chronicle that the famous legend of Frankish origins
appears. According to Fredegar, the Franks were of Trojan origin, a legend that
became very popular among the Franks and was probably well known in learned
circles in Fredegar’s time.
The work was continued in the eighth century, taking up where Fredegar left
off and chronicling Frankish affairs in the early years of the Carolingian dynasty,
and in the ninth century it became increasingly popular. It remains one of the most
important sources of the history of the Frankish kingdoms in the seventh century.
See also: Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Chlotar II; Dagobert; Gregory of
Tours; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar
with Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.

Fredegund (d. 597)

Wife and mother of the Merovingian kings Chilperic I and Chlotar II, respectively,
Fredegund was one of the great queens of the dynasty. She was also one of the most
ruthless and ambitious Frankish queens, and her rise to power illustrates the flex-
ibility of marriage customs among the Merovingian rulers and the opportunity these
customs offered some women. She was probably a slave at court before becoming
Chilperic’s lover and, eventually, wife. Often motivated by the defense of her hus-
band and children, she surely desired power for her own ends. She is best known,
perhaps, for her long feud with a rival Merovingian queen, Brunhilde, and Brun-
hilde’s husband Sigebert. This rivalry and Fredegund’s ruthlessness are revealed in
all their bloodthirstiness in the pages of the history of Gregory of Tours, whose great
animosity toward Fredegund continues to shape historical estimates of the queen.
260 | Fredegund

Fredegund rose to prominence in the Merovingian kingdom because of her rela-

tionship with King Chilperic. As a slave, Fredegund became the mistress and, pos-
sibly, wife of Chilperic around 566, before his marriage to the Visigothic Spanish
princess, Galswintha. Although marriage to low-born women was not uncommon
among Merovingian rulers, this custom was abrogated by Chilperic’s brother, King
Sigebert, who married Galswintha’s sister Brunhilde. Jealous of his brother’s suc-
cess, Chilperic arranged a marriage with Galswintha and, according to Gregory
of Tours, loved her dearly at first because she brought a large dowry with her. Ap-
parently, Chilperic continued his relationship with Fredegund after his marriage to
Galswintha, which led the Visigothic princess to complain bitterly to her husband
about her treatment. Chilperic had Galswintha murdered, keeping the dowry, so that
he could remain with Fredegund.
Although there is some dispute over the nature of the feud between Fredegund
and Brunhilde, it is certain that Fredegund took great pains to protect herself and
Chilperic from Brunhilde and her husband Sigebert. When it appeared that Sige-
bert was about to overwhelm Chilperic in battle and seize his kingdom, Fredegund
had her husband’s rival murdered. She also attempted to kill Brunhilde on numer-
ous occasions, but repeatedly failed. For example, according to Gregory of Tours,
at one point she sent a cleric to kill Brunhilde, but he was discovered and returned
to Fredegund, who punished him by cutting off his hands and feet. Despite her best
efforts, Fredegund could not strike down her rival, and in fact she was survived by
Brunhilde. Of course, Fredegund could claim the satisfaction of causing the death
of two of Brunhilde’s husbands. Shortly after the murder of Sigebert, Brunhilde
married Merovech, the son of Chilperic from an earlier marriage. Merovech and
Brunhilde hoped that the marriage would advance their own political agendas, but
that hope failed to materialize, as Fredegund and Chilperic hunted down Merovech,
who ordered one of his servants to kill him.
Fredegund’s murders, however, were not limited to Brunhilde’s husbands and
were not committed in defense of Chilperic alone. Indeed, according to one con-
temporary chronicler, Fredegund murdered Chilperic in 584 when the king learned
that she was having an affair with one of his advisors. Fredegund also arranged the
murder of Chilperic’s sons by other wives. She caused the death of Merovech and
also ordered the murder of her stepson Clovis, who was allegedly conspiring against
his father. These murders were ostensibly committed to protect Chilperic against
renegade sons, but they also promoted the interest of Fredegund’s sons, especially
Chlotar. Although she caused the death of two of his sons, Chilperic found Frede-
gund to be a useful ally. She not only plotted the murder of his major rival, Sige-
bert, but also struck against many bishops and nobles who were deemed a threat
to Chilperic’s power. Ambitious and calculating for her own interests, Fredegund
provided valuable services to her husband.
Although she sometimes seemed to promote her own interests beyond all others,
Fredegund was nonetheless careful to protect her own children and could react in
 Fredegund | 261

dramatic and emotional ways to their misfortune. When two of her sons, Chlodobert
and Dagobert, were stricken with dysentery, she believed it was divine punishment
for Chilperic’s new taxation and destroyed the tax registers to save her sons. Their
death drove her to great despair and an extended period of mourning. On another
occasion, Fredegund tortured and murdered a large number of women in Paris,
whom she accused of causing the death of her son Theuderic by witchcraft. To save
her son Chlotar when he became seriously ill, Fredegund made a large donation
to the church of St. Martin of Tours in the hope that the saint would intervene on
behalf of her son. Chlotar, to her relief, survived. She also provided a large dowry
for her daughter Rigunth before her daughter’s departure for marriage in Spain,
and she fell into a terrible rage when she learned that Rigunth had been despoiled
of her wealth by her betrothed. Her maternal record, however, is not without blem-
ish. After Rigunth returned from Spain, the two women quarreled constantly, and
Fredegund tried to murder her daughter. And she rejected her newborn Samson.
She feared she would die and refused to nurse her son, whom Chilperic baptized
shortly before the infant died.
After the murder of Chilperic in 584, Fredegund’s position was most insecure
and she had to use all her talents to preserve her place and secure the succession
for her son Chlotar. She took control of Chilperic’s treasure, which aided her bid
to maintain control for herself and her son. She also continued to attempt assassi-
nations of her rivals, particularly Brunhilde, as well as various nobles and bishops.
The most serious challenge came when the paternity of Chlotar was questioned.
She managed to rally to her side a large number of nobles and three bishops, who
supported the legitimacy of Chlotar and allowed her to assume the regency for her
son. She also led armies in battle when her son’s part of the kingdom was threatened
by rival Merovingians. And despite her life of brutality and ruthlessness, Fredegund
died peacefully in 597, reconciled with Guntram, the most important Merovingian
king of the time. Her efforts to secure power for herself and her son proved success-
ful, and she even triumphed over her rival posthumously, when Chlotar overthrew
and executed Brunhilde in 613. Her career, thus, demonstrates the opportunities
that Merovingian marriage customs offered ambitious women and also reveals the
importance of family, especially of sons, to Merovingian queens.
See also: Brunhilde; Chilperic I; Chlotar II; Columban, St.; Galswintha; Gregory of Tours;
Merovingian Dynasty; Visigoths

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
262 | Fritigern

Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Fritigern (fourth century)

Leader of the Gothic Tervingi (r. 376–380) and rival of Athanaric, Fritigern is best
known as the commander of the Gothic armies that destroyed the Roman army
led by the emperor Valens at the Battle of Hadrianople in 378. His opposition to
Athanaric caused repeated problems for that Gothic judge, whose office, though
royal, was of limited power, and led to a division of the Goths in 376. His victory
over Valens was a serious, but not fatal, blow to the Roman Empire and caused im-
portant changes in the relationship between Rome and the barbarian peoples inside
and outside the empire’s boundaries.
During the struggles between the empire and Athanaric in the 360s and 370s,
Fritigern emerged as a rival to Athanaric and an advocate of a pro-Roman policy.
Fritigern, a figure of equal stature to Athanaric among the Goths, rose up against
the Gothic ruler after a war with the Romans in the late 360s. Fritigern adopted a
pro-Christian stance, and was perhaps supported by the famous missionary Ulfilas,
during Athanaric’s persecutions in the early 370s. Fritigern’s support for the Chris-
tians may have been the result of a personal bond with the emperor Valens, who was
an Arian Christian. The course of the rebellion remains unclear, it but was probably
suppressed by the time of the arrival of the Huns in the mid-370s.
The Hunnish advance afforded Fritigern another opportunity to oppose the rule
of Athanaric. The Gothic judge had some initial success against the invaders but
was bested in battle by them. Athanaric also lost important territory to the Huns
and had his supply lines cut off by them. The devastation caused by war with the
Romans and Huns made things extremely difficult for the Goths. In the summer of
376, in response to the crisis brought on by the Huns, Fritigern proposed that the
Goths turn to the Romans for help. He persuaded most of Athanaric’s followers to
abandon their leader and join Fritigern and enter into the empire. Athanaric’s long
struggle with the Romans made it difficult for him to seek the empire’s support,
and he withdrew to the Carpathian Mountains. But Fritigern successfully petitioned
Valens for support and was allowed to settle in the empire as an ally (foederatus) in
376 with some 80,000 Goths. Fritigern had successfully taken control of the Gothic
Tervingi, and in the summer of 376 took the fateful step when he and his followers
crossed the frontier into the empire.
Fritigern’s welcome into the empire was less than enthusiastic, however, and al-
most immediately difficulties arose, difficulties that brought the Goths and Romans
to war. These problems included the incompetence of local administrators to deal
 Fritigern | 263

with the sudden influx of people and the great number of Goths involved. Although
Rome had welcomed barbarian peoples into the empire as allies before, they had
never brought so many in at one time. The Goths were expected to serve in the army,
farm, and pay taxes, but the services necessary to accommodate them were lack-
ing and for the next two years, Fritigern and his followers operated freely within
imperial borders. In 378 Valens and the Western emperor Gratian sent an army of
infantry and cavalry of between 30,000 and 40,000 troops to end the threat of Frit-
igern. Valens, however, seeking a victory without his imperial colleague, moved his
troops forward against what he thought were 10,000 warriors, when instead there
were roughly 30,000. Despite warnings from Gratian about Gothic battle tactics,
despite Fritigern’s efforts to reach a peaceful settlement, Valens marched his troops
against the Goths near Adrianople in early August.
On August 9, Valens sent his troops forward without food or water in the boil-
ing sun to meet the Goths, who had set fires along the Romans’ path. Fritigern still
sought to negotiate an agreement, but Roman soldiers, without orders, began a
disorganized attack that proved fatal. The counterattack of the Gothic cavalry was
rapid and forceful, and when other Goths returned from foraging, the assault on
the Romans was made even more terrible. The Romans lost nearly two-thirds of
their army at Hadrianople, and most of the casualties were from the infantry, the
backbone of the Roman military. Among the dead were generals, unit officers, and
the emperor Valens himself.
Fritigern had led his Goths to a smashing victory, but he was unable to exploit the
situation and gradually disappeared from view. Although a tragedy for the empire,
the Battle of Hadrianople was not the catastrophe it is often seen to be, and it had
equally significant consequences for Fritigern. In the wake of the battle, the Gothic
leader faced division within his own ranks, and he was unable to restrict the raids
for plunder that followed the battle. The Romans, led now by Gratian and Theo-
dosius the Great, took steps to limit the destruction the Goths could cause, steps
that included the destruction of a force of Goths in the Roman army. Moreover, an
important member of Athanaric’s clan joined the Romans and led the opposition
to Fritigern, even destroying a large raiding party allied to Fritigern. In response
to these steps, the Goths increased Fritigern’s royal powers, and he increased the
pressure on the empire by extending his raids in Macedonia and northern Greece.
He also engineered a plot against his former rival Athanaric that drove the Gothic
leader into exile.
Despite these successes, Fritigern’s cause was a lost one because of Roman
military might and diplomatic skill. Although unable to stop Fritigern, the Romans
could at least keep him in check militarily. Athanaric’s welcome in Constantinople,
together with the lavish funeral he was given there, was a means for the empire to
display its compassionate side and identify itself as a friend to all Goths. By 382,
when a treaty between Rome and the Goths was signed, Fritigern seems to have
264 | Fritigern

disappeared; no mention was made of him in the treaty. On the other hand, Frit-
igern’s original goal for the Goths was achieved, since the Goths became imperial
subjects by the terms of the treaty.
See also: Athanaric; Hadrianople, Battle of; Huns; Theodosius; Ulfilas; Visigoths

Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Trans. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1971–1972.
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
G
Gaiseric (c. 390–477)

King of the Alans and Vandals from 428 to 477, Gaiseric was one of the more ambi-
tious and cunning of the Germanic peoples who came into contact, or rivalry, with
the Roman Empire. Indeed, Gaiseric, an Arian Christian, seemed less impressed
with the empire and its traditions than did many of his contemporaries. He was
ruthless in his dealings with imperial officials and exploited every opportunity he
was offered. After signing a treaty with the empire, Gaiseric proceeded to violate
it and took control of all of North Africa. His fleet controlled much of the western
Mediterranean, which allowed him to accomplish his most famous, or infamous,
feat—the capture and sacking of Rome in 455.
Writing in the sixth century, Jordanes provides a useful description of Gaiseric’s
physical appearance and personality: “Of medium height, lame from a fall off his
horse, he had a deep mind and was sparing of speech” (Bury 1967, 246). Jordanes
also notes that Gaiseric hated luxury, was covetous, and had an uncontrollable tem-
per. Rounding out his description of Gaiseric, Jordanes notes, “He was far-sighted
in inducing foreign peoples to act in his interests, and resourceful in sowing seeds
of discord and stirring up hatred” (246–247). His many talents overshadowed his
irregular birth—his mother was a slave, possibly of Roman descent—and enabled
him to achieve great success in war. Indeed, he was a most formidable opponent,
at least the rival of Attila, if not more dangerous than the king of the Huns. At the
very least, Gaiseric carved a more lasting kingdom out of the Roman Empire than
did Attila.
Gaiseric’s rise to power in the Mediterranean was aided by the turmoil within
the government of the Roman Empire. In the 420s the Roman general and military
governor in Africa, Boniface, clearly sought to establish himself as ruler of the
empire, or at least an independent ruler in Africa. He successfully defeated armies
led by Roman commanders sent to bring him to heel. But an army sent under the
leadership of the new count of Africa, the Goth Sigisvult, was almost more than
Boniface could handle, and the Goth managed to seize the important cities of Hippo
and Carthage. To secure his position against Sigisvult, Boniface may have sought
an ally in the Vandal leader Gaiseric, and perhaps asked for aid against Sigisvult in
exchange for a share of Africa, an exchange that the Vandal accepted. But the chro-
nology of events and the cause of Gaiseric’s migration to Africa remain unclear.
There is another tradition that authorities in Constantinople invited Gaiseric to

265
266 | Gaiseric

Africa to conquer Boniface. There is also a third version of events that holds that
Gaiseric recognized an opportunity when he saw it and moved all the Vandals and
Alans under his control, traditionally some 80,000, from their base in Spain to Af-
rica in 429. Whatever the case, Gaiseric’s subjects are traditionally held to have
included roughly 15,000 warriors, whose swords Boniface or the imperial authori-
ties hoped to use to their advantage but which were used instead against Boniface
and Roman authority.
Although the numbers may be exaggerated, Gaiseric led a large enough popula-
tion from Spain, where his people had been harassed by their traditional enemies
the Visigoths as well as the Romans. He moved slowly across Africa and managed
gradually, in the course of the 430s, to secure his position there. His first engage-
ment was the siege of Hippo, in May or June of that year. St. Augustine, fearing
for his city and near the end of his own life, may have called on Boniface to pro-
tect Hippo from the Vandals. But the Roman commander, now in the good graces
of the empress Galla Placidia, had little success against Gaiseric, who laid siege
to the city for 14 months. Boniface received reinforcements from Constantinople,
but they were of little help against Gaiseric, who maintained the siege and defeated
imperial armies in engagements outside the city. Although he was forced to call
off the siege before the city fell, Gaiseric demonstrated his abilities against Roman
armies. Moreover, when Boniface was recalled to Italy, Gaiseric was left alone in
Africa. In 435 he settled a treaty with the empire that granted Gaiseric and his Van-
dals much of North Africa and recognized them as foederati (federated allies). Four
years later, in the face of continued turmoil, Gaiseric broke the treaty and marched
against Carthage, which he took with little resistance.
Gaiseric retained control of his new kingdom until his death in 477 and ex-
panded his authority into parts of the western Mediterranean. His conquests were
recognized by a new treaty in 442, which was reinforced by the betrothal of his son
Huneric to Emperor Valentinian III’s daughter Eudocia. This gain was followed by
Gaiseric’s efforts to seize control of other parts of the rapidly deteriorated Western
Empire and make a statement asserting his place in the western Mediterranean. He
may have conspired with Attila and encouraged the Hun to invade Gaul to pun-
ish the Visigoths. In 455, Gaiseric invaded Italy and plundered the city of Rome.
Although the pope, Leo the Great, sought to stop the attack on Rome, as he had two
years earlier in negotiations with Attila, he managed only to extract the concessions
that the Vandals would neither burn the city nor indulge in a massacre. Instead, for
two weeks Gaiseric and his followers plundered the city, taking thousands of pris-
oners and much treasure, including statues, gold, precious gems, and important
ecclesiastical artifacts.
Gaiseric’s assault on the former imperial capital was devastating; it was prob-
ably intended as a message that he was the most powerful ruler in the boundaries
of the old Western Empire and that had to be taken into account. His conquests in
 Galla Placidia | 267

the western Mediterranean included the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and
Sicily. He faced repeated attempts to defeat him, including a massive naval attack
of more than 1,000 ships that was launched by Emperor Leo I (457–474) in coop-
eration with the Western emperor in 468. The attack was a disaster for the empire.
Gaiseric remained in control, and a peace treaty was finally settled between the
Vandal king and the empire in 474. Indeed, over the course of his long reign, Gai-
seric managed to create a powerful and impressive successor kingdom in part of
the old Western Empire. His military skill and personal drive enabled him to create
the most important new political unit in the western Mediterranean, one that lasted
several generations before falling to the conquests of Justinian.
See also: Alans; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Attila the Hun; Carthage; Constantinople; Galla
Placidia; Huns; Jordanes; Justinian; Rome; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, A.D. 395–600. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Clover, Frank M. The Late Roman West and the Vandals. London: Variorum, 1993.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution. Trans. John Moorhead. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Galla Placidia (c. 388–450)

Daughter, sister, and mother of emperors, Galla Placidia played an important role
in Roman politics in the first half of the fifth century. The daughter of Emperor
Theodosius the Great and sister of Honorius, Galla Placidia is perhaps best known
for her marriage to the Visigothic king Ataulf, the brother-in-law and successor of
Alaric. Although the marriage was short lived because of Ataulf’s death, it offered
the possibility of greater union between Ataulf and the empire. Galla Placidia re-
turned to the empire after her husband’s death, where she continued to play a role
in political life and eventually assumed the regency for her son Valentinian III
(425–455).
Galla Placidia was an important figure in the complicated relations between
the Romans and Visigoths in the late fourth and fifth centuries. Held at bay
by her father, Theodosius, and her brother Honorius’s general Stilicho, the
Visigoths exploited the emperor’s weakness after his murder of Stilicho. In 410,
268 | Galla Placidia

the Visigothic king Alaric sacked the city of Rome, and Ataulf, according to con-
temporary accounts, captured Galla Placidia himself and took her as a hostage
once the Visigoths withdrew from Rome. She remained with Ataulf as his people
moved into southern Gaul after the death of Alaric and succession to the throne
by Ataulf. The capture of Galla Placidia enraged Honorius and made the estab-
lishment of good relations between the two difficult. Even though Ataulf turned
over to Honorius a pretender to the throne, Honorius refused to sign a treaty until
Galla Placidia was returned. Ataulf, in response, laid waste to imperial territory
in southern Gaul.
In 414, a significant step was taken by Ataulf and Galla Placidia that had the
potential to change the relationship between the Romans and the Visigoths. In
January of that year, in an elaborate ceremony, Ataulf and Galla Placidia were
married. The wedding was conducted in the Roman fashion, and Ataulf dressed
in the uniform of a Roman general. His wedding gifts to his bride included many
of the spoils of the sack of Rome, such as fifty Roman youths dressed in silk
each carrying gold and precious gems. According to a contemporary account,
Ataulf is supposed to have declared a change of heart in regard to the empire.
Rather than seeking to replace Romania with Gothia as he originally intended,
Ataulf declared that the “unbridled license” of the Goths would not allow this
and therefore he aspired “to the glory of restoring and increasing the Roman
name with Gothic vigor” (Bury 1959, 197). This sudden change of attitude was
most likely the result of the influence of Galla Placidia, who bore a son in 415,
whom they named Theodosius, in honor of his maternal grandfather. The name
was a declaration of the legitimacy of the child and staked his claim to inherit the
imperial throne. Unfortunately, Theodosius died shortly after birth, and Ataulf
was murdered in 416.
Galla Placidia continued to play an important role in Gothic and Roman affairs
after the death of her first husband. Ataulf hoped to remain on good terms with
the Romans and recommended to his brother that should anything happen to
him, Galla Placidia should return to the empire. Although the succession to the
throne after the death of Ataulf was tumultuous, Galla Placidia returned to the
imperial court on January 1, 417, even though Ataulf’s eventual successor, Val-
lia, was hostile to Rome. On her return, and most likely much to her dismay,
Galla Placidia was married to the military commander, Constantius, who was
raised to the status of coemperor by Honorius in 421. But the Eastern emperor
refused to recognize the new emperor and empress in the west, and Constantius
died that same year. Galla Placidia had two children by Constantius, including
the future emperor Valentinian III. Her relations with Honorius, however, became
strained after her second husband’s death, and power struggles ensued between
them. She retained the loyalty of her Gothic guard and used them against her
brother. She was then banished to Constantinople in 425, where she and her son
 Galswintha | 269

were welcomed by Emperor Theodosius II (408–450) who had two years earlier
spurned her.
On the death of Honorius, Galla Placidia and her son returned to the Western
Empire, where she ruled as regent for her young son. She faced numerous chal-
lenges during her years as regent, as well as the years following her son’s major-
ity, when she continued to exercise influence at court. She was troubled by both
imperial politics, especially the rivalry with the powerful general Aëtius, and bar-
barian peoples, including the Vandals. In the early years of the regency of Valen-
tinian, Galla Placidia’s authority was unchallenged. But the successes that Aëtius
enjoyed against the various barbarian peoples challenging the Western Empire
allowed him to force Galla Placidia to make him her chief military commander
in 429. When her son reached his majority, Aëtius’s influence increased, even
though Galla Placidia managed to replace him with a commander of her choice
for a time. The empress’s other great challenge came from Gaiseric and the Van-
dals. During her regency, Gaiseric took advantage of political unrest in Africa and
moved there from Spain with his entire tribe of Vandals. Gaiseric managed to take
control of much of imperial Africa, but did come to terms with Galla Placidia and
signed a treaty in 435. Her last years were spent influencing affairs from behind
the scenes and building churches and other public buildings in the imperial capi-
tal of Ravenna, Italy.
See also: Aëtius; Alaric; Gaiseric; Honoria; Honorius; Rome; Stilicho, Flavius; Vandals;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Hollum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Galswintha (d. 567)

Spanish Visigothic princess, whose marriage with and subsequent murder by the
Merovingian king, Chilperic I, may have caused a terrible blood feud between Gals-
wintha’s sister Brunhilde and Chilperic’s new wife, Fredegund.
The daughter of King Athanagild (r. 550–568), Galswintha was sought after
in marriage by Chilperic after his brother King Sigebert had married Brunhilde.
270 | Galswintha

Sigebert had broken recent Merovingian tradition by seeking marriage with a prin-
cess rather than a lowborn woman. His marriage to Brunhilde brought a woman of
high status and also a sizeable dowry. Although already married to several women,
according to Gregory of Tours, Chilperic sought marriage with Galswintha and
promised the king that he would dismiss all his other wives if he were granted his
request. Athanagild did so and sent Galswintha with a substantial dowry, just as he
had with Brunhilde. Chilperic welcomed and honored his new wife greatly after her
arrival at court. Gregory notes that Chilperic loved Galswintha dearly because “she
had brought a large dowry with her” (222). To honor her new husband, Galswintha
converted from the Arian Christianity practiced in her father’s kingdom to the Cath-
olic Christianity of the Merovingians.
Unfortunately the marriage was not to last; Chilperic still loved Fredegund, ei-
ther a mistress or wife before Galswintha’s arrival. He once again began to favor
Fredegund, and Galswintha complained bitterly. She claimed that Chilperic
showed her no respect and repeatedly asked to be allowed to return home, even
if it meant leaving the dowry behind. Chilperic sought to placate her and denied
his relationship with Fredegund. In the end, however, Chilperic had one of his
servants murder Galswintha so that he could return to Fredegund. He kept the
dowry after the murder and faced the rage of Sigebert and the other Merovingian
kings.
The murder of Galswintha had serious repercussions for Chilperic and the
Merovingian kingdom; civil war broke out shortly after the murder. It is possible
that Sigebert was motivated by his wife’s grief and anger to attack Chilperic. The
bitter struggles between Brunhilde and Fredegund over the next several decades
may also have been rooted in the murder of Galswintha. According to Gregory of
Tours, God rendered judgment over Galswintha some time after her death by per-
forming a miracle at her tomb. Whatever the exact consequences of the murder of
Galswintha were, her life at the Merovingian court demonstrates the flexible nature
of marriage among the Merovingians and the uncertain condition of women, no
matter what their social rank.
See also: Arianism; Brunhilde; Chilperic I; Chlotar II; Fredegund; Gregory of Tours; Mar-
riage; Merovingian Dynasty; Visigoths

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
 Gelasius, Pope | 271

Geats. See Beowulf

Gelasius, Pope (d. 496)

Possibly of African origins, Gelasius was pope from 492 to 496. His papacy is note-
worthy for his defense of Roman authority, Catholic orthodoxy, and the suppression
of paganism in Rome. Gelasius is perhaps best known for the so-called doctrine of
two swords, which defined the proper relationship between church and state and
which was highly influential throughout the Middle Ages.
Upon assuming the papal throne on March 1, 492, Gelasius was faced with
the continuing challenge of the Acacian Schism that had erupted during the reign
of his predecessor. The schism was begun during the reign of the Emperor Zeno
and the patriarch Acacius, who had attempted to quiet religious controversy in
the empire but in so doing drifted toward heterodoxy. The emperor himself had
issued an edict confirming this apparent error 10 years before the accession of
Gelasius. In reaction to the ongoing controversy, Gelasius wrote a letter to Zeno’s
successor Anastasius defining the nature of the authority of the pope and the em-
peror: “there are two, august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the
sacred authority of the priesthood and the royal power. Of these the responsibil-
ity of the priests is the far more weighty. . .You know, most clement son, that al-
though you take precedence over all mankind in dignity, nevertheless you piously
bow the neck to those who have charge of divine affairs.” Gelasius asserted the
primacy of the priesthood in religious matters and reminded the emperor that it
was the pope’s responsibility, not the emperor’s, to define the faith. Although the
two powers were instituted by Christ and were to exist side by side, the priestly
authority had the greater duty because it was responsible for the salvation of the
soul. Independent in his own sphere, the king or emperor is subordinate to the
authority of the priesthood and its greatest representative, the pope. Gelasius as-
serted both the supremacy of the clergy in the world and the primacy of the pa-
pacy in the church.
Along with his letter to the emperor, Gelasius wrote numerous other letters, some
42 are extant as are fragments of some 49 others, and treatises. His many letters,
among the most written by a pope up until that point, helped confirm the position
of the pope as the arbiter in matters of the faith. According to his official biogra-
phy, he wrote books against the heretics Nestorius and Eutyches and another two
books against the heretic Arius along with a number of hymns and prayers for the
sacraments.
As pope, Gelasius sought to ensure the integrity of Rome as a Christian city.
In 495, he issued his condemnation of the Lupercalia. An ancient pagan festival,
the Lupercalia celebrated the founding of the city and honored the she-wolf who
272 | Genevieve, St.

suckled the city’s founder. The festival traditionally involved young boys running
through the streets naked and striking women and girls to ensure their fertility. In
a letter to the Roman senator, Andromachus, an advocate of the festival, Gelasius
traced its history and character and pointed out the Lupercalia’s failure to protect
and purify the city.
See also: Constantinople; Rome; Zeno

Bibliography
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety
Roman Bishops to A.D. 715. Trans. Raymond Davis. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University
Press, 1989.
Canning, Joseph. A History of Medieval Political Thought, 300–1450. London:
Routledge, 1996.
Llewllyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 1993.
Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1964.
Ullmann, Walter. A History of Political Thought: The Middle Ages. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin Books, 1965.

Genevieve, St. (419 or 422–512)

The patron saint of Paris, Genevieve (also known as Genovefa) is best known for
her efforts on behalf of the people of Paris and her ties to early Merovingian kings.
Born in Nanterre to Severus and Gerontia, simple peasants according to tradition,
Genevieve expressed from her youth a desire to live a pious life. In 429, St. Germain
of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes preached in Nanterre and encouraged her to take
up the life of a nun. She eventually took the veil and on her parents’ death moved to
Paris to live with her godmother. Although at first criticized by the people of Paris,
Genevieve came recognized for her piety and was given charge by the bishop of
Paris of a community of virgins. In 451 as Attila and his Huns threatened the city,
Genevieve encouraged the people of Paris to stay in their homes and pray for the
city. Many believed that it was her intervention that caused Attila to turn away from
Paris and move against Orleans.
When the Franks under Childeric laid siege to the city, Genevieve again offered
comfort to the people of Paris by arranging the delivery of supplies of food from
nearby Troyes to avert starvation. Her efforts on behalf of the city endeared her to
the Franks and gained her the devotion of Childeric’s son, Clovis, the founder of
the Merovingian dynasty. Perhaps under her influence, Clovis founded a convent
for her and built a church dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul. Upon her death in 512,
 Germanic Religion | 273

Genevieve was buried next to Clovis in that church and the miracles that occurred
over her tomb led to naming of the church after her.
See also: Attila; Clovis; Huns; Merovingian Dynasty; Paris

Bibliography
McNamara, Jo Ann, John E. Holberg, and Gordon Whatley, eds. Sainted Women of the
Dark Ages. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.

Germanic Religion

A collection of beliefs, practices, and heroic tales about the gods, humankind, and
nature, Germanic religion was at the core of barbarian culture prior to the conver-
sion of the barbarians to Christianity. Current knowledge of Germanic religion
is based on versions of these myths set down in writing long after their original
creation; the myths are best preserved in Scandinavian literature because the bar-
barian peoples of northern Europe were the last to convert to Christianity. Infor-
mation about Germanic religion is also found in the works of ancient Roman and
medieval authors, most notably Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Jordanes, and the Vener-
able Bede. Evidence from ancient burial sites and other archeological artifacts also
provides information concerning early Germanic religious beliefs. The myths and
legends of Germanic religion often tell tales of heroic virtues, describe many dif-
ferent gods and their personalities, and outline the ultimate end of the universe.
Although the various Germanic peoples that entered the Roman Empire and its
successor kingdoms ultimately converted to one form of Christianity or another,
it is likely that their understanding of their new faith was much shaped by their
traditional beliefs.
According to the classical Roman writer Tacitus, the ancient Germans wor-
shipped many gods who were similar to the gods of ancient Rome. Tacitus notes
that the Germans worship Mercury “above all other gods,” whom they honor with
human sacrifices, probably captured prisoners of war, on high feast days. They also
worshipped Hercules and Mars and sacrificed animals to them. These sacrifices
to the gods took place, according to Tacitus and later literature, in sacred groves
of trees or in wooden temples. Although influenced by his own society’s beliefs
and practices, Tacitus probably revealed the actual beliefs of the ancient Germans.
Archeological evidence supports the widespread veneration of a fire god, and it is
likely that Tacitus gave Roman names to deities honored by the early barbarians.
His Mercury was probably the god Woden (or Odin) who was the chief of the gods,
and Mars and Hercules probably represented the gods Tiwaz, a war god, and Thor,
a god of thunder and champion of the gods.
274 | Germanic Religion

Viking stele from Tjangvide Gotland, ninth century, showing the god Woden (Odin) on
his eight-legged horse Sleipnir, assisted by Valkyrie. The structure on the left is believed to
represent Valhalla. (© Charles & Josette Lenars/Corbis)

The pantheon of the gods of Germanic religion, however, is much larger than the
three main deities mentioned by Tacitus. Indeed, Tacitus himself in another section
of his Germania describes Nerthus, the earth mother who rides a chariot among
the people. She is worshipped in a sacred grove and, as Tacitus reports, is secretly
bathed in a lake by slaves after a procession; the slaves are then drowned in the same
lake. Tacitus also mentions the Alci, who are compared with the Roman equine gods
Castor and Pollux, and Manus, who is the ancestor of all the Germanic peoples.
Among other important deities is Balder, or Baldr, who is the subject of one of the
great and moving tales of the gods. A son of the chief of the gods, Balder dreamt
of his death; his mother tried to protect him by extracting an oath not to harm him
from all creatures except the mistletoe. Balder’s brother, Hoder, was persuaded to
throw a mistletoe dart at his brother, which killed him. Hoder was led to do this by
another important god, Loki, a trickster who could change shape and sex at will
and who could both deceive the other gods and protect them from trouble. He is
sometimes seen as the dark side of the chief of the gods.
Among the lesser gods, there is Heimdall, a rival of Loki; Ullr, an archer deity;
and Bragi, a god of poetry and eloquence who has magic runes carved on his tongue.
A number of female deities, such as Frigg, the mother of Balder who extracts the
 Germanic Religion | 275

oath to protect her son, also appear in various tales, but they receive very little at-
tention. The Vanir is another group of lesser gods, associated with fertility, health,
and wealth. Finally, there are various spirits who appear in dreams or are thought
to be ancestors who are protecting the family.
Among the many myths of Germanic religion are those that address the ultimate
end of individual people as well as the origin and end of the universe. There are
various conceptions of the afterlife in Germanic religion. It appears that some be-
lieved that life continued after death and was inseparable from the body. The dead
lingered for a time, walking among the living and sometimes persecuting them, and
sometimes needed to be killed again. There is also evidence from various Norse
sagas and archeological finds that suggests the existence of a world of the dead.
The practice of ship burials in which the body is placed in a boat, set out to sea,
and burned suggests the belief in a world of the dead on the other side of the sea.
Other burial sites that include weapons, horses, ships, and other tools of everyday
life may indicate the belief in the necessity of these things in the afterlife. Some
burial sites seem to be pointing north, which may have been the location of the
world of the dead in Germanic beliefs. There was also the belief in an underworld,
the hall of Hel, which is the name of both the place and its ruler. It is not a place of
punishment but a place where all the dead go, which is surrounded by a great fence
to keep out the living. In some texts, the lowest level of Hel is a dark and forebod-
ing place reserved for the wicked. Another place for the dead is Valhalla, which is
the heavenly place for heroic warriors killed in battle. The warriors will live in this
heavenly hall of 540 rooms until the end of time, feasting at great banquets, going
into battle daily, and being restored to health by the next day.
Germanic religion also contains myths of the creation and destruction of the
world. As written down in the 13th century, the creation myth was built upon a
number of older traditions and is at times contradictory. In the beginning, accord-
ing to Germanic belief, there was a great void filled with magic forces. Before the
emergence of the earth, a number of cosmic rivers and separate worlds emerged,
and from one of the rivers the primeval giant, Ymir, was created. He gave rise to
a race of terrible giants by sweating them out from under his arms and legs. Ymir
was nourished by the milk of a great cosmic cow, who also gave shape to another
primeval being, Borr, the ancestor of the gods. Three of Borr’s sons, Odin and his
brothers, rose up and killed Ymir and created the earth out of his body. His flesh
made up the earth, his blood formed the waters of the earth, his hair the trees, his
bones the mountains, and his skull, supported by dwarves, was the sky. In the mid-
dle of the earth the gods created a land for the first humans, who were created by
the gods from two dead tree trunks, and their descendants.
Germanic religion also had a myth concerning the end of the world that is
contained in several epic tales from the Middle Ages. Ragnarök, which literally
means “fate of the gods,” though it is often translated “Twilight of the Gods,” is
276 | Germanic Religion

the time of final destruction of the gods and of the world and everything in it. Al-
though the primary account of the Ragnarök was written as the Germanic world
was converting to Christianity and was clearly influenced by Christian eschatol-
ogy, it does reveal important traditional Germanic attitudes toward the fate of
the world. In this tale, the movement toward the end begins with the murder of
Balder through the machinations of Loki. Although Loki is punished, his acts set
in motion the chain of events that will bring about the final cataclysmic struggle.
The great wolf, Fenris, breaks his fetters and leads forth the wolves who will de-
vour the sun and moon. Loki too breaks loose and leads the giants and other evil
forces against the gods, and a great battle ensues in which all the gods are killed.
The sun will then burn out and the stars will sink into the sea as all of existence
comes to an end. A new world, however, will rise from the ashes of the old world,
new gods and humans will inhabit the world, and Balder and his brother Hoðr
will rise again.
Germanic religion gradually faded away, to be preserved only in the later sagas,
especially in those of Scandinavia of the 12th and 13th centuries. As a result of the
efforts of Christian missionaries from the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxon mis-
sionary St. Boniface, the great Frankish emperor Charlemagne, and other rulers and
missionaries, the barbarian peoples converted to Christianity during the early Mid-
dle Ages. The Ostrogoths and Visigoths converted in the fourth century, the Franks
in the fifth, the Anglo-Saxons in the late sixth, and other peoples in the ninth and
tenth. The last of the Germanic peoples to convert were those of Scandinavia and
Iceland, the areas where most of the legends were preserved best.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Beowulf; Boniface, St.; Charlemagne; Franks; Ostrogoths;
Visigoths

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Dumézil, Georges. Gods of the Ancient Northmen. Trans. Einer Haugen. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1973.
Grimm, Jakob. Teutonic Mythology. 4 Vols. Trans. James Stevens Stallybrass. London:
Routledge, 1999.
Heaney, Seamus, trans. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar Straus and
Giroux, 2000.
Jolly, Karen Louise, Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Version. Trans. Charles C. Mierow.
New York: Barnes and Noble, 1985.
Polomé, Edgar C. Essays on Germanic Religion. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study
of Man, 1989.
 Gildas | 277

Russell, James C. The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical

Approach to Religious Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Tacitus. The Agricola and the Germania. Trans. H. Mattingly. Revised trans. S. A. Han-
ford. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Turville-Petre, Edward O. G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient
Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964.

Gildas (c. 500–570)

A monk and Briton whose history of the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England is the
only substantial contemporary account of the fall of late Roman Britain to the in-
vading barbarians. His history is also the earliest source for the deeds that became
the basis of the later Arthurian tales, even though Gildas never mentions a King
Arthur in his work. Although it does not seem to have been frequently copied in
the Middle Ages, his work is important also because it is one of the two sources
the great Anglo-Saxon historian Bede used for his ecclesiastical history, and thanks
to Bede the name of Gildas was remembered with honor by other historians in the
Middle Ages.
Born at around the year 500, the time of the great victory by the British over the
invaders at Badon Hill, Gildas wrote his history in the middle of the sixth century,
possibly in 547. Gildas’s history of the conquest of England is not systematically
organized, and includes a collection of quotations of scriptural citations and histori-
cal information. It is a bitter tale full of recrimination and reproach. The essential
theme of the work by Gildas, one borrowed by Bede in his discussion of the inva-
sion and conquest of England, is that the coming of the Anglo-Saxons was the just
punishment by God of people who claimed to be Christian but who indulged in
wanton excess and luxury. The conquest of England, for Gildas, began with inva-
sions of barbarians, probably Picts and Scots, and an appeal to the Roman general,
Aëtius, for aid, which was not forthcoming. The Britons were able to expel the bar-
barians but then fell into civil war and further raids. A British ruler, traditionally
Vortigern, invited Saxon war bands to aid against other barbarians, and those war
bands were subsequently joined by other Saxons against the Britons. The invasions
of the Saxons, according to Gildas, laid waste the towns of Briton and destroyed
the way of life that had existed.
Gildas’s account is not, however, without its heroes, and it is one of these which
may have provided the first outlines for the figure of Arthur. Gildas fails to men-
tion Arthur directly, but he only names kings directly who fit into his broader theme
that the invasions are divine punishment for the Britons’ failure to live as good
Christians. Moreover, he does mention one leader on whom the legendary figure of
Arthur may be based and a battle that is often listed among those of the legendary
king. In 500, the year of Gildas’s birth as he tells us, the Britons won a great victory
278 | Gothic Wars

over invading barbarian armies at Mount Badon, a victory that provided England
a period of much needed peace that continued at least until the time that Gildas
wrote his history. The victor at that battle was the Roman commander Ambrosius
Aurelianus, who had reorganized the defense of the Britons, and whose victory was
later associated with the deeds of King Arthur.
See also: Aëtius; Anglo-Saxons; Badon Hill, Battle of; Bede; King Arthur; Vortigern

Bibliography
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Goor. See Alans

Gothic Wars

A major component of the emperor Justinian’s effort to reconstitute the Roman

Empire, the Gothic Wars lasted from 535 to 561 and were preceded by the emperor’s
conquest of North Africa. The Gothic Wars were a prolonged and destructive effort
that ended with the destruction of the Ostrogothic kingdom and short-lived Byz-
antine control of the Italian peninsula. Although direct Byzantine control of Italy
was undermined beginning in 568, Byzantine influence in Italy lasted into the eight
century, and Justinian’s conquests shaped cultural, religious, and political affairs in
Italy throughout the early Middle Ages.
The first step came with the invasion and rapid conquest of Vandal North Africa.
Justinian had originally hoped to secure the aid of the Vandal king, Hilderic, a pro-
Roman ruler who had even abandoned Arian Christianity for the Catholic Christi-
anity favored in Constantinople. His overthrow and replacement by Gelimer, who
reflected the traditional Vandal hostility toward the empire, forced the emperor to
change plans. In 533–534, Justinian’s loyal and talented general, Belisarius, led
Byzantine armies into North Africa, where he managed to defeat Gelimer and the
Vandals. The kingdom was quickly restored to Roman rule, and Belisarius was
granted a triumph—the ancient Roman ceremonial parade accorded to victorious
 Gothic Wars | 279

generals—through the streets of Constantinople. Gelimer was displayed during the

triumph, as were many captive Vandals. The Vandal king was settled on an estate
far from the kingdom, and many of the most able Vandal soldiers were enrolled in
the Byzantine army and dispatched to the Persian frontier.
Justinian next turned his eyes to Italy, where the great king Theodoric had ruled
an Ostrogothic kingdom from the 490s until his death in 526. Theodoric’s succes-
sors, however, were not his equal, and the kingdom itself was rent by conflict be-
tween those who supported an alliance with the empire and those who rejected any
ties to the empire or its traditions. Justinian exploited these divisions, especially as
they involved Theodoric’s daughter and regent, Amalaswintha. According to Pro-
copius, Justinian had more than a diplomatic interest in the beautiful and intelligent
princess, and may have desired a marriage alliance with her as a means to claim
Italy. Procopius also alleges that Theodora, deeply jealous of Amalaswintha, se-
cretly plotted against her and encouraged the Gothic opposition to kill the princess.
Her murder, after Justinian had declared that he would defend the Gothic princess
and promised swift punishment should anything happen to her, gave the emperor a
pretext to invade Italy. If Procopius is to be believed, the murder came as the result
of a letter from Theodora, which assured the Gothic nobles that Justinian would do
nothing if they acted against Amalaswintha. It is possible that Justinian and Theo-
dora indulged in a dangerous diplomatic game that led to the death of Amalaswin-
tha, but also provided them the opportunity to restore imperial control over Italy.
Whatever the case, Amalaswintha was deposed and murdered, and Justinian used
this as the justification for his invasion of Italy.
The war began with a feint into Sicily in 535, which Belisarius quickly con-
quered. The rapidity of the general’s success inspired Justinian to proceed more
aggressively in 536, when Byzantine armies marched onto the Italian mainland.
Although Belisarius enjoyed early success, the war dragged on for nearly 25 years
and caused great destruction to the Italian countryside. The Goths put up a great
struggle under different leaders and over two generations, and the Romans of Italy,
though they at first welcomed the invaders, proved less open to the restoration of
Roman rule and its taxation.
The war proceeded in several phases, at first involving Belisarius, who led the
initial campaigns against Witigis, who had married Theodoric’s granddaughter and
claimed to be the legitimate successor to Amalaswintha and her son Athalaric. Seiz-
ing Rome in 356, Belisarius withstood the siege of Witigis and was able to take a
further offensive against the Goth who withdrew from Rome hoping to strengthen
his position in other parts of Italy. The king’s efforts proved ineffective; attempts at
finding allies among the Franks and Lombards failed, and his Gothic forces melted
away. Witigis also sought to persuade Belisarius to establish himself as ruler in the
West, but this backfired and Witigis surrendered to the Byzantine general in 540
who then returned to Constantinople.
280 | Gothic Wars

In the 540s, however, Justinian and Belisarius faced a greater challenge from
the king Totila, who won a series of victories, most notably at Faenza in 541–
542, which had the added benefit of attracting new recruits to his army from both
the Gothic and Roman population of Italy. Totila also benefited from Justinian’s
difficulties on the Persian frontier and the emperor’s fear of granting Belisarius
too many troops because the Goths had offered Belisarius ruling authority in Italy.
Building on his early victories, Totila remained in control throughout the 540s. In
546, Totila took Rome after a long siege, which was retaken in the next year by
Belisarius who had been returned to Italy in 544. But the Byzantine had little fur-
ther success against his Gothic rival was recalled to Constantinople in 548. In 549
Witigis in turn took back Rome and captured forts in Tarentum and Rimini. He also
built a fleet which attacked Byzantine shipping, ravaged Dalmatia and Epirus, and
even captured Sicily. His military and naval successes enabled Totila to attempt a
negotiated settlement of the war with Justinian.
Despite the setbacks of the 540s Justinian was unwilling to settle and continued
the Gothic Wars throughout the next decade. The emperor had good fortune of his
own in the early 550s as he settled affairs with Persia which provided the Justinian
the necessary resources to bring the war to a close. The emperor used these re-
sources to undertake a major offensive into Italy through the Balkans, entrusting
the campaign to the general Narses. In late June or early July of 552, Narses met
Totila in battle at Busta Gallorum, a plain in the northern Apennines. Narses, with
a second army of invasion, overwhelmed Totila and his forces. The Goths left 6,000
dead on the field, and Totila was mortally wounded. Repeated efforts over the next
few years to push back the Byzantines proved unsuccessful, and from 559 to 560,
Narses gradually restored Byzantine authority throughout all of Italy. One final ef-
fort was launched in 561, but again the Goths failed, and with that failure, the Ost-
rogoths passed into extinction. The Italian conquest, however, did not long survive
Justinian’s death; the Lombards began their conquest of Italy in 568.
See also: Amalaswintha; Belisarius; Constantinople; Justinian; Lombards; Narses; Pro-
copius; Rome; Theodora; Theodoric; Totila; Vandals

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1984.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Hughes, Ian. Belisarius: The Last Roman General. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing,
1996.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Procopius The History of the Wars: Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. H. B. Dewing. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
 Gottschalk of Orbais | 281

Goths. See Ostrogoths; Visigoths

Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 803–867/869)

Controversial Carolingian monk and theologian. Gottschalk was a talented theo-

logian whose works provided important interpretations of the teachings of St. Au-
gustine of Hippo. He was involved in two major controversies in his life. The first
concerned the practice of child oblation, that is, placing a young child in a mon-
astery before the child is old enough to make its own decision. The second was
over his teachings concerning predestination, which were based on the works of
Augustine but contrary to the orthodox teachings of the time. The predestination
controversy involved a number of leading ecclesiastics in the Carolingian Em-
pire and revealed the increasing intellectual confidence and sophistication of these
Carolingian thinkers.
Gottschalk was born in Saxony in 803 and given to the monastery of Fulda as a
child by his father. He spent his childhood at monasteries in Fulda and Reichenau
under the direction of the abbot and bishop Rabanus Maurus. As an adult, Gott-
schalk requested that he be released from his monastic vows because he had not
taken them personally and because there were no Saxon witnesses to the vow. A
church council at Mainz in 829 granted his request, even though it refused to allow
him to have the donation made by his father. Rabanus Maurus, however, appealed
the decision at a separate church council, and Gottschalk was not released from
his monastic vows. He was allowed to join another monastery, and for the next 10
years he was at monasteries in Corbie and Orbais, where he studied the writings of
St. Augustine of Hippo. He also was ordained a priest sometime in the 830s, but
without the approval of the bishop in the diocese.
In the 840s, he made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he began to preach the views
on predestination he had learned from his study of Augustine. He taught that God
had foreseen and in fact predestined the salvation or damnation of all people since
before the beginning of time, which meant further that Jesus died only for the
saved and that the sacraments were valid only for the saved. These views clearly
challenged the authority of the church of his day, and the bishops who defended
the church’s tradition responded harshly to these ideas. Indeed, when word of
his teaching reached the Carolingian Empire, his old rival Rabanus Maurus com-
pelled Gottschalk to defend his views at a church council in Mainz in 848. His
teaching was condemned at the council, and he was handed over to Archbishop
Hincmar of Rheims. At a second council in the following year, Gottschalk was
condemned again and was ordered whipped and imprisoned at the monastery of
Hautvillers. His writings were burned, his ordination was overturned, and gradu-
ally his right to correspond with others was revoked. Despite the severity of his
282 | Gregory I, the Great, Pope

punishment, Gottschalk refused to renounce his ideas and continued to write on

the matter and other theological topics until his death. His ideas were condemned
at church councils throughout the 850s and 860s, and a number of other Carolin-
gian ecclesiastics wrote treatises against Gottschalk’s views. Indeed, the contro-
versy was so great that it attracted the attention of the Carolingian king Charles
the Bald, who requested the opinion of a number of ecclesiastics, including John
Scotus Erigena.
Gottschalk was also a talented poet, and his surviving poetry confirms our un-
derstanding of him as an intelligent and pious man. Although few in number, Gott-
schalk’s poems also reveal the quality and variety of poetry produced during the
Carolingian Renaissance. His poetry was especially innovative in its use of rhyme.
He wrote a number of religious poems, including poems on the canonical hours
and predestination as well as one that was a prayer to Christ. His religious poems
demonstrate an awareness of human sinfulness, but also a hope for God’s mercy
and the mediation of God’s Son. He also wrote poems of a more personal nature,
including one expressing personal melancholy, and another poem to a friend filled
with expressions of love for this friend and praise of God. His poetry, as well as his
other writings, reveal the success of Charlemagne’s efforts to convert and educate
the pagan Saxons.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Char-
lemagne; Charles the Bald; Hincmar of Rheims

Bibliography
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Marenbon, John. “Carolingian Thought.” In Carolingian Culture: Emulation and In-
novation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994,
pp. 171–92.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Gregory I, the Great, Pope (c. 540–604)

One of the greatest and most influential of the popes of the early Middle Ages, Greg-
ory, pope from 590 to 604, is also recognized as one of the fathers of the church.
Although not the powerful theologian that St. Augustine of Hippo was, Gregory
made important contributions to the religious life of the early Middle Ages with
 Gregory I, the Great, Pope | 283

his Dialogues, which includes a life of St. Benedict of Nursia; his Pastoral Rule,
guidelines for the proper rule of bishops; and his sermons, many of which took
the form of commentaries on books of Scripture. As pope, he corresponded with
the kings and queens of the Merovingian Franks; negotiated the difficult relation-
ships between the papacy, the Lombard kings of Italy, and the Byzantine emperor
in Constantinople; and reformed papal administration to make it a more effective
power in central Italy. He is perhaps best known for the evangelical mission he sent
to convert the Anglo-Saxons in England, which also signaled the importance of the
barbarian kingdoms to the papacy.
Although little is known of his early life, Gregory was born sometime around 540
to good Christians of the senatorial class, and was the grandson of Pope Felix III.
He most likely received a good education, although he knew no Greek and seems
to have been little influenced by the classical literature he no doubt read. His
learning and family background prepared him for a life of civil service, and in 572
or 573 he was appointed prefect of the city of Rome by the Senate. He held the

Fourteenth-century depiction of the Bavarian princess Theudelinda and her husband the
Lombard king Agilulf exchanging presents with Pope Gregory the Great. (St. John Basilica,
Monza, Italy/The Bridgeman Art Library)
284 | Gregory I, the Great, Pope

post until about 574, when he experienced a religious conversion and retired to a
monastery he founded on family property and dedicated to St. Andrew. His stay at
the monastery was short because the pope, Pelagius II (579–590), called him out
of retirement to papal service. He served as the papal representative in Constan-
tinople until 585 or 586, when he returned to act as abbot of his monastery and
secretary to the pope. On the death of Pelagius in 590, Gregory was acclaimed
pope by the people of Rome, who acted without the consent of the Senate or em-
peror. He was chosen in large measure because of his administrative skills, which
were needed to address the problems brought by excessive rain, flooding, and
plague.
Gregory’s 14-year pontificate, 590–604, was important for a number of reasons,
including his administrative reforms and pastoral activities, which laid the foun-
dation for traditions of the medieval papacy. He asserted the role of the papacy as
the main power in Italy and in that role negotiated with Byzantines, Franks, and
Lombards. He assumed the old imperial duty of charity and made numerous grants
from his private wealth, making monthly donations of food to the poor, daily grants
to the sick and infirm, and benefactions to monks and nuns. He assumed the re-
sponsibility of restoring public buildings such as aqueducts and churches, and took
charge of the defense of the city by appointing military commanders and hiring
soldiers. He reorganized papal lands to provide a more secure financial footing for
the papacy.
Although an administrative genius, Gregory also established important pasto-
ral practices that guided the papacy for generations to come. In his Pastoral Rule
(Regula pastoralis), copies of which he sent to numerous bishops, Gregory offers
guidelines for the bishop’s office. He outlines the character traits needed to be
a bishop, the spiritual obligations to a bishop’s flock, the duties of teaching and
preaching, and the responsibility to set a good personal example. Gregory himself
lived by the rules he outlined, thus providing his own example for subsequent popes
to follow. An active preacher, Gregory wrote numerous sermons and other works
that promoted the cult of the saints, Catholic Christianity over paganism and Arian
Christianity, and the monastic life, especially according to the Rule of St. Benedict
of Nursia.
Active in church administration and religious life, Gregory faced numerous po-
litical challenges in his reign as pope, particularly as a result of the Lombard inva-
sion of Italy in 568. In the generation before Gregory’s ascension to the papal throne
the Lombards had made great strides in the conquest of Italy and had undermined
the ability of the emperor in Constantinople or his representative in Ravenna to de-
fend the pope effectively. They also devastated the famous monastery of Benedict
at Monte Cassino, thus demonstrating the weakness of the empire and the neces-
sity for the pope finding alternate means of protection. The situation for Gregory
 Gregory I, the Great, Pope | 285

worsened in 593 when the new Lombard king, Agilulf, came to power and re-
sumed hostilities. He attempted to negotiate a peace settlement with Agilulf, but
was hampered by Constantinople’s desire for war with the Lombard king. At one
point, Gregory bought peace from Agilulf at the price of 500 pounds of gold and
finally managed to secure peace in Italy, despite the Byzantines, in 598. Not only
did Gregory work to secure peace with the Lombards, but he also sought to con-
vert them from Arian to Catholic Christianity. He was a frequent correspondent
of Theudelinda, the wife of Agilulf, who was a Catholic and was encouraged to
convince her husband to convert. At the very least, Gregory’s correspondence with
Theudelinda brought the return of papal territories and numerous churches from
Agilulf, even though the Lombards converted to Catholic Christianity only at the
end of the seventh century.
Gregory also regularly corresponded with the Merovingian kings and queens
during his reign, and his most important correspondent was the powerful queen
Brunhilde. He wrote her because of his concern with improprieties in the Frankish
church, particularly the practice of simony (the buying or selling of church offices).
To obtain reform in the church, Gregory made concessions to Brunhilde; most im-
portantly, he granted her request that the see of Vienne be elevated to the status
of metropolitan bishopric. Little progress was made in the reform of the Frankish
church, but an important relationship was established that foreshadowed the rela-
tionship of the Franks and the popes in the eighth century. Gregory’s correspon-
dence with Brunhilde had one significant result, however. According to Gregory,
Brunhilde, whom the pope asked to support the missionary Augustine of Canter-
bury, was more responsible for the success of the mission to England than anyone
but God.
Perhaps more than anything, Gregory is best known for that mission to convert
the Anglo-Saxons of England in 596. According to the English historian Bede,
Gregory had the idea of converting the English even before he became pope. One
day while shopping in the market place Gregory saw a group of handsome boys
for sale as slaves. He asked where they came from and was told from Britain. He
inquired further if they were Christian and of what race they were. He was told that
they were not and that they were Angles. He declared that it was appropriate that
they were Angles because they had “angelic faces” (100) and that they must be
rescued from the error of paganism. Gregory asked the pope to send him as a mis-
sionary to convert the English, but he was forbidden to go because he was needed
in Rome.
Once he became pope, however, Gregory revived the idea of an evangelical mis-
sion to England, and sent St. Augustine and a number of missionaries to undertake
the conversion of the English. To ensure the success of the mission, Gregory wrote
to Brunhilde for support of the missionaries on their journey and to the English king
286 | Gregory I, the Great, Pope

Aelle to allow the establishment of the mission in England. Gregory continued to

write to the English king, encouraging him to accept the faith, and also to Augus-
tine, encouraging him in his mission. In the generation after Augustine the English
converts fell back into paganism, but the mission to England did ultimately suc-
ceed, and an important relationship was established between England and Rome,
one that had important consequences when Anglo-Saxon missionaries returned to
preach on the continent.
Gregory’s reign was important in the history of the papacy and in the history
of early medieval Europe. His administrative reforms and pastoral regulations im-
proved the standing of the papacy in Italy and set the standard for religious life
and practice for popes and bishops. His correspondence with barbarian kings and
queens left a great legacy and marked the beginnings of a shift in papal policy from
east to west. Although Gregory remained a loyal subject of the emperor in Constan-
tinople, he recognized the importance of the barbarian rulers of the west, and his
contacts with them led to increasingly close ties between Rome and western rulers
over the next century and a half, culminating in the formal alliance of the Franks
and popes in the eighth century.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Bede; Brun-
hilde; Constantinople; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Ravenna, Rome

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Colgrave, Bertram, ed. and trans. The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great, by an Anony-
mous Monk of Whitby. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1968.
Evans, Gillian R. The Thought of Gregory the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
Gregory the Great. Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues. Trans. Odo John Zimmerman.
New York: Fathers of the Church, 1959.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Markus, Robert A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1998.
Meyvaert, Paul. Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others. London: Variorum Reprints, 1977.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Richards, Jeffrey. Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.
Straw, Carol. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991.
 Gregory II, Pope | 287

Gregory II, Pope (669–731)

Gregory II was one of two popes in the eighth century who were involved in a
revolution in papal policy that led to the establishment of an alliance between the
papacy and the Carolingian dynasty and the rupture of relations with the Byzan-
tine Empire. Although it was his successor, Pope Gregory III, who made formal
overtures to the Carolingian mayor of the palace and effective ruler of the Franks
Charles Martel and the later pope Stephen II who formalized the relationship, the
conditions that required the diplomatic revolution were set in Gregory II’s reign.
His difficulties with both the Lombard king and the Byzantine emperor, as well as
the papacy’s growing connections with the Frankish kingdom, laid the foundation
for a closer association in the coming generation.
Gregory’s pontificate (715–731) revealed the growing tensions with the Byz-
antine Empire and growing connections with the barbarian kingdoms in a num-
ber of ways. One of the most important examples of the increasing ties with the
west was Gregory’s relationship to Boniface, an important Anglo-Saxon mission-
ary with great influence among the Franks, who possessed the devotion to Rome
shared by the English since their conversion to Christianity. Boniface’s visits to
Rome reinforced the Franks’ interest in the papal city and brought Roman liturgi-
cal and administrative reforms to the Frankish church and newly converted areas
of Saxony. In 719, Boniface visited Rome for the first time and swore allegiance
to the pope before going to preach among the pagans of central Germany. Three
years later in 722, Boniface returned to Rome to receive episcopal consecration
from Gregory. He also swore an oath of allegiance to Gregory in preparation for
his mission to convert the Saxons and reform the Frankish church. Gregory’s own
correspondence reveals that he saw the mission as an extension of the authority of
the Roman church. Boniface’s mission and dedication to Rome and Gregory’s sup-
port of the mission was an important step in strengthening ties between Rome and
the Frankish kingdom.
Gregory also faced serious challenges in Italy of the kind that ultimately led to a
break between Rome and Constantinople. In 712, a new Lombard king, Liutprand,
ascended the throne and renewed the Lombard effort to unify Italy. Although the
Lombards had converted to Catholic Christianity at the end of the seventh century,
they did not let spiritual concerns interfere with political ambitions and were thus
still eager to take control of all Italy, including territories controlled by the papacy.
The papacy’s traditional ally against the Lombards, the Byzantine Empire, was,
however, powerless to assist Gregory in his struggles with Liutprand. Moreover, the
emperor, Leo III, the Isaurian, had instituted a religious policy of iconoclasm (ban-
ning and eventual destruction of icons with images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints)
without the approval of the pope. Leo further alienated the pope and people of Italy
with his administrative reforms, which increased the burden of taxation on Italy.
288 | Gregory III, Pope

Gregory was placed in an awkward position by the actions of the Lombard king
and the Byzantine emperor. He attempted to restrain Liutprand and also remain
loyal to Leo. In the 720s, for example, he negotiated successfully with Liutprand
for the return of papal territory that had been seized by the Lombard king. Gregory
also kept Liutprand from marching on Rome, and instead welcomed him into the
city to pray at St. Peter’s and make an offering of his cloak, sword, breastplate, and
crown to the apostle Peter. The pope also sought to restrain the worst assaults on
imperial rule by the people of Rome and refused to support a rival emperor. Gregory
realized that his only support against the unreliable Liutprand was the emperor, but
the pope’s activities clearly established a new relationship between Rome and Con-
stantinople. No longer was the pope a subject of the empire but an ally, and once
the empire proved unable to help, later popes turned to a more reliable supporter in
the kingdom of the Franks.
See also: Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Constantinople Gregory III;
Iconoclastic Controversy; Leo III, the Isaurian; Liutprand; Lombards; Rome

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Gregory III, Pope (d. 741)

Mid-eighth-century pope (r. 731–741) who sought aid from the Carolingian mayor
of the palace and effective ruler of the Franks, Charles Martel, to resolve the crisis
brought on by the failure of Byzantine power in Italy and the continued encroach-
ments on papal territory by the Lombards. Although Charles Martel was unable to
aid the pope because of his long-standing friendship and political alliance with the
Lombard king Liutprand, Gregory’s diplomatic initiative marked a significant step
in the history of the papacy and the Carolingian family. The pope’s effort moved
the papacy further into an alliance with the Frankish rulers of the west and further
 Gregory III, Pope | 289

from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. It also laid the foundation for the
alliance struck in the 750s between the popes and the Carolingian mayor of the pal-
ace and later king Pippin III the Short.
Gregory inherited a number of problems from his predecessor, Gregory II, in-
cluding difficult relations with the Lombards and with the Byzantine emperor. In
fact, the situation between Rome and Constantinople worsened in the opening year
of Gregory III’s reign as pope. In response to the emperor Leo III’s policy of icono-
clasm (the prohibition and eventual destruction of images of Jesus, Mary, and the
saints) the new pope summoned a council in Rome to denounce the emperor’s reli-
gious policy. The council asserted the growing independence of papal Rome from
imperial Constantinople and was followed by Gregory’s ambitious program of
construction and renovation in Rome, a program that promoted the cult of images.
Leo III’s reaction is not altogether clear, but he did introduce a series of administra-
tive reforms shortly after the council that may indicate his displeasure. He restruc-
tured taxation policy in Italy, reorganized the method of military recruitment, and
withdrew a number of churches in Sicily from Roman jurisdiction.
Despite the increasing sense of alienation between Rome and Constantinople,
Gregory continued to look at the emperor as his main source of protection against
his enemies in Italy. The main rival of the popes was the Lombard king Liutprand,
who had revived the traditional Lombard goal of unifying Italy. Liutprand, ei-
ther because of illness or an agreement with Gregory II or probably both, had re-
strained his assault against Rome and papal territory in central Italy in the 730s.
Unfortunately, several actions by Gregory III forced Liutprand back into action.
During Liutprand’s illness, his nephew, Hildeprand, was made coregent, and
Byzantine commanders in Italy struck against the Lombards. When Hildeprand
counterattacked, the Byzantine commanders were supported by Gregory III.
The pope also sought further support from Lombard powers in southern Italy,
the dukes of Beneventum and Spoleto. This alliance and the attacks against the
Lombards in the north roused Liutprand to action against the pope and his al-
lies. Liutprand’s offensive put the pope in very straitened circumstances. The
Lombard king took several papal cities in central Italy and captured the duchies
of Beneventum and Spoleto for a time. The pope was powerless to stop the king
and was now without allies in southern Italy or in the Byzantine capital in Italy,
Ravenna, which Liutprand had recaptured. And the emperor himself could not
be relied on for help.
In the face of extreme crisis in 739–740, Gregory took the initiative and con-
tacted Charles Martel. He in fact wrote to the Carolingian mayor of the palace twice
during the years 739–740 seeking aid against the advances of Liutprand. It is likely
that Gregory had little hope that anything positive would ensue from the correspon-
dence, because the pope surely knew of the friendship that had existed between the
two rulers since 725. If he was unaware of that personal tie, he could not have been
290 | Gregory III, Pope

unaware of Liutprand’s military assistance to Charles in 739 against the Muslims.

But that notwithstanding, the pope wrote to Charles. He was possibly persuaded to
do so by the Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface, who had received protection from
the Carolingian mayor. Indeed, Charles’s support for Boniface was highly regarded
by Rome, and the activities of Boniface may have increased Rome’s prestige among
the Franks. Moreover, Gregory’s second letter, in 740, was couched in language and
combined with gifts—keys to the tomb of St. Peter, a link from St. Peter’s chain—
that were intended to gain the most favorable response possible from Charles Mar-
tel. The second letter and, especially, the gifts may have inspired Charles to aid the
pope. Although there was no official reaction from Charles, who relied upon his al-
liance with Liutprand, it is possible that when he returned the ambassadors he sent
his own ambassadors, who mediated between Gregory and Liutprand. Whatever
the case, Liutprand made no attacks on Roman territory from 739 to 742, possibly
as a result of a request by Charles Martel.
Although it is possible that Gregory’s diplomatic initiative bore no immediate
fruit, it was significant in itself. It marked a crucial step in the papacy’s disengage-
ment from its ancient alliance with the emperors in Constantinople and their rep-
resentatives in Ravenna. It was also an important moment in the establishment of
an independent papal power in central Italy and an important attempt to limit the
Lombard advance. Gregory’s effort also set the stage for the establishment of a
formal alliance between the pope’s successors and Charles Martel’s son, Pippin III
the Short in the 750s.
See also: Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Constantinople; Gregory
II, Pope; Iconcolastic Controversy; Leo III, the Isaurian; Liutprand; Lombards; Pippin III,
Called Pippin the Short; Rome

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
 Gregory of Tours | 291

Gregory of Tours (c. 538–594)

Bishop of Tours from 573 until his death in 594, Gregory came from an illustri-
ous Gallo-Roman family that included powerful political and religious figures. His
father, Florentius, was a member of the senatorial class, and ancestors on both his
paternal and maternal side were bishops of Clermont-Ferrand, Langres, and Tours.
Gregory entered the priesthood at a young age, dedicated his life to the service of
the church and the saints, and, despite weak connections with the town, became
bishop of Tours in 573. Even though he had limited connections with Tours, he was
devoted to St. Martin, whose cult was centered in Tours. Gregory ruled as bishop
for the last two decades of his life, during a time of great political strife between
the grandsons and great-grandsons of the Merovingian king Clovis, including a
violent feud between the queens Brunhilde and Fredegund and between their hus-
bands. Although a successful bishop and staunch advocate of the cult of St. Martin
of Tours, Gregory is best known as the author of the Histories in Ten Books, com-
monly known as The History of the Franks. The work contains a famous and in-
fluential portrait of Clovis, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, and the tale of
his descendants throughout the sixth century. This great work also includes exten-
sive discussion of Gregory’s time as bishop—seven of ten books of the Histories
address this period—and reveals important information on the social, cultural, and,
especially, religious life of the Frankish kingdoms in the sixth century. Gregory also
wrote eight books on miracle stories, a life of the church fathers, lives of various
saints and martyrs, Commentary on the Psalms, a preface for a collection of church
masses, and a work on liturgical masses.
Gregory, originally Georgius Florentius, was born on November 30, 538, to
Florentius, a Gallo-Roman senator, and his much younger wife, Armentaria, who
also was of senatorial lineage, in the Auvergne in the town now called Clermont-
Ferrand. Although quite expansive about the many dukes, senators, bishops, and
saints in his ancestry, Gregory offers few details in his writings about his own life.
It is likely that his father died while Gregory was still quite young, and certain that
his education was taken over by his relatives, especially his maternal uncle Bishop
Nicetius of Lyons and paternal uncle Bishop Gallus of Clermont-Ferrand. Like his
uncles and many of the ancestors of whom he was so proud, Gregory was marked
for the religious life. He became a priest in 543, entered a choir school in Lyons
for further instruction, and became a deacon in Lyons in 563. Moreover, his family
connections introduced Gregory to many of the important saints of Gaul, including
St. Julian of Brioude, whose relics once cured Gregory’s brother Peter, and, most
importantly, St. Martin of Tours, whose relics cured Nicetius of a terrible sore on
his face. Devotion to the cult of the saints, especially St. Martin, remained an im-
portant aspect of Gregory’s life.
292 | Gregory of Tours

Gregory himself benefited from saintly intervention. While on pilgrimage once,

he was cured of a headache, and after his election as bishop of Tours in 573 the saints
intervened to confirm his place as bishop. His election was controversial because
the people of the town knew Gregory, who spent his time away from the region,
only slightly. Shortly after arriving in Tours, Gregory placed the relics of St. Julian
near those of St. Martin, an act that was followed by a brilliant flash of light. On the
following day, he took the relics on procession, and a resident of the town declared
that Martin had invited Julian to Tours, which was understood to mean that Martin
wished Julian’s spiritual son, Gregory, to be bishop. Although this event secured his
place as bishop of Tours and the support of St. Martin, Gregory faced the challenge
of surviving as a bishop despite the tumultuous politics of the Frankish kingdom.
Gregory faced numerous challenges as bishop from various Merovingian kings and
queens, especially from Chilperic. Indeed, at the very outset of his tenure as bishop,
Gregory tangled with Chilperic over rights of sanctuary and the marriage of the king’s
son, Merovech, to Brunhilde, the main rival to Chilperic and his wife Fredegund.
At a council in Paris in 577, Gregory stood up to Chilperic and defended the fellow
bishop who had performed the marriage ceremony for Merovech and Brunhilde. In
580, Chilperic nearly exiled him because of false allegations that Gregory intended
to transfer authority to another Merovingian ruler. He also struggled with Chilperic
over theological matters; he threatened the king with the wrath of God and the saints
because Chilperic issued a charter denying the Catholic teaching that there were three
persons in the Trinity. In the 580s, Gregory faced difficulties with Kings Guntram
and Childebert. But his ability to weather these storms raised his prestige among the
Merovingian kings and nobles as well as the people of his diocese. He became an
important mediator between the various kings of the Franks, who indulged in civil
war throughout much of Gregory’s reign as bishop. At one point, he negotiated an
important agreement between Childebert and Guntram. In 590 he received gifts from
Fredegund, who was most likely hostile to Gregory because he assumed his position
with the support of Brunhilde, and he was among those chosen to settle a dispute in
the convent of St. Radegund, a member of the royal line, in Poitiers.
Although active in Merovingian politics and the religious life, Gregory wrote
extensively; he is best known for his history, much of which is devoted to events in
Gregory’s own day. The work is divided into 10 books; it begins as a chronicle of
world history. The first book tells the story of Adam and Eve, and continues with
the history of the ancient Jews, the birth of Christianity, and the introduction of
Christianity into Gaul. The next two books cover the history of Christianity and the
late Roman Empire in the third to the fifth centuries, and the rise of the Merovin-
gian kingdom of the Franks and its greatest leader, Clovis. The third book takes the
history of the kingdom into Gregory’s time, and the remaining books are a detailed
study of the kingdom in Gregory’s lifetime.
 Gregory of Tours | 293

Although appearing somewhat episodic and chaotic, Gregory’s work offers a

view of history that suggests human existence is by nature chaotic and that only
the divine is orderly. Whatever Gregory’s methodology was, his history of his
own time is a most valuable resource; it includes important portraits of the many
kings and queens he knew and dealt with, including Chilperic, Fredegund, and
Brunhilde. Drawing on the Bible and the works of Jerome, Eusebius, Orosius,
and other important Christian historians and writers, Gregory’s work pays at-
tention to the miraculous and is concerned with the moral and religious under-
tones of history. Its view of kingship is shaped by the teachings of the Hebrew
Scriptures, and Gregory’s famous portrait of Clovis as king reveals the notion
that the king must do God’s work. The Histories also provides a number of con-
temporary letters, in full or part, from Gregory, St. Remigius, and other bish-
ops; a copy of Radgund’s letter of the foundation of her monastery in Poitiers;
and excerpts from histories by Renatus Frigeridus and Sulpicius Alexander that
have not otherwise survived. Along with his numerous writings on the saints and
their miracles, Gregory’s Histories provides important insights into the history of
the late sixth century and, especially, the beliefs and practices of an influential,
aristocratic bishop.
See also: Brunhilde; Chilperic I; Clovis; Fredegund; Merovingian Dynasty; Martin of
Tours, St.; Sigebert

Bibliography
Goffart, Walter. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800): Jordanes, Gregory
of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Martyrs. Trans. Raymond Van Dam.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Confessors. Trans. Raymond Van Dam.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers. 2nd ed. Trans. Edward James.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1991.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Nie, Giselle de. Views from a Many-Windowed Tower: Studies of Imagination in the
Works of Gregory of Tours. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987.
Van Dam, Raymond. Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
294 | Grimoald

Grimoald (c. 615–657)

Early leader of what became the Carolingian dynasty. Grimoald’s ambition

nearly destroyed the family and sent it to the political wilderness until its restora-
tion to power by Grimoald’s nephew, Pippin II of Herstal. The son of Pippin I of
Landen—Pippin had established the family’s early prominence through an alliance
with Arnulf of Metz and their combined support of Chlothar’s rebellion against
Brunhilde—Grimoald assumed the office of mayor of the palace in Austrasia on his
father’s death in 640. But Grimoald dreamed of greater power than that of mayor
and had his son adopted into the Merovingian family. His son actually assumed
the throne for a time, but in the end Grimoald’s plan failed and nearly ruined the
family’s fortunes.
Assuming leadership of the family at his father’s death, Grimoald was a popular
and ambitious figure. He sought the office of mayor of the palace, which his father
had held, but which was now held by Otto, the tutor of King Sigebert III (d. c. 656).
Grimoald’s opportunity came during the revolt of Radulf, duke of Thuringia. Join-
ing the king and other nobles in the battle, Grimoald displayed courage and inge-
nuity that won the king’s favor. Sigebert’s army was decisively defeated by Radulf,
and the king himself survived only because he was rescued by Grimoald. Rising
in royal favor, Grimoald took the opportunity to strike out against Otto, arranging
his assassination, and then taking his place as mayor of the palace in Austrasia.
According to contemporary accounts, Grimoald held the region in tight control
and was recognized as ruler of the realm. His success was due both to his own skill
and the king’s youth.
As mayor of the palace, Grimoald managed to accumulate great power and un-
dertook a number of policies that continued to be pursued by later generations of
the Carolingian family. As Pippin’s son, Grimoald possessed numerous estates, an
important source of wealth and power. His landed wealth allowed him to establish
monasteries, which became sources of both political and spiritual support. By es-
tablishing monasteries, Grimoald could place political allies in positions of power
with the ability to command even greater amounts of land and wealth that they
could use on Grimoald’s behalf. He continued to support these monasteries with
his own wealth or that of the king after their foundation. Moreover, he persuaded
his mother, Itta, to establish a monastery where she could retire. She established
three churches on her property near the monastery and dedicated one of them to
St. Peter. Her activities brought her into contact with St. Peter’s successor, the pope
in Rome; thus Grimoald and his mother laid the foundation for the relationship be-
tween the Carolingians and the pope that was so important to the family’s success.
Grimoald also was an active supporter of Irish missionaries, who, along with the
monks of the monasteries he founded, surely prayed for Grimoald and his family.
 Grimoald | 295

He also benefited from another family connection. His residence as mayor was
at Metz, where his father’s ally and Grimoald’s uncle Arnulf of Metz was buried.
A powerful aristocrat and bishop, Arnulf was recognized as a saint shortly after
his death. The spiritual power of the saint enhanced the reputation of Grimoald’s
family, and Grimoald’s own ties to the church of Metz were strengthened when he
successfully supported the appointment of his relative, Chlodulf, the son of Arnulf,
as bishop of Metz.
His success as mayor of the palace, and the power he acquired in that role, may
have inspired Grimoald to take an even more ambitious step at the death of King
Sigebert in 656. The king, who died at the age of 26, owed his life to Grimoald,
and because of his youth he was dominated by the powerful mayor. Although still
young, Sigebert was most anxious to have a male heir, but he met at first with no
success. According to some contemporary accounts, Grimoald took advantage of
the king’s anxiety to convince Sigebert to adopt Grimoald’s own son, Childebert,
as the king’s heir. When the queen produced a male heir, Dagobert II (d. 679), it ap-
peared that Grimoald’s plans for the succession of Childebert the Adopted, as he is
known, were ruined. Indeed, Sigebert changed his plans and entrusted Dagobert’s
education to his trusted ally Grimoald. But the mayor preferred the advancement
of his family to loyalty to the Merovingian line, and he orchestrated the deposition
of Dagobert and the promotion of Childebert as king.
After Sigebert’s death, Grimoald had Dagobert tonsured as a monk and taken to
Ireland. Childebert was made king in his place, and the moment of the triumph of
the Carolingian family seemed to have arrived. But the nobles of Neustria and their
king Clovis II (d. 657) were not willing to accept the usurpation and lured Grimoald
into a trap. He was captured and executed, probably in 657. His son Childebert,
however, survived the death of his father and reigned until 662. He may have sur-
vived because of the death of Clovis and the youth of Clovis’s heir, Chlotar III
(d. 673). In 662, Childebert’s reign came to an end for reasons unknown, and he
was replaced by Clovis’s son Childeric II (d. 675). Grimoald’s coup, therefore, was
a terrible failure, and it pushed the family out of power until the time of Pippin of
Herstal. Although the Carolingian family successfully usurped the throne in the
eighth century, they were unable to do so in the time of Grimoald, whose attempt
nearly destroyed the family.
See also: Arnulf of Metz, St.; Austrasia; Balthild, St.; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty;
Chlotar II; Ebroin; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen;
Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
296 | Gundobad

Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Gerberding, Richard, A. The Rise of the Carolingians and the “Liber Historiae
Francorum.” Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Gundobad (d. 516)

Important king of the Burgundians (r. c. 480–516) and leading figure in the early
post-Roman world, Gundobad was a lawgiver and frequently involved with the
major kings of his day. He was the nephew of the Roman general and power behind
the throne, Ricimer, and was involved in Roman service for a while. As king of the
Burgundians, Gundobad was involved with the Franks and Ostrogoths, concluding
marriage alliances with the kings of those peoples. He also, according to the sixth-
century historian Gregory of Tours, considered converting from Arian Christianity
to Catholic Christianity, and even if he did not convert, the Catholic faith was an
important tradition in his family, as demonstrated by his niece Clothild.
One of several brothers of the royal family, Gundobad was also a high-ranking
figure in the Roman military and a strong supporter of his uncle Ricimer, the
leading figure in the Western Empire. He fought with his uncle against the Van-
dals and succeeded him as the chief military officer of the Western Empire from
472 to 474. He fell from favor when a new emperor took the throne in the west,
and fled north to his family’s homeland, where he became king by about 480
and shared rule with his three brothers for the next decade. By the early 490s,
two of his brothers had died, and according to Gregory, Gundobad murdered one
of his brothers, Chilperic II, the father of Clothild. Although he may not have
killed Chilperic, who may have died of natural causes, Gundobad was a leading
power; he invaded Italy while Theodoric the Great was at war with Odovacar, the
Germanic king who deposed the last Roman emperor in the West, to seize some
territory. Theodoric was forced to expel the Burgundians and make territorial con-
cessions to them. To improve their relationship, Theodoric and Gundobad forged
a marriage alliance, in which one of Theodoric’s daughters married Gundobad’s
son Sigismund in 496 or 497. Despite the marriage, the relationship between the
two kings remained tense, in part because of the alliance that existed between the
Burgundians and the Franks.
 Gundobad | 297

The relationship between the Burgundians and the Merovingian Franks, how-
ever, was also one that was often strained because of the ambitions of the two
kings, Gundobad and Clovis. According to Gregory, a source of the tension be-
tween them came from Clothild, the wife of Clovis and niece of Gundobad. Greg-
ory notes that Gundobad killed Clothild’s father, but granted permission for her
to marry the Frankish king, and she ultimately convinced her sons to avenge her
father’s death. Clovis himself made war on Gundobad. According to the historian
of the Franks, Clovis was invited by Gundobad’s brother Godigisel to join him
against Gundobad about the year 500. When Clovis invaded, Gundobad called
on his brother, who arrived but switched to Clovis’s side during the battle, which
forced Gundobad to flee. Unable to capture Gundobad, Clovis withdrew and left a
detachment to support Godigisel, who was then defeated by an alliance of Gundo-
bad and the Visigoths from Spain. Gundobad grew stronger and stopped payment
of tribute to Clovis, who was forced to maintain his alliance with the Burgundian
because of the threat of the Alemanni to the Franks. Indeed, Gundobad joined with
Clovis against the Alemanni and the Visigoths when Clovis went to war against
them and suffered because of this alliance. In the settlement of these contests,
which drew the attention of Theodoric, Gundobad lost territory and weakened
the kingdom.
Although he was not the most successful military leader, Gundobad was an
important lawgiver. Around the year 500, Gundobad codified the laws of the
Burgundians in the Lex Gundobada or Liber constitutionem (Book of Constitu-
tions). The law was a compilation of traditional Burgundian tribal laws in Latin
that applied to Gundobad’s Burgundian subjects, issued in its final form by Gun-
dobad’s son Sigismund in 517. It included important sections on settlement pat-
terns and distribution of land to the Burgundians and also contained a number of
royal edicts. When issued by Sigismund it was joined by a collection of laws that
concerned the Roman subjects of the Burgundian kings. The Lex Gundobada re-
mained an important and influential legal code long after the destruction of the
Burgundian kingdom, lasting into the ninth century, and is Gundobad’s most im-
portant legacy.
See also: Arianism; Burgundian Code; Burgundians; Clotilda; Clovis; Franks; Gregory of
Tours; Merovingian Dynasty; Law and Law Codes; Odovacar; Ricimer; Sigismund, St.;
Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Burgundian Code: The Book of Constitutions or Law
of Gundobad and Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1972.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
298 | Guntram

Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D.
400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Guntram (c. 535–592)

King of the Merovingian Franks, grandson of the great king Clovis, and favorite ruler
of the bishop and historian Gregory of Tours, Guntram ruled over Burgundy, one of
the kingdoms of the Franks, during a particularly tumultuous period in Merovingian
history. Although at odds at times with his brothers, Guntram often sought to keep
the peace and generally sought to promote unity and family interests rather than fo-
ment civil war and division. Despite differences with Fredegund, the wife of his
brother Chilperic, he put personal interests aside to protect her son and his nephew,
Chlothar II. He was also supportive of the church in his kingdom, and he was be-
lieved able to perform miracles by some of his contemporaries. Although he won the
favor of church leaders because of his endorsement of religious reform, Guntram’s
piety could sometimes be a liability because it kept him from instilling fear in his
subjects or rivals.
Guntram came to power on the death of his father, Chlotar I, in 561. He was
joined by his brothers Charibert I, Chilperic, and Sigebert, with whom he came
into conflict with over the division of Chlotar’s kingdom. Traditionally, each of
the sons of a Merovingian king would inherit part of the realm, a custom that in
Guntram’s generation caused great difficulty of the family. The conflict between
the brothers was worsened, perhaps by the death of Charibert, certainly by the ri-
valry that also existed between Brunhilde, a Visigothic princess and the wife of
Sigebert, and Fredegund, the wife of Chilperic. Guntram often found himself in the
middle of the conflict between his brothers and between their wives, but he bore
the brunt of his brothers’ aggression. In 568, for example, Sigebert invaded Gun-
tram’s share of the kingdom and attempted to seize the city of Arles. Guntram and
his armies were able to repel the invasion, and Sigebert lost many of his soldiers
as they crossed the Rhone River after being turned away in their assault on Arles.
In the 570s, the brothers once again came into conflict. In 573 a dispute broke out
between Guntram and Sigebert that grew into a wider conflict involving all the
brothers and their allies. Sigebert called on his allies among the Avars and faced
an attack by Chilperic, who had formed an alliance with Guntram. Despite their
combined might, Guntram and Chilperic were no match for Sigebert, and Guntram
made peace with Sigebert in 575. Indeed, Sigebert seemed the most powerful of
the three brothers and was on the point of eliminating Chilperic when Chilperic
managed to assassinate his brother.
 Guntram | 299

The death of Sigebert changed the landscape of the Merovingian kingdoms and
altered the relationship of Guntram with the surviving members of his family. Chil-
peric once again became the aggressor in the family, and Guntram sought to protect
his own interests and those of his nephew Childebert II (d. 596), successor of Sige-
bert. Chilperic struck quickly to seize cities belonging to Childebert, and Guntram
took steps to protect his nephew and ensure his position as king. Although Gun-
tram and Childebert had a falling out in the early 580s and Childebert joined with
Chilperic, the two kings, Guntram and his nephew, remained in good terms after
their falling out and remained allies against Chilperic until Chilperic’s murder in
584. Once again the death of his brother altered Guntram’s position in the kingdom.
At first, Guntram was suspicious of the paternity of Chlotar II, Chilperic’s son by
Fredegund and his heir. Fredegund was reluctant to have the child baptized, which
would have made Guntram the godfather, and she kept Chlotar from Guntram. As
a result, Guntram became skeptical of Fredegund’s claim that Chilperic was Chlo-
tar’s father. Ultimately, Fredegund and Guntram became reconciled, and Guntram
remained Chlotar’s defender until Guntram’s death in 592. It should also be noted
that Guntram’s defense of family interests was not limited to the sons of his broth-
ers. He was a staunch defender of his nieces, who were married or betrothed to
Visigothic kings. He took a keen interest in the fate of Ingunde, who married the
rebel Hermenegild, and was active in the failed negotiations over the marriage be-
tween Reccared and Chlodosind. Indeed, in both cases Guntram attacked Visigothic
territory, unsuccessfully, in defense of family interests.
Guntram’s struggles with his brothers and in defense of family interests were
complicated by turmoil in his own kingdom. The most dangerous episode for Gun-
tram was the invasion of the pretender Gundovald (d. 585), who claimed that he was
one of Chlotar I’s sons and therefore had a right to the throne. Gundovald’s claims
were supported by other Merovingian kings, but failed to bring him a share in the
kingdom, and so he departed for Constantinople until the early 580s. In 582 or 583
he made his first attempt to return to the kingdom. Although that attempt failed, he
returned again in 584 and gathered much support. A number of important support-
ers of Guntram, including his chief military officer and nobles loyal to Guntram’s
ally and nephew Childebert II, supported Gundovald’s attempt to claim the throne
and joined his army. Guntram managed to suppress the attempt and capture or kill
the disloyal followers as well as the pretender.
Although some members of the kingdom did not fear Guntram because of his
piety, the king gained the respect and support of the church and its bishops in the
Frankish kingdoms. He often corresponded and even dined with the bishops, espe-
cially Gregory of Tours. The king was well known for his acts of charity. He also
helped end an outbreak of an epidemic by his actions, which were more like those
of a bishop than a king. He called his subjects together in a church and ordered
them to eat and drink only bread and water and to keep prayer vigils. His prescrip-
tion ended the outbreak, according to Gregory of Tours. Also, Gregory records the
300 | Guntram

story of Guntram’s miracle. As Gregory notes, a woman whose son was seriously ill
with a fever “came up behind the King . . . [and] cut a few threads from his cloak”
(510). She steeped the threads in water, which she then gave to her son who was
immediately cured. Guntram was for Gregory the ideal Christian king; he was de-
voted to God, supported the interests of his family, and sought to keep the peace in
the Merovingian kingdoms.
See also: Brunhilde; Chilperic I; Chlotar II; Clovis; Franks; Fredegund; Gregory of Tours;
Hermenegild; Merovingian Dynasty; Reccared I; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
H
Hadrian I, Pope (d. 795)

Roman noble and pope (r. 772–795), Hadrian was an important figure in the birth
of the Papal States and an important ally of the Carolingian ruler Charlemagne.
The pope contributed to Charlemagne’s renewal of church and society and sup-
plied law and liturgical models that helped the king reform affairs in his realm. He
also welcomed the king to Rome twice as a pilgrim. Moreover, Hadrian presided
over the final separation of the papacy from the Byzantine Empire, its long-time
protector, and strengthened the alliance with the Carolingians. The pope contrib-
uted also to the strengthening of the Papal States and the demise of the Lombard
kingdom. His appeal to Charlemagne for aid against the Lombard king Desiderius
led to the Carolingian king’s invasion and destruction of the Lombard kingdom.
Hadrian’s invitation also led to the greater involvement of the Carolingian dynasty
in Italian affairs.
According to the Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), Hadrian was a “very
distinguished man, sprung from noble ancestry and born to influential parents”
(123). He was, the official biography notes further, “elegant and most decorous of
manner, a resolute and strenuous defender of the orthodox faith, his homeland and
the flock entrusted to him” (123). He was raised by his uncle Theodatus, a powerful
figure in Roman lay and religious circles, because his parents died while Hadrian
was still young. The Liber Pontificalis records that from his youth, Hadrian was
a pious and devout person who spent much time in prayer and praise of God. He
lived a chaste life and was generous to the poor. His piety was noticed by Pope
Paul I (r. 757–767), who made him a cleric and gave him an important office in the
Roman church. Hadrian also served Paul’s successor, Stephen III (r. 768–772), who
also employed Hadrian in important positions in the church of Rome. His service
brought him the favor of the people of Rome and election to the office of pope on
the death of Stephen III.
Along with a number of internal political difficulties, which he effectively re-
solved, Hadrian’s greatest challenge upon his elevation to the papal throne was
the protection of the Papal States from the lingering Lombard threat. Indeed, the
internal tensions that existed at Rome were related to Italian political affairs, as
some factions in Rome were still friendly to the Lombard king, Desiderius. The
papacy, during the reign of Stephen II (752–757), had confirmed its alliance with
the Frankish Carolingian dynasty, however, and Hadrian continued that policy and

301
302 | Hadrian I, Pope

was supported by the pro-Frankish faction in Rome. The situation was complicated
by affairs in the Frankish kingdom, as its rulers Charlemagne and Carloman found
themselves on the point of civil war and Charlemagne himself married the daughter
of Desiderius. The death of Carloman ended one crisis, but his widow and children
fled to Italy and the protection of Desiderius, whose daughter was repudiated by
Charlemagne in 771–772.
The situation only improved slightly for Hadrian with the death of Carloman; he
still faced an aggressive Desiderius, who sought to expand Lombard control in Italy
and see Carloman’s sons elevated to the kingship. Hadrian sent emissaries to De-
siderius noting the pope’s willingness to negotiate matters with the Lombard king,
but also demanding the return of several key cities that the king had recently con-
quered. Desiderius refused the pope’s request and even threatened to invade Roman
territory, but withdrew from the border when Hadrian threatened to excommunicate
him. Desiderius’s continued hostility to Rome led Hadrian to seek aid once and for
all from the Frankish king. He petitioned Charlemagne, after first giving Desiderius
one last chance, to fulfill the obligations his father, Pippin the Short, had undertaken
toward Rome. The Carolingian king willingly invaded Italy at the pope’s request
in 773 and defeated his Lombard rival in 774, who was besieged in his capital of
Pavia for six months before submitting.
While the siege was proceeding, Charlemagne journeyed to Rome as a pilgrim
to celebrate Easter and was welcomed by the pope, who sent an official delega-
tion to meet the king some 30 miles from the city. Indeed, Hadrian accorded Char-
lemagne full honors as patrician, the title that had been bestowed on his father
Pippin. The pope also welcomed the king on the steps of St. Peter’s, and the two
established a personal friendship that lasted until Hadrian’s death in 795, despite
the occasional tension caused by their competing claims to authority in Italy. Not
only did the two forge a lasting friendship at that time, but they also renewed
the political alliance the papacy had established under Charlemagne’s father. The
exact terms of the political discussions that took place between Charlemagne and
Hadrian at their first meeting, however, remain vague and uncertain. According
to the Liber Pontificalis, Charlemagne confirmed the donation of his father, the
so-called Donation of Pippin which granted the papacy extensive lands in Italy,
in full and deposited it on the altar of St. Peter. But this is a later and uncertain
tradition and may not signal Charlemagne’s exact intentions in regard to Italy and
papal territory at that time. At the very least, Charlemagne did end the Lombard
threat, with the exception of occasional raids on Roman territory from the Lom-
bard duchies of the south, and established himself as king of the Lombards after
his final victory over Desiderius.
Hadrian and Charlemagne remained close friends and important allies for the
next two decades, and the pope provided further aid to the Carolingian ruler. In 780,
Charlemagne made his second visit to Rome, where he was once again welcomed
by Hadrian. On Easter, Charlemagne’s son, Pippin (775/756–781), was baptized by
 Hadrian I, Pope | 303

the pope, who was also his baptismal sponsor. Hadrian, at Charlemagne’s request,
anointed the king’s sons, Louis the Pious as king of Aquitaine and Pippin as king of
Italy. Pippin established himself as king in Pavia, the old Lombard capital, and acted
as his father’s representative in Italy and did his will. Indeed, the establishment of
Italy as part of the growing Carolingian Empire and the introduction of Carolin-
gian authority in the peninsula remained a source of tension between Hadrian and
Charlemagne. But the pope had little recourse, and his anointing strengthened the
already powerful dynasty.
Although Charlemagne and Hadrian found themselves at odds at times over po-
litical and religious issues, they did find common cause in their opposition to the
Spanish heresy of Adoptionism, which maintained that Christ was the son of God
by adoption. Hadrian was also an important contributor to Charlemagne’s religious
reforms and sent him a copy of church law that the king could apply to the Frankish
church. On the other hand, they found themselves in dispute over the second Coun-
cil of Nicaea in 787. The empress Irene had invited representatives of the pope to
attend the council, which repudiated Iconoclasm and restored the Byzantine tradi-
tion of the veneration of icons (religious images). Charlemagne and his advisors, as
a result of a faulty translation of the decisions of the council, attacked the council.
Despite religious and political differences, Charlemagne and Hadrian remained on
good terms, and the king was greatly saddened at Hadrian’s death and, according to
Einhard, wept as if he had lost a brother. When he died in 795, Hadrian had presided
over an important period in the history of the papacy and in relations between the
Carolingians and Rome. He was succeeded by Pope Leo III, who further developed
the alliance with the Carolingians.
See also: Adoptionism; Carloman, King of the Franks; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne;
Desiderius; Donation of Pippin; Einhard; Franks; Irene; Leo III, Pope; Libri Carolini; Lom-
bards; Louis the Pious; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rome

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie. Am-
sterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Noble, Thomas X. F. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
304 | Hadrianople, Battle of

Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Ni-
thard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Hadrianople, Battle of (378)

Major battle between Roman imperial armies and rebellious Gothic armies; tradi-
tionally regarded as an important step in the “fall” of the Roman Empire. The bat-
tle was a dramatic victory for the Visigoths, who destroyed the imperial force and
killed the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Valens. Although they inflicted
a catastrophic defeat on the Romans, the Visigoths were unable to take advantage
of their victory and were forced to come to terms with the great Roman emperor,
Theodosius. The victory of the Visigoths at Hadrianople did cause a change in the
relationship between Rome and the barbarians, however, despite the Visigoths’ in-
ability to capitalize on their victory.
During the course of the migrations of peoples during the later fourth century,
increasing pressure was placed on the Roman frontiers. This was due in part to the
aggressive nature of the Huns, whose movement westward had either absorbed
or displaced numerous settled peoples. Among these peoples was a group that
later came to be known as the Visigoths. Their traditional homeland had been
devastated and could no longer support them, and the Huns proved too great a
threat to the Visigoths. A new leader, Fritigern, seized power and declared that
he would save his people by fleeing into the Roman Empire. By the year 376,
when Fritigern petitioned for entry, the absorption of foreign peoples was noth-
ing new for Rome, which accepted them on the condition that they lay down their
arms, submit to Roman authority, pay Roman taxes, work the land, and serve the
Roman military. Other peoples had done this, and Fritigern’s Goths were admit-
ted on these conditions, but the number of people admitted, which Bury placed
at 80,000 or more, and the incompetence of the local administration opened the
way for disaster.
The Goths flooded across the border in numbers too large for the local military
forces to keep order, and the Goths simply overran them. The emperor Valens was
occupied with the Persian frontier and requested aid from his Western counterpart,
Gratian. Over the next two years the Goths operated freely in the Balkans as the
emperors prepared to march against them. In 378 both Valens and Gratian were
ready to crush the Goths, and Valens assembled an army of infantry and cavalry
of between 30,000 and 40,000 troops. Gratian too mobilized a sizeable force, but
he faced a threat from the Alemanni, which he successfully overcame, that de-
tained him from joining Valens. The Eastern emperor was all the more anxious to
win a great victory over the barbarians after Gratian’s victory over the Alemanni.
He moved his troops forward to meet Fritigern’s Goths, which reconnaissance
 Hadrianople, Battle of | 305

numbered at 10,000 warriors, but which was actually three times that number.
Despite warnings from Gratian, who had witnessed at first hand the new battle tac-
tics of the Goths, Valens proceeded. In early August he marched his troops against
the Goths near Hadrianople, and Fritigern sent messengers to treat with Valens.
On August 5 and again on the day of battle, August 9, Fritigern sought to negoti-
ate with the emperor, but without success. While Fritigern sent messengers, Valens
sent his troops forward without food or water in the boiling sun to meet the Goths,
who had set fires along the Romans’ path. As negotiations were beginning, Roman
soldiers, without orders, began the attack that proved fatal to the Roman force.
The Roman attack was disorganized, and the counterattack of the Gothic cavalry
was rapid and forceful. Units of Gothic cavalry returned from foraging to join the
fray and made the assault on the Romans even more terrible. A cavalry unit then
attacked the Roman left flank, and the Gothic foot soldiers made a ferocious push
on the Roman center. The Roman cavalry fled, abandoning the Roman infantry,
which was quickly surrounded and cut to pieces by superior Gothic forces. The
Romans lost nearly two-thirds of the army at Hadrianople, and most of the casual-
ties were from the infantry, the backbone of the Roman military. Among the dead
were generals, unit officers, and the emperor Valens himself, who was either killed
by an arrow or wounded and then burned to death when the building he was taken
to was set on fire by the Goths.
Although Ammianus declared it the worst loss since Rome’s defeat at Can-
nae and a tragic defeat for the empire, the Battle of Hadrianople was not a
military turning point nor especially catastrophic for the empire. The Goths
had a golden opportunity to do permanent harm to the empire after their vic-
tory, but they failed to follow it up with an aggressive assault on the empire’s
cities or armies. Moreover, the arrival of the new emperor, Theodosius, pro-
vided the empire with much needed support, and together with the Western
emperor, Gratian, he was able to force the Goths to terms within a few years
of the defeat in 378. Fritigern’s victory, however, did force the Romans to
come to terms with the Goths and settle them in Roman territory as subjects
of the empire. And it was the descendants of these Goths, under the leadership
of Alaric, who caused such great disturbance in the early fifth century. The
Battle of Hadrianople also contributed to the triumph of Catholic Christianity,
because the death of the Arian Christian Valens seemed to be God’s judgment,
and the new emperor Theodosius ultimately declared Catholic Christianity the
official religion of the empire.
See also: Alaric; Ammianus Marcellinus; Fritigern; Huns; Theodosius the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378). Trans. Walter Ham-
ilton. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1986.
306 | Heliand

Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Helena, St. See Women

Heliand

An epic poem of the ninth century of some 6,000 lines, the Heliand (Old Saxon:
“Saviour”) is, perhaps, the oldest work of Germanic literature. Its main theme is the
life of Christ and provides the story of the Gospels in the Saxon language. Accord-
ing to a Latin preface first published in the 16th century, a version of the Gospel
was compiled at the order of either Louis the Pious (778–840) or Louis the German
(d. 876) in the native Saxon language to complete the conversion of the Saxons to
Christianity. Drawing on an early Latin Gospel commentary as well as works by
the Venerable Bede and Hrabanus Maurus’s commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, the unknown Saxon poet composed an epic poem of great power.
Although telling the Gospel story, the context of the life of Christ is distinctly
Germanic. Christ is a ruler who is joined by his loyal vassals, the Apostles, to found
a kingdom. His disciples depict Germanic virtues and are reward by arm bands.
The marriage at Cana is depicted as a great banquet, and the feast of Herod is
described as a drinking bout. The author of the Heliand did incorporate the core
teachings of the Gospels, notably a version of the Sermon on the Mount, to ensure
that the new Saxon converts truly got the word. The poem, which survives in only
four manuscripts, was composed in alliterative verse, which was popular with the
early Germanic peoples.
See also: Bede; Hrabanus Maurus; Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Saxons

Bibliography
Murphy, G. Roland, trans. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992.

Hengist and Horsa (mid-fifth century)

Brothers who, according to the history of Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
led a band of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to England at the request of a British
ruler. Rather than aiding the native Britons, they conquered them and established a
 Hengist and Horsa | 307

Death of Hengist and the destruction of his army, ca. 1470–1480. From Premier volume
des et nouvelles chroniques d’Angleterre, Roy 15 E IV, Folio No: 120 (detail). (The British
Library Board)

kingdom. Bede also notes that they were descendants of Woden, “from whose stock
sprang the royal house of many provinces” (56).
Following the Roman withdrawal from Britain in 410, the native British popu-
lation faced raids from the Picts and Scots to their north. Unable to defend them-
selves from these invaders, the British, led by Vortigern, sought out mercenaries
to help them. Vortigern invited a band of Angles and Saxons under the direction
of Hengist and his brother Horsa to expel the invaders. In exchange for their as-
sistance the mercenaries were promised the Isle of Thanet. In 449 Hengist and
Horsa arrived with three shiploads of warriors to fight off the invaders from the
north. Having successfully defeated the northerners, Hengist and Horsa turned
their mercenaries against their employers and began their own invasion of Britain.
In 455 Hengist and Horsa fought a battle against Vortigern. Horsa was killed in the
battle, but Hengist defeated Vortigern and took over the kingdom of Kent. Hen-
gist and his son Æsc fought several other battles against the Britons in the course
of their conquest of Kent. In 465 they defeated the Britons and killed 12 British
308 | Heptarchy

chieftains, and in 473 they fought another battle in which they overwhelmed the
British and forced them to flee from the battlefield. Although the date of his death
is unknown, Hengist may have ruled Kent for much of the next 15 years. Accord-
ing to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Æsc became king in 488 and reigned over Kent
for the next 24 years.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Bede; Vortigern

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Har-
mondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Howe, Nicholas. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Heptarchy

A term, literally meaning seven kingdoms, used in Anglo-Saxon history to describe

the political structure of early medieval England. The term is derived from remarks
made by Bede concerning the nature of the political organization of England in the
eighth century. It came into more general use among scholars in the 16th century.
Although it became popular among scholars in the 19th century and still occasion-
ally appears, it is generally not used by contemporary scholars.
The term heptarchy was used to describe a hypothetical confederacy of the
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of early medieval England, especially for the period from
the sixth to the ninth centuries. It refers to the seven kingdoms that had been es-
tablished by the Anglo-Saxon invaders and their descendants: East Anglia, Essex,
Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex. Although in some ways a use-
ful designation because it reveals the basic structure of early English political or-
ganization, the term fails to convey the variety in political institutions, size, and
importance of the various kingdoms. It implies an equality of status among the
kingdoms that seldom if ever existed. The kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria, and
Wessex were certainly more powerful than the other kingdoms and at times exer-
cised dominion over them. Essex often lost power in political struggles with the
other kingdoms and may have disappeared before the coming of the Vikings, the
time traditionally considered the end of the heptarchy.
 Hermenegild | 309

There were also subkingdoms, such as Deira (the region made famous by Pope
Gregory the Great’s encounter with Anglo-Saxon slaves in the Roman market),
that were as powerful as some of the seven kingdoms of the heptarchy. The term
also suggests a static relationship between the various kingdoms that fails to take
into account the disappearance of some of the seven or the ebb and flow of politi-
cal power among the various kingdoms. Although heptarchy is a convenient term
to describe the political make up of Anglo-Saxon England, it is a term that conveys
a false impression of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and is best relegated
to history’s trash heap.
See also: Aethelberht I of Kent; Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Mercia; Wessex

Bibliography
Bede. A History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmond-
sworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Bassett, Steven, ed. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press, 1989.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Hermenegild (d. 585)

Spanish Visigothic prince and coregent with his father Leovigild and brother Rec-
cared, Hermenegild led an unsuccessful revolt against his father. The rebellion may
have been inspired by Hermenegild’s conversion to Catholic Christianity from the
Arian faith of his father. According to some accounts, his conversion and rebellion
brought about his murder in 585, after the rebellion had been put down. Although
his efforts ultimately failed, his conversion foreshadowed that of his brother, and
with Reccared’s conversion the Visigothic kingdom of Spain converted to Catholic
Christianity.
Hermenegild played an important role in his father’s reign before his rebellion in
579. The firstborn son of Leovigild, Heremenegild surely had a part to play in his
father’s conquests in Spain. In 573, Leovigild made his two sons coregents, thus
granting them royal authority and marking them as eventual heirs to his power.
Indeed, Hermenegild’s elevation most likely reveals Leovigild’s intention to es-
tablish a royal dynasty. Hermenegild also played a significant role in his father’s
diplomacy. In 579 Hermenegild married the Merovingian princess Ingunde, the
daughter of powerful Brunhilde, a Visigoth herself, and the Frankish king Sigebert.
The marriage was surely a recognition of the importance of good relations between
Leovigild’s family and the Merovingian dynasty, as well as of the growing power
310 | Hermenegild

of Leovigild. Of course, the marriage complicated relations between the two

dynasties after the revolt and then murder of Leovigild.
Despite his earlier importance, Hermenegild rebelled in 579. The exact cause of
the revolt, however, remains uncertain. The sources and chronology of events are a
bit confused, and it remains unclear whether Hermenegild converted before or after
his revolt began. According to some accounts, Hermenegild was driven to accept
Catholic Christianity by his young—she was 12 at the time of the marriage—but
determined wife. Hermenegild’s stepmother and grandmother of Ingunde, Go-
iswinth, may have persecuted the young girl and pressured her to convert to Arian
Christianity from the Catholic faith practiced by the Merovingians. To establish
peace at court, Leovigild sent his son and daughter-in-law to southern Spain, which
Hermenegild governed for his father. In southern Spain, Hermenegild came under
the influence of Leander, the older brother of the famous encyclopedist Isidore of
Seville. Leander is also identified as the agent of Hermenegild’s conversion, and it
is while he was in the south that Hermenegild both revolted and converted, in what-
ever order. What is of importance is that Hermenegild did convert and was probably
influenced to do so by both his wife and Leander.
Whether he converted before or after the rebellion broke out, Hermenegild
used his conversion as justification for the rebellion and declared that he had re-
volted because of religious persecution. To guarantee the success of his uprising,
Hermenegild undertook furious diplomatic negotiations with a number of peoples.
He forged alliances with those conquered by his father. He also found support from
the Suevi, who committed to him for both political and religious reasons. The Suevi,
a Germanic tribe who had established a kingdom in northwestern Spain and had
been defeated by Leovigild in 576, had converted to Catholicism during the previ-
ous generation. He also found allies among the relatives of his wife, the Catholic
Merovingians. He sought the support of the emperor in Constantinople and found
a great friend and ally in Pope Gregory the Great. Although he found much support
against Leovigild, the only effective aid came from the Suevi; both the Merovin-
gians and the Byzantines were involved in internal and external military difficul-
ties at the time.
The course of the revolt went poorly for Hermenegild. It broke out in 579, and
the tide turned by 582 when Leovigild struck back hard at his son and his allies. The
Suevi were defeated by Leovigild in 583 and forced to withdraw their support and
recognize Leovigild’s authority over them. Hermenegild withdrew to Seville, which
fell after a lengthy siege in 584. Hermenegild then moved to Córdoba, where he
was welcomed by the Byzantine commander of the town. But this support was not
long lasting; the imperial commander quickly settled a treaty with Leovigild that
returned the city to the Visigoth in exchange for 30,000 pieces of gold. Abandoned
by the Byzantines, who withdrew with Ingunde and their son, Hermenegild sought
refuge in a church in the hopes of negotiating with his father. Leovigild had mercy
 Hincmar of Rheims | 311

on his rebellious son. He demanded that Hermenegild renounce his royal title in
exchange for his life and accept exile to Valencia. He moved in the next year, 585,
to Tarragona, where he was murdered in the same year.
Hermenegild’s conversion pointed the way of the future for the Visigoths in
Spain, but it found him little support from Catholic Christians after his revolt failed.
With the exception of Gregory the Great, most contemporary writers had little good
to say about Hermenegild. The pope recognized Hermenegild as a martyr to the
faith and implicated Leovigild in the murder, but this view finds little support from
Gregory’s contemporaries, and the Roman and Visigothic population of Spain seem
to have held that the revolt was the result of Hermenegild’s ambition and not his
conversion. Some Merovingian kings sought revenge for the death of Hermene-
gild, and Guntram invaded Visigothic territory in defense of Ingunde. But Gregory
of Tours found little good in the revolt, saying of Hermenegild, “Poor prince, he
did not realize that the judgment of God hangs over anyone who makes such plans
against his own father, even if that father be a heretic” (375). Notwithstanding this
verdict on his revolt, his conversion was vindicated by the successful conversion of
Visigothic Spain by Reccared.
See also: Arianism; Brunhilde; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory of Tours; Isidore of
Seville; Leovigild; Merovingian Dynasty; Reccared I; Toledo; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
Longman, 1983.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2nd rev.
ed. Trans. Guido Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Thompson, Edward A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Hincmar of Rheims (c. 806–882)

Archbishop of Rheims from 845 until his death in 882, Hincmar was one of the
leading religious figures of the Carolingian empire in the ninth century and an
312 | Hincmar of Rheims

important ally and supporter of King Charles the Bald. Hincmar was also a noted
canonist, theologian, and scholar whose works represent the achievements of the
Carolingian Renaissance of the ninth century. As archbishop, Hincmar was in-
volved in a number of ecclesiastical and political controversies during his reign.
Born to a prominent family, Hincmar was sent early to the monastery of St. Denis
where he was professed a monk and obtained the best education available. He was
guided in his early years by the Abbot Hilduin, who also introduced Hincmar to the
leaders of Frankish government and society. When the abbot was made royal chap-
lain to Louis the Pious in 822, Hilduin brought Hincmar with him to court where
the young cleric made a favorable impression. Hincmar also had the opportunity
to witness the function of Carolingian government and the operations of the impe-
rial court at first hand, an opportunity that would serve him well in his later years
as an advisor to Carolingian rulers. Following the revolt of Lothar in 830, Hilduin
was sent into exile for backing the rebel and was joined in his exile by his devoted
student Hincmar. And it may have been Hincmar’s ties to Louis that helped arrange
his abbot’s return to good graces.
On the death of Louis in 840, Hincmar supported Charles the Bald in the Caro-
lingian ruler’s struggles to maintain his authority in the Carolingian Empire against
his brothers. His support was rewarded by Charles who bestowed upon Hincmar
the abbacies of Notre Dame de Compiegne and Saint-Germer de Flyin 840, and in
845 the king helped secure the office of archbishop of Rheims for Hincmar. The
archbishop continued to support Charles throughout the king’s reign, most nota-
bly in 858 when Charles’ half-brother, Louis the German, invaded. It was Hincmar
who defended Charles’ authority as king and helped organize the defense of the
West Frankish kingdom against the invader. Two years later, Hincmar played an im-
portant role at the peace negotiations between the two Carolingian kings. Perhaps
related to his support for his king was Hincmar’s opposition to the divorce of Lo-
thar II, the king of Lotharingia, which led to the composition of one of Hincmar’s
more important works, De divortio Lotharii. Whether motivated by politics or not,
Hincmar supported Charles’ designs on Lotharingia and on the death of Lothar in
869, Hincmar secured Charles’ succession to the throne and crown Charles king
at Metz. Following Charles’ death in 877, Hincmar served as advisor to the late
king’s successors and composed De Ordine Palatii (On the Order of the Palace), an
important commentary on the duties of a king and on the structure of government,
for Charles’ son Caroloman.
Hincmar was involved not only in the great political developments of the king-
dom but also in several ecclesiastical affairs. In 848, he was engaged in the pre-
destination controversy initiated by the teachings of Gottschalk of Orbais, whose
works the archbishop condemned in a treatise of his own. He also participated in
the council that formally condemned Gottschalk’s teachings. Hincmar was also
a zealous defender of the interests of the archbishopric of Rheims and of his
 Honoria | 313

authority as archbishop. From the very beginning of his reign as archbishop, Hinc-
mar fought for the rights of his church. His predecessor, Ebbo, who had been de-
posed as a result of his role in the revolts against Louis the Pious, had alienated
episcopal property and improperly consecrated clergy, and Hincmar fought these
ordinations and worked hard to regain the lost property. He later came into con-
flict with the bishop of Soissons over episcopal rights, which involved frequent
reference to the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a recently forged collection of church
canons attributed to the early popes, by both Hincmar and his adversaries. Al-
though Hincmar was defeated in this contest, he successfully asserted his author-
ity over his nephew, Hincmar bishop of Laon, and secured the rights of Rheims
as the archiepiscopal see.
Active in secular and ecclesiastical politics, Hincmar was also a noted scholar.
Along with the De Ordine Palatii and treatises condemning Lothar’s divorce and
Gottschalk’s teachings, Hincmar wrote important canonical works on the rights
of an archbishop as well as a number of poems, capitularies, letters, sermons, and
biblical commentaries. He was also a historian and hagiographer, continuing the
Annals of Bertin and composing a life of St. Remigius (d. 533), the founder of
Hincmar’s see and patron saint of Rheims.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Charles the Bald; Gottschalk of
Orbais; Louis the German; Lothar; Louis the Pious; Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Bibliography
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961.
Nelson, Janet L. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Honoria (mid-fifth century)

Empress and Augusta, Honoria was a member of one of the great imperial lines.
Her grandfather was the emperor Theodosius and her brother was Valentinian III.
She was also the daughter of Constantius III and Galla Placidia, the domineering
and ambitious empress whom Honoria was most like. Honoria’s life was one of
intrigue and scandal, and she herself suffered the consequences of dynastic policy.
Although little is known of her early years or even the date of her death, Honoria
had a remarkable impact on the fate of the Western Empire in the first half of the fifth
century. She most likely joined her family on their trip to Constantinople in 423 and
returned with them to the Western Empire in 424. Her image appears in a number
of mosaics of the 420s, and she was described in a poem, extant only in a fragment,
314 | Honorius

that celebrated the imperial family. In 426, when her brother assumed the imperial
dignity, Honoria was proclaimed Augusta. Honoria is most notorious, however, for
her attempted marriage alliance. For a time, Honoria held a position of prestige at
court, but when her nieces were born Honoria’s status declined. In response to this
loss of status, Honoria, with her lover the imperial steward Eugenius, plotted the
murder of her brother in 449. The plot was discovered, and Eugenius was cruelly
executed. Valentinian decided that it was time to secure a safe and sober marriage
for her sister, proposing she marry the rich but uninspiring senator Flavius Bassus
Herculanus. Honoria, of course, had other ideas and in 450 sent the eunuch Hyacin-
thus with a ring and money to Attila the Hun asking that he rescue her from a dull
and dreary marriage. Attila, believing this was a marriage proposal, demanded that
Honoria and half the Western Empire be turned over to him or he would invade the
empire to secure his bride.
In response to these demands, Valentinian had Hyacinthus tortured and killed
and would have killed Honoria herself had their mother, Galla Placidia, not inter-
vened. Attila sent a further embassy again demanding his bride and equal share
of the empire or face invasion. Demands for Honoria may have been the justifica-
tion for Attila’s long-desired invasion of the empire in 451, which resulted in the
Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, and a second invasion that reached Rome itself
in 453. Attila’s goals of conquest of empire and acquisition of his betrothed failed
on both occasions, and Honoria was left to a dismal fate—possibly marriage to
the Herculanus and certainly to fade into obscurity after the death of her hero.
See also: Attila; Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the; Galla Placidia; Huns; Rome; Theodosius
the Great

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Hollum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Honorius (384–423)

Son of the emperor Theodosius the Great and brother of the eastern emperor Ar-
cadius, Honorius, in full Flavius Honorius, ruled the Western Empire in the early
fifth century and presided over the beginning of the final demise of the empire in
the west. His reign was troubled by uneasy relations with his own subordinates, es-
pecially Stilicho, and with Germanic leaders like the Visigoth Alaric. During Hono-
rius’s reign, the borders of the empire were breached on several occasions and Italy
 Honorius | 315

itself suffered invasion numerous times. His reign also witnessed the sacking of the
city of Rome for the first time in 800 years, and even though it was no longer the
capital, Rome’s violation came as a profound and disturbing shock to the empire.
His weakness and poor judgment were especially detrimental to the fate of the em-
pire and worsened an already difficult situation.
The early years of his reign were marked by the guardianship of Stilicho, a
Vandal-Roman general who had been his father’s commander-in-chief, and the
struggle with Alaric. Although occasionally allowing him to escape, Stilicho stood
as the empire’s firmest defense against the invasions of Alaric and his Visigoths.
Sometimes caught in the competition between Honorius and his brother Arcadius,
Stilicho remained loyal to the emperor and served him well. He benefited from this
service by rapid promotion and close proximity to the imperial house, even mar-
rying his daughter to Honorius. The emperor, however, came eventually to tire of
Stilicho and became critical of his general’s stewardship. To protect the imperial
heartland against Alaric, Stilicho withdrew imperial troops from Britain and the
frontiers. Even more serious, though, was the general’s failure to defend the em-
pire against the invasion of Italy by Radagaisus and his army of Ostrogoths dur-
ing the first decade of the fifth century. Although Stilicho defeated the Ostrogoth,
the devastation that Radagaisus caused in the north unsettled many. Moreover,
Stilicho’s efforts to secure the succession to the throne by the marriage of his son
to Honorius’s sister Galla Placidia alienated the emperor even more. In 408, when
Arcadius died, Honorius was persuaded to allow Stilicho to go to Constantinople
to guarantee the succession of Honorius’s nephew. In Stilicho’s absence, Honorius
was persuaded that Stilicho had actually gone to place his own son on the throne.
As a result, Honorius ordered the arrest and immediate execution of Stilicho, whose
end came on August 22, 408.
Honorius had eliminated Stilicho, but he had only exacerbated the real problems
of the empire. Indeed, Alaric, the greatest threat faced by the Western Empire, re-
mained at large, but now Stilicho, who had had at least some success against Alaric,
was no longer around to restrict Alaric’s activities. Even worse, the wanton massacre
of many of the German troops that had supported Stilicho provided Alaric another
opportunity to invade Italy. In 408, Alaric marched into Italy and eventually reached
Rome, no longer the capital but still a symbol of the empire. For the next two years,
Honorius and his generals were involved in complicated negations with Alaric. Al-
though making numerous concessions and ultimately demanding only settlement
for his followers, Alaric was repeatedly rebuffed by Honorius. Indeed, Honorius
refused the most favorable terms Alaric offered and suffered the consequences, the
sack of the city of Rome. This event, which clearly shook the confidence of the em-
pire, demonstrates the incompetence of Honorius. After their assault on Rome, the
Visigoths most likely moved into southern Italy before heading north and settling in
Gaul. The failures of Honorius thus contributed to the dismemberment of the West-
ern Empire and the emergence of the first Germanic successor states.
316 | Huneric

Honorius also suffered a personal embarrassment in the sack of Rome; his sister,
Galla Placidia, was kidnapped by Alaric’s successor, Ataulf. She ultimately married
her Visigothic captor, and both of them hoped to produce an heir to the imperial
throne that would unite Visigoths and Romans. Ataulf’s murder, however, ended
this dream, and Honorius successfully negotiated for her return in 416, in exchange
for his support of the Visigoths. Honorius then married his sister to one of his gen-
erals, a marriage that produced the heir, Valentinian, in 419.
In his remaining few years, Honorius remained relatively inactive and in so doing
caused few problems for the empire. His death in 423 was the occasion for dispute
over the succession, which ultimately fell to Valentinian under the regency of Galla
Placidia. The reign of Honorius was clearly a low point for the empire. He pre-
sided over the withdrawal of troops from England and the frontiers, which allowed
barbarian tribes to enter and begin to carve up the Western Empire. He eliminated
his most important general, while not taking the steps necessary to get rid of his
greatest enemy. He also presided over the sack of Rome, an event that heralded the
imminent collapse of the Western Empire.
See also: Alaric; Arbogast; Galla Placidia; Ostrogoths; Rome; Stilicho, Flavius; Theodosius
the Great; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Burns, Thomas S. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Pol-
icy and the Barbarians, ca. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1994.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York and London: W. W.
Norton, 1967.
Claudian. Claudian’s Fourth Panegyric on the fourth consulate of Honorius. Ed. and
trans. William Barr. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1981.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Zosimus. New History. Trans. Ronald T. Ridley. Canberra: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.

Huneric (d. 484)

The son and successor of the great Vandal king, Gaiseric. Huneric’s rule (r. 477–
484) is best known for its persecutions of Catholic Christians in his kingdom. But he
also attempted to preserve his father’s legacy and maintain the power and place of
the Vandal kingdom in North Africa. Before his rule as king, Huneric was involved
 Huneric | 317

in his father’s diplomacy and was betrothed to and eventually married an imperial
princess. His reign, however, was relatively short, especially when compared with
that of his father, and his efforts to solidify and unify the kingdom remained unfin-
ished because of his death.
When Huneric came to the throne at his father’s death in 477, he was already
advanced in years. He was probably 66 years old, and although little is known of
his life before he ascended the throne, Huneric probably was involved in the affairs
of the kingdom during his father’s reign. At the very least, it is known that Huneric
was involved in diplomatic affairs. In 442, to guarantee a treaty with the Western
Empire, Huneric was sent to Ravenna, the imperial capital, as a hostage and stayed
there for three or four years. He was also betrothed to the Eudocia, the daughter of
Emperor Valentinian III. She was quite young at the time of the engagement and the
marriage had to wait some 10 years. Moreover, Huneric was already married, but
Gaiseric did not let such details interfere with diplomacy—he accused Huneric’s
Visigothic wife of attempting to poison him, cut off her nose and ears, and returned
her to Visigothic Spain. The betrothal and eventual marriage with the imperial
princess were clearly important concerns in Gaiseric’s relations with the imperial
government in Italy, which were obviously more significant than his relations with
the Visigoths. These ties were unsettled, however, before Huneric actually married
Eudocia. Before marrying Huneric, she married the son of her father’s successor,
which may have prompted Gaiseric’s invasion and sack of Rome. Huneric captured
his betrothed and married her in 456.
The marriage itself did not last, but it did produce one and possibly two sons.
In 457, Eudocia bore Hilderic, and perhaps another son within the next few years.
But Huneric and Eudocia were poorly matched, particularly in religion. There was,
of course, the great difference in age, with Huneric probably some 28 years older
than his wife. Furthermore, she was a devout Catholic, and he was an aggressive
Arian who persecuted Catholics. As a result she left her husband in 472 and fled to
Jerusalem, where she spent the rest of her days.
Once on the throne in 477 Huneric paid far less attention to affairs with Rome
and instead sought to unify the kingdom and ensure that his son would succeed
him as king. To guarantee his son’s succession he needed to eliminate rivals from
within his own family, particularly the sons of Gaiseric’s brothers. According to an
agreement within the ruling family, the eldest son of any of Gaiseric’s brothers or
nephews was to inherit the throne, and Hilderic was the third oldest of that genera-
tion. In 481, Huneric launched a bloody purge of his brothers and nephews to secure
his son’s succession. The effort failed, however, because he failed to capture or kill
the two nephews who were ahead of Hilderic, and it was those nephews who actu-
ally did take the throne from 523 to 530. Huneric’s other domestic initiative was
an equal failure. He attempted to unify the kingdom by imposing Arian Christian-
ity on all his subjects. In 483 he passed an anti-Catholic edict, and in 484 issued a
318 | Huns

formal law against Catholic Christianity. He actively persecuted the Catholics in

his kingdom and found support for this from the Arian bishop of Carthage. But to
contemporaries his efforts seemed to inspire divine displeasure; his kingdom suf-
fered famine in the summer of 484, and Huneric himself died of a mysterious and
horrible disease in 484.
See also: Alans; Arianism; Gaiseric; Jordanes; Justinian; Pope Leo I the Great; Ravenna;
Rome; Vandals

Bibliography
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Clover, Frank M. The Late Roman West and the Vandals. London: Variorum, 1993.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution. Trans. John Moorhead. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Huns

Nomadic steppe people who were skilled horsemen and great warriors and who
challenged the power of the Roman Empire in the late fourth and fifth centuries.
Although the Huns were never a direct threat to the existence of the empire, they
did create great difficulties for Rome and won a number of battles against imperial
armies. They both served in the Roman military against invaders and were them-
selves invaders. The Huns also may have caused such great terror among various
Germanic tribes along Rome’s periphery that their advance led to the Germanic
migrations (or barbarian invasions) of the fourth and fifth centuries. They created
a great empire under their greatest leader, Attila, which collapsed shortly after his
death.
The origins and early history of the Huns remain obscure and uncertain. The
ancients offer a number of views of their origins. The historian Ammianus Mar-
cellinus said that they came from the “ice-bound north,” suggesting, therefore,
that they had Finno-Ugrian roots like the 10-century invaders, the Magyars who
settled in Hungary. Other sources describe them as a Turkic people, or as a new
wave of Scythians, Iranian horsemen who disappeared in the second century. A
popular modern view of the Huns places their origins on the frontiers of ancient
China. According to this view, the Huns can be associated with the Hsiung-nu (the
name Huns thus would be a corruption of the Chinese word for “common slaves”),
northern neighbors of the Chinese until the second-century ad. The Hsiung-nu had
 Huns | 319

long harassed the Chinese and inspired the erection of the Great Wall to protect the
Chinese from their powerful neighbors. Kept in check by the great Han dynasty,
the Hsiung-nu turned their attention elsewhere and eventually moved westward,
with dire consequences for those in their way. As attractive as this last view is, it
has met with increasing skepticism. It is likely that the Hunnish nation, like that
of the other barbarian peoples, was not ethnically homogenous but made up of a
number of peoples. At the very least, it is clear the Huns were a nomadic steppe
people of Eurasia, who absorbed Alans, Goths, and other peoples as they swept
into the Roman Empire.
The ancient sources also reveal certain physical and sociocultural characteris-
tics of the Huns. According to the historian of the Goths, Jordanes notes that the
Huns prepared their meat by placing it between the horse and saddle and “cook-
ing” it as they rode. Moreover, up until the time of Attila, and to a lesser degree his
predecessor Ruga, the Huns lacked a central ruling authority. As a nomadic people
shepherding their flock from pasture to pasture, they were migratory and organized
under tribal chieftains who were hierarchically ranked. The Huns themselves were
organized by families and larger clan units, with families living together in one
tent, six to ten tents forming a camp, and several camps forming a clan. Kinship,
rather than kingship, was the most important institution among the Huns until the
time of Attila, and even then it remained an important institution. Indeed, even At-
tila, the greatest ruler of the Huns was not recognized as a sacred king. The Huns
were skilled horsemen and equally skilled in the use of the composite bow, a bow
made of different materials that were glued together and reinforced by strips of
sinew. The ancient sources also reveal the funeral rites, at least for exalted fig-
ures like Attila. His body was borne into an open field, where it was laid to rest
in a tent of the finest Chinese silk. A ceremony called the strava then took place
around the body, during which the Huns rode around the tent, chanting a dirge,
tearing out their hair, and gashing their faces. He was then buried in a three-layer
coffin of gold, silver, and iron and much wealth was placed in the grave with him.
The slaves who prepared Attila’s tomb were killed so that its whereabouts would
remain unknown.
The Huns, whatever their exact origins, first arrived in Europe in 375 and helped
initiate the so-called migration of peoples. It should be noted, however, that al-
though the arrival of the Huns and their allies among the Gepids, Rugians, and oth-
ers caused great turmoil and forced the movement of the Goths, a generation passed
before the Huns were politically mature enough to exploit the situation in the em-
pire and along its frontiers. Nonetheless, the arrival of these terrifying warriors on
horseback did destabilize the balance along Rome’s frontier.
The Huns’ advance included the conquest of the Alans along the Don River—and
the Huns were ruthless overlords who kept their subject peoples from seceding—
which brought them and their allies from among the subject Alans into contact with
320 | Huns

the Ostrogothic kingdom of Ermanaric. The exact size of the army of the Huns re-
mains in doubt, but it is likely that they fought a series of successful battles against
Ermanaric. The Gothic king then took his own life, a sacrifice to the gods for the
safety of his people that proved ineffective. The failure of Ermanaric and his succes-
sor led to the absorption of much of Ermanaric’s nation by the Huns. Some Goths,
however, escaped subjugation by seeking the protection of the emperor, Valens, and
requesting admission to the empire as foederati (federated allies). This was perhaps
the most serious consequence of the Huns’ first contact with the Germanic peoples
living along Rome’s frontier. The settlement of the Goths in the empire had disas-
trous consequences; in 376 the Goths fought a major battle at Hadrianople that re-
sulted in the death of the emperor and the weakening of the empire.
A generation passed, however, before the Huns themselves raised the banner of
war and conquest again. In the last decade of the fourth century, Hunnish raiders
once again began striking at the frontiers of the empire and at the Germans living
on either side of that frontier. During the winter of 394–395, the Huns simultane-
ously attacked the Balkan provinces of the empire and, moving across the Cauca-
sus, Asia Minor. The advance was stopped by a Visigothic count, Tribigild, whose
success inspired his demands for reward from the imperial government. When the
emperor refused, Tribigild rebelled, in 399, and another Visigoth in the service of
the empire, Gainas, was sent to put down the rebellion. Gainas quickly rallied the
large number of Visigoths in the Roman army to his side, and then he too rebelled.
His campaign was much more serious than that of Tribigild; he aimed to establish
himself as the power behind the throne in Constantinople. Gainas met success early
and even occupied the city of Constantinople for a time. He was, however, expelled
from the capital, and as many as 7,000 of his followers were massacred during the
withdrawal. But Gainas, remaining undaunted, attempted to establish a kingdom
north of the Danube and sacrificed the Roman soldiers in his control to the god of
the Danube to ensure success. At this point the Huns, led by the first known Hunnish
king, Uldin, met the Visigoth and his army. The two armies fought several battles.
Uldin ultimately triumphed; Gainas died in battle on December 23, 400, and the
Hunnish king sent his rival’s head to Constantinople. The imperial government lav-
ished gifts on Uldin and established a treaty with him.
The treaty proved a great benefit to the empire when a wave of Goths and other
peoples spread into the empire in 405, possibly the result of increasing pressure
from the Huns themselves. Uldin, however, honored the treaty with Rome when the
Gothic leader Radagaisus invaded the empire. Although it was the Roman military
commander Stilicho who defeated Radagaisus, he was able to secure his victory
because of the support of Uldin’s Huns. Although he was only one of several Hun-
nish rulers at the time, Uldin’s association with Rome set the stage for Roman-
Hunnish relations for much of the next generation. Roman military commanders,
such as Stilicho and Aëtius, employed Hunnish soldiers, and made alliances toward
 Huns | 321

that end with other Hunnish kings, such as Charaton. The Huns aided Roman gen-
erals against invading barbarians and against internal rebels during this period, and
also solidified their position along the Roman frontier, possibly in the Carpathian
mountain region.
During the opening decades of the fifth century, the Huns underwent transfor-
mation. As they moved into the Carpathians and also across Illyria, the Huns shed
some of their earlier social and political structures. They became less pastoral and
migratory and more dependent upon the agricultural produce of their subject peo-
ples. They also undertook raids to acquire the livestock they no longer husbanded
themselves. With settlement came changes in their political organization, as the
old tribal structure of hierarchically ranked chieftains was gradually replaced by a
smaller number of kings and, eventually, a sole king who ruled the Hunnish peoples
and their subject folk.
In the 420s, Attila’s uncles Octar and Ruga ruled the Huns as kings and shaped
them into a more unified people. Ruga, the senior partner, was particularly
important to the formation of the Huns and helped establish the foundation for
his nephew’s success. As king, Ruga oversaw important changes in the relation-
ship of the Huns and the Roman Empire. In 433, the leading general of the West,
Aëtius, feared for his position and life and turned to the Huns for assistance. He
negotiated a treaty with Ruga and returned to the Western Empire with strong
Hunnish military support that enabled him to reestablish his power and, in fact,
increase his authority. The relationship with Aëtius was surely an aid to Ruga and
his Huns, who also were involved with the Eastern Empire. Ruga staged raids on
the Eastern Empire and threatened the capital of Constantinople. He was the first
leader of the Huns to extract tribute from the Eastern Empire, imposing a treaty
on Constantinople involving annual payments of 350 pounds of gold. Although
this was not a significant amount, it did suggest a changing balance of power and
the increasing self-confidence of the Huns and their king. Ruga also demanded
the return of Hunnish soldiers who had deserted to imperial armies, and failure
to return them, Ruga declared, would be a violation of the treaty between the em-
pire and the Huns.
Ruga’s death occurred before he could resolve the disagreement over the return
of Hunnish soldiers, which would be addressed by his successors, his nephews At-
tila and Bleda. The Huns continued to enjoy success against the empire under Attila
and Bleda. In 435, they negotiated a new treaty with Rome that doubled the annual
tribute and required the return or ransom of Hunnish deserters. In the early and mid-
440s, Hunnish power continued to expand at Rome’s expense. The violation of the
treaty Attila had signed led to an invasion of the empire that involved the razing of a
number of cities by the Huns, who also threatened the city of Constantinople. Attila’s
invasion led to another treaty with the empire that increased the annual tribute to
2,100 pounds of gold and a one-time payment of 6,000 pounds of gold. At this
322 | Huns

point, fortunes turned for the Huns, who no longer appeared so fearsome to their
enemies. Bleda was blamed for this and was assassinated by his brother, who now
became the sole ruler of the Huns.
Attila quickly resumed hostilities against the empire, ravaging the Balkans, and
reestablishing his position. In 450 he turned his attention to the Western Empire,
perhaps because of a marriage proposal from the emperor’s sister, Honoria. He
invaded with a huge force, numbering between 300,000 and 700,000 soldiers ac-
cording to contemporary sources, made up of Huns and various subject peoples and
allies. Despite a sizeable force, Attila met several setbacks at the hands of Aëtius
and his equally mixed army of Romans and Germans, setbacks that included the
failure to take the critical city of Orleans. Aëtius and Attila fought a terrible and
bloody battle on the Catalaunian Plains. At one point things were going so badly
for the Huns that Attila prepared to commit suicide. But the Huns rallied and left
the battlefield in orderly fashion, and they were not pursued by the Roman armies—
wounded, the Huns would have fought on ferociously, and Aëtius needed the Huns
too much to destroy them. Attila pressed on and invaded Italy in 452 for a second
time. The invasion began more favorably for the Huns, until they met Pope Leo
the Great, who persuaded Attila to withdraw, which he did. According to sacred
tradition, Saints Peter and Paul and a host of angels and saints supported Leo and
forced Attila’s departure. Another explanation for Attila’s withdrawal is that his
army was being decimated by plague. Attila refused to relent and planned a great
invasion of the Eastern Empire in 453, but his death on his wedding night put an
end to those plans.
With the death of Attila, the Roman Empire breathed more easily. Although he
never threatened the empire’s existence, Attila posed a great challenge that did
serious damage to the empire and its allies. Unfortunately for the Huns, but fortu-
nately for everyone else, Attila had no successor that was his equal. His numerous
sons failed to provide a united front and were unable to overcome the challenge
raised by the various subject peoples, particularly the Gepids. In 454 the Huns
and their allies were decisively defeated by an ethnically diverse army, similar
to those that had fought for and against Attila, at the Battle of Nedao. Attila’s
oldest son, Ellac, died at Nedao, but other sons continued the struggle and were
defeated and killed by 469. The empire of the Huns collapsed, and rival Ger-
manic peoples carved out new kingdoms in its place. The Western Roman Em-
pire, too, did not survive long after the death of Attila and the collapse of his
empire. Within a generation of his death and the disappearance of his empire,
various Germanic peoples had moved into the Western Empire and brought about
its fall.
See also: Aëtius; Alans; Ammianus Marcellinus; Attila the Hun; Hadrianople, Battle of;
Honoria; Jordanes; Ostrogoths; Rome; Visigoths
 Huns | 323

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Heather, Peter. “Goths and Huns, c. 320–425.” In The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425,
vol. 13, The Cambridge Ancient History. Eds. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 487–537.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages.
Trans. Philip and Mariette Leon. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961.
Reynolds, Susan. “Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the Historiography
of the Age of Migrations.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medi-
eval History. Ed. Alexander Callander Murray. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999,
pp. 17–36.
Thompson, Edward A. A History of Attila and the Huns. Oxford: Clarendon, 1948.
Thompson, Edward A. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
I
Iconoclastic Controversy

A century long religious dispute that shook the Byzantine Empire, the Iconoclastic
Controversy addressed one of the fundamental religious practices of the eastern
empire and had important repercussions for the relation of church and state in the
empire and the relationship between papal Rome and imperial Constantinople.
Initiated by an imperial decree in the early eighth century that abolished the practice
of the veneration of images, the controversy finally ended in the mid-ninth century
with the restoration of the practice.
The tradition of Christian religious art and the depiction of Jesus and Mary and
the saints stretched back to before the age of Constantine, and churches routinely
included images of sacred personages. Icons, images of saintly persons, were in-
tended as a means of educating the faithful but were also understood as having a
direct connection with the saint they represented. This belief that the icon served
as a conduit to the saint in heaven contributed to the growing popularity of vener-
ating images, which were often the site of miracles such as a bleeding or crying
icon. The growing popularity of icon veneration the seventh and eighth centuries
attracted the attention of those who held that the veneration of images was little
more than idolatry and formally condemned by Scriptures. It also inspired the com-
position of theological treatises providing a defense of the popular understanding
of the nature of the icons.
During the reign of the emperor Leo III the Isaurian (r. 717–41), the question
of the acceptability of the veneration of icons emerged in the empire. Leo himself
opposed the practice and officially banned the practice in 727. His motivations are
not completely clear and may have been a mix of personal religious belief and the
dictates of the Mosaic code along with animosity toward the monks and priests
who benefited from the practice and posed a potential political rival to the em-
peror. Whatever the case, Leo assumed that he was exercising his prerogative as
emperor to implement the ban and found support for his policy from natural and
military disasters which seemed to Leo to convey divine disfavor of the practice
of the veneration of icons. The emperor also had the support of the army for his
iconoclastic policy but was strongly opposed by the monks. This resistance forced
Leo to take harsher measures in the 730s, attacking the monasteries and even or-
dering the destruction of images. His son and successor Constantine V (r. 741–54)
took the policy of iconoclasm even further and more aggressively smashed icons

325
326 | Iconoclastic Controversy

and harassed monks, whom he may have forced to marry and to shave off their
beards. The policy of iconoclasm was given official ecclesiastical sanction under
Constantine when it was approved at the Council of Hiereia in 754 and for the next
two decades following the council the persecution of the supporters of icons and
the destruction of icons reached its greatest height.
Despite its formal acceptance by the army and ecclesiastical hierarchy, the
policy of iconoclasm faced resistance at Rome and in the Byzantine Empire.
Pope Gregory III (r. 731–741) denounced Leo’s policy, criticizing the emperor
for usurping the papal prerogative to define matters of the faith and specifically
rejecting the terms of iconoclasm. Gregory undertook an extensive building pro-
gram in Rome that supported the traditional use of images in response to Leo’s
policy, and the dissension over iconoclasm may have contributed to Gregory’s
efforts to seek a new protector in the Carolingian mayor Charles Martel. Along
with opposition from Rome, elements within the Byzantine Empire were resis-
tant to the new policy. Although Leo’s son Constantine V was an ardent icono-
clast, his son, Leo IV (775–780), and his son’s wife, Irene, were not. And it
was Irene who overturned the policies of Constantine V and Leo the Isaurian.
In 787, she and her son, the emperor Constantine VI, presided over the Second
Council of Nicaea, which restored the veneration of icons to its respected place
within the Byzantine church. The council received the blessing of Pope Hadrian I
(772–795) and was attended by two of his representatives as well as a large
number of bishop, monks and priest from throughout the empire. Nicaea’s de-
cisions were recognized as ecumenical, binding on all Christians, and were to
be accepted by all those subject to Hadrian’s authority. The leader of the largest
church in Europe, Charlemagne, did not accept Nicaea’s decisions. Represen-
tatives of Charlemagne’s Frankish church were not invited to the council, and
its decisions were repudiated by the Carolingian church. In the Caroline Books
(Libri Carolini), Theodulf of Orléans, with the possible help of the great Anglo-
Saxon scholar and missionary Alcuin of York, and working from a flawed copy
of the decrees of the council, provided the official response of the Carolingian
church to Irene’s Council of Nicaea. Theodulf offered a sophisticated view of
art in his work, even though it failed to accurately address the defense of images
announced at Nicaea. The Frankish response, however, had little effect in Con-
stantinople, and the veneration of icons was once again officially approved and
popularly practiced throughout the empire.
Following series of military setbacks and in the face of Islamic proscriptions of
images, a second wave of iconoclasm broke out in the empire from 815 to 842. In
815 the first of three iconoclastic emperors, Leo V the Armenian (r. 813–820), pre-
sided over a council that once again banned the veneration of icons and deposed the
patriarch of Constantinople and appointing a new patriarch that supported icono-
clasm. The same divisions emerged in Byzantine society that had existed during the
 Irene | 327

first phase of iconoclasm with the army generally supporting the emperor and the
monks opposing iconoclasm. Iconoclastic policies were supported by Leo’s succes-
sors Michael II (r. 820–829) and, especially, Theophilos (r. 829–842), who banned
veneration of icons and actively persecuted supporters of icons. Theophilos’s
widow, Theodora, however, was declared regent and almost immediately restored
the practice of the veneration of icons. She deposed the sitting patriarch and ap-
pointed Methodius as patriarch of Constantinople who presided over a church cere-
mony on the first Sunday of Lent in 843 that anathematized iconoclasts and honored
the defenders of icons. The ceremony continues to be celebrated in the Orthodox
Church in the Triumph of Orthodoxy.
See also: Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Gregory III, Pope; Irene; Leo III, the Isaurian; Libri
Carolini; Theodulf of Orléans

Bibliography
Barber, Charles. Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Chazelle, Celia. The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era: Theology and Art of Christ’s
Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Noble, Thomas F. X. Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Pelkian, Jaroslav. Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2011.

Irene (c. 752–802)

Empress, imperial regent, and even emperor herself (r. 797–802), Irene was an im-
portant and powerful figure at the Byzantine court in the late eighth and early ninth
centuries. Irene was able to exercise great influence, in part not only because of
the premature death of her husband, Leo IV (r. 775–780), but also because of her
own talents and ambition. Like all emperors, Irene was active in religious, politi-
cal, and military policies. She was in diplomatic contact with the great Carolin-
gian ruler Charlemagne and even attempted to arrange a marriage alliance with the
Carolingian. Her involvement in religious policy seriously strained relations with
the church of Charlemagne. Her political ambitions also had serious repercussions
in the Frankish world, particularly when she usurped the imperial throne from her
son and gave Charlemagne’s advisors a further justification for encouraging Char-
lemagne to take the imperial title.
At the death of the iconoclastic emperor, Constantine V in 775, Leo IV suc-
ceeded to throne with his wife, Irene. With the early and unexpected death of
Leo, Irene was thrust into great prominence in the Byzantine Empire as the
328 | Irene

regent for her young son Constantine VI (r. 780–797). Throughout the 780s,
Irene was the guiding force in the empire and introduced important new policies
that were often contrary to those of her predecessors, the most dramatic of which
was overturning the policy of iconoclasm. Unlike Leo III, Constantine IV, and,
to a lesser degree, Leo IV, Irene favored the veneration of icons as an integral
part of religious life and practice in the Byzantine Church. Consequently in 787,
with her son, Irene presided over the Second Council of Nicaea. This council of-
ficially reversed the iconoclastic policies of the previous three generations and
restored icons to a respected place in the church. The council was ecumenical—
its decisions were binding on all Christians—and was attended by a large num-
ber of bishops, monks, and priests from the Byzantine Empire. It also boasted
two representatives of the pope, Hadrian I (772–795), whose presence confirmed
the universal nature of the council. The pope’s legates returned to Italy with
the decisions of the council, which were to be accepted by the churches under
Hadrian’s authority. Indeed, the Council of Nicaea achieved two goals that un-
dermined recent imperial policy: the abolition of iconoclasm and improvement
in relations with the west.
Irene’s good relations with the pope established at the council were part of a
broader effort on her part to improve relations with the leaders of Western Europe.
Her efforts to improve relations with western leaders, however, achieved only
partial success, and the council at Nicaea was both a high point and a low point
in her efforts to secure better relations with western leaders. Although she gained
the good graces of the pope, Irene lost the good relations she had secured earlier
in the decade with the most important leader in Western Europe, Charlemagne.
At the outset of her regency, in 781, Irene sought to arrange a marriage alliance
with the great Carolingian ruler. Charlemagne was clearly pleased by the pro-
posed marriage between his daughter, Rotrude (d. 839), and Irene’s son and the
future emperor, Constantine. The children were quite young at the time, ages six
or seven and eleven, respectively, but this would have been a marriage alliance
of great importance, at least to the Carolingian ruler, who saw the prestige of the
association with the imperial throne in Constantinople. The marriage, however,
never came to be, and relations between Charlemagne and Irene worsened before
the end of the 780s.
Irene’s support of the Lombard duke Arichis, whom she promised to grant the
rank of patrician in return for his obedience, surely angered the great Carolingian,
who sought to establish his authority over much of Italy. Even more serious damage
was done to Carolingian–Byzantine relations by the council in 787. Although rep-
resentatives of the pope were invited, no representatives of the Carolingian church,
the largest church in Western Europe, were invited. This slight enraged the great
king and gravely harmed relations between Charlemagne and Irene. Indeed, in
response to the council, Charlemagne commissioned an answer to the perceived
 Irene | 329

errors of Irene’s council. The Caroline Books (Libri Carolini) were written by
Theodulf of Orléans, with some possible aid from Alcuin, to denounce the ven-
eration of icons promoted by Irene. Based on faulty translations of the acts of the
council, the Caroline Books were a bitter denunciation of Irene’s policy as heresy
and a statement of the orthodoxy of the Carolingian church.
Although Irene’s relationship with the greatest power of Western Europe was
seriously damaged by the late 780s, she spent most of the decade strengthening
the empire. She had success quieting the unrest brought on by Leo the Isaurian’s
religious policy, as well as some success defending the frontiers of the empire.
In 790, however, she faced a serious internal rival—her own son. In that year,
Constantine, in full manhood by now and recently married to a Byzantine noble’s
daughter, sought to end his mother’s excessive influence and assert his own au-
thority. Irene was sent into internal exile from 790 to 797, and Constantine ruled
as sole emperor. His reign was not the most successful, however; he faced military
setbacks against Arab and Bulgarian armies on the empire’s eastern and north-
ern frontiers. He also divorced his wife to marry a woman at court, which caused
great scandal in Byzantine society. His military failures and personal scandals
undermined confidence in him and allowed for the return of his mother. On Au-
gust 15, 797, she launched a successful coup, and she had Constantine arrested
and blinded in the very room of his birth. Even though he probably survived the
blinding, he was now rendered unfit to rule, and Irene ruled as emperor until 802,
when she was overthrown.
Although she did not rule as emperor for long, her usurpation was not with-
out significant consequence, at least in Western Europe. Indeed, her impact in the
Byzantine Empire during her sole reign was not great, but her usurpation had im-
portant repercussions for Charlemagne and his court scholars. Already in the 790s
Charlemagne’s advisors had spoken of him in imperial terms, noting that he was a
great conqueror who ruled over much of the old Western Roman Empire. Many of
Charlemagne’s advisors denounced Irene’s actions, declaring that a woman could
not rightfully hold the office of emperor. In a famous letter in 799, Alcuin noted that
“the governor of that empire has been deposed by his own circle and citizens.” For
Alcuin, therefore, as for others around Charlemagne, the imperial throne was vacant
because a woman claimed to hold it. Irene’s deposition of her son and usurpation
of the throne was used as a further justification for Charlemagne himself to claim
the title of emperor. And, although the exact meaning for all involved remains
unclear, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III on
December 25, 800. Irene’s ambition and failure in relations with Western Europe
played some role in that great event.
See also: Alcuin of York; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Hadrian I, Pope; Iconoclas-
tic Controversy; Leo III, the Isaurian; Leo III, Pope; Libri Carolini; Rome; Theodulf of
Orléans
330 | Irminsul

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians. Longman:
London, 1983.
Obolensky, Dmitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1543. New
York: Praeger, 1971.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Sullivan, Richard. Heirs of the Roman Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1974.

Irminsul

An important shrine of pagan Saxon religion, the Irminsul (Saxon: “mighty pillar”
or “great pillar”) was believed to be a great pillar that supported the heavens and
was an important symbol of Saxon political and religious independence. It may
have been a representation of Yggdrasil, the cosmic tree or tree of life found also in
Scandinavian traditions. Constructed out of a tree trunk and possibly containing an
idol, the Irminsul was most likely the focus of Saxon religious rites and was also a
sign of Saxon power as it advanced against the Christian Franks. Established near
the fortress of Eresburg on the river Lippe, the great pillar was erected in territory
recently conquered by the Saxons and may have been built to celebrate Saxon mili-
tary victories. Its importance to the Saxons and sacred character is evident from the
large hoard of gold and silver that was stored at the Irminsul. The centrality of the
Irminsul to Saxon religious and political identity is confirmed by Charlemagne’s
Saxon campaign in 772. The opening of a protracted struggle that would last until
804, the invasion sought to stop Saxon attacks on the Carolingian realm and to in-
troduce Christianity to the Saxons. On this first campaign, as the Royal Frankish
Annals note, Charlemagne seized the fortress of Eresburg and destroyed the Irmin-
sul, collecting the vast store of gold and silver that was held at the shrine.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Charlemagne; Carolingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Scholz, Bernard Walter. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s
History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
 Isidore of Seville | 331

Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636)

Spanish bishop and author of numerous works, Isidore was one of the greatest
scholars of the early Middle Ages; his work was influential and popular, both in
Spain and the rest of Europe. Only the work of Augustine of Hippo, among authors
before 800, was copied more often than the work of Isidore. His most important
work, the Etymologies, was an encyclopedia of all knowledge at the time and was
an important reference work for scholars for generations to come. He also wrote
works of history and biography as well as a commentary on the Bible and works on
Christian doctrine. His work of history was highly nationalistic and portrayed the
Visigothic kingdom of Spain in most glorious light as a great Christian kingdom
and as the rival and worthy successor of the Roman Empire.
Little is known of his life outside of his great literary output. He was probably
born at Carthagena, which was in Byzantine hands at the time, before his family
moved to Seville. His older brother, who was a great influence on him, St. Lean-
der (d. 599 or 600), was an active figure in Visigothic religion and politics. Le-
ander influenced the conversion of Hermenegild, a Visigothic prince who led an
unsuccessful revolt against his father, and then Reccared I from Arian Christian-
ity to Catholic Christianity. Leander was also bishop of Seville and an advocate
of the monastic life. Considering Leander’s support for monasticism, it is pos-
sible that Isidore himself was a monk. Although Isidore himself did write a rule
for monastic life, it is uncertain whether he was a monk. He was most likely put
on the path of the religious life while he was young, whether or not he became
a monk. He probably was made a deacon and priest as soon as legally possible
and eventually succeeded his brother as bishop of Seville at Leander’s death in
599 or 600.
As bishop, Isidore was elevated to the national stage and most likely influenced
affairs in the Visigothic kingdom, even if this influence was not as great as that of
his brother. Although he performed the normal daily duties as bishop, he also cor-
responded with the Visigothic kings and seems to have been quite close to King
Sisebut (612–621), who was an active supporter of intellectual and cultural life in
Spain. In his correspondence with kings, bishops, and other clergy, Isidore culti-
vated a new model of kingship, promoted the concept of the Visigothic kingdom
as the ideal Christian state, denigrated the Byzantine Empire, and denounced the
Visigothic kings’ attempts to convert the Jews of Spain to Christianity. He also
presided over two important church councils in Seville in 619 and at the Fourth
Council of Toledo in 633. The council at Toledo especially was of great significance
and reinforced the values of Isidore by defining the proper behavior of the clergy,
the proper teachings of the Catholic faith, and the ideals concerning the Visigothic
kings and kingdom.
332 | Isidore of Seville

Although most likely an important figure in Spain, Isidore is best known for his
literary works. His most important and influential work was the Etymologies (Ety-
mologiarum sive originum libri XX), which is extant in over 1,000 manuscripts and
was probably found in most monastic libraries in the Middle Ages. Unfinished at his
death and completed by one of his disciples, the Etymologies was a compendium of
all knowledge of the ancient world. Isidore drew from Augustine of Hippo, Jerome,
Cassiodorus, Pope Gregory the Great, and Virgil, among other classical and Chris-
tian authors, in the preparation of his great encyclopedia. His approach was linguistic,
and he opened each entry with the derivation of the word being treated. These deri-
vations were often quite fanciful, so much so that these explanations have often pre-
vented recognition of the value of the material included. The Etymologies covered
a wide range of topics, including the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic,
arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy), medicine, law, books of the Bible, an-
gels, saints, men, animals, fabulous monsters, the universe, agriculture, war, ships,
dress, food, drink, and furniture. The Etymologies thus treated all branches of knowl-
edge, and it was intended as a tool for scholars to use; the rise of scholarship in Spain
following Isidore’s death suggests that it was successful in that regard.
Isidore wrote a number of other secular works. He wrote a second learned trea-
tise, De natura rerum (On the Nature of Things), which was widely popular; it dis-
cusses the sun, moon, and planets, as well as earthly natural phenomena, including
the Nile River, earthquakes, and the sea. Its purpose was to provide an explanation
of nature to rival that offered by popular astrology. He also wrote several works
of history, including a world history (Chronica mundi), a biographical guide of il-
lustrious people (De viris illustribus), and the very important History of the Goths,
Vandals, and Suevi. His works of history are important sources for the understand-
ing of the history of the Visigoths; for his own time, they were also a means to glo-
rify the Visigoths. In his History of the Goths, he praises the Goths of Spain, and
portrays the Gothic kingdom as the true successor of the Roman Empire, which is
now subject to the Goths. He also criticizes the Byzantine Empire and declared its
greatest emperor, Justinian, a heretic. Like his other works, all Isidore’s historical
writings were very popular in Spain, and the Chronica and De viris were found in
libraries throughout Europe.
Along with his numerous secular works of literature, Isidore wrote a number of
religious works. His work borrows from many important church fathers, most im-
portant among whom for Isidore were Augustine and Gregory the Great. He wrote
a rule for monastic life that borrowed from Augustine and Gregory and, probably,
from St. Benedict of Nursia. A practical guide, the Rule of Isidore, among other
things, encouraged the monks to read Christian works and to take books out of the
library, read them, and return them each day. He also wrote the Sententiae, a moral
and pastoral guide for clergy that was very influential, exists in hundreds of manu-
scripts, and provided a source book for many later collections of church law. He
was the author of a commentary on the books of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as
 Ivories | 333

a polemical treatise against the Jews (De fide catholica contra fide Iudaeos). This
treatise, which was influenced by Augustine, reveals one of the darker aspects of
medieval Christian civilization. The work is hostile to the Jews and encourages the
conversion of Jews to Christianity as a means to bring about the final age of hu-
mankind. Conversion of the Jews would also contribute to the complete integration
of Visigothic Spain and enable it to reach its most glorious potential. Despite his
hostility to the Jews, Isidore’s legacy includes an important body of written work
that had a generally positive influence on the development of culture and society.
See also: Arianism; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Gregory the Great; Hermenegild; Justinian;
Reccared I; Toldeo; Visigoths

Bibliography
Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. Willard
R. Trask. 1953. Reprint, with a new epilogue by Peter Goodman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1990.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Isidore of Seville. History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2nd rev. ed. Trans. Guido
Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
King, P. D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1972.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
Thompson, E. A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.

Ivories

Ivory was a popular and important medium in early medieval art; carved ivories
served a variety of artistic purposes. Ivory was frequently used for liturgical ob-
jects and also for book covers and reliquaries. Ivory was also used for more secular
objects, including small boxes and combs. Early medieval artists borrowed from
classical models for their works and often created beautiful and high-quality pieces.
Continental artisans had access, even though restricted and limited in quantity, to
elephant ivory from Africa, although they also used animal bones and teeth and
whalebone. Anglo-Saxon artisans, however, had no access to elephant ivory, and
their “ivories” are often made of whalebone or walrus tusk.
334 | Ivories

Ivory was a popular material for artists in the Roman Empire, and elephant ivory
could be obtained by artists with little difficulty. But after the fall of the empire in
the west, this commodity became harder to come by until the ninth century, when
the Carolingians expanded trade. Despite the scarcity of ivory, even under the Car-
olingians, the art form continued to be popular, and imperial models continued to
influence artists. Ivories continued to appear throughout the post-Roman world and
are found among the treasures of the Merovingians. Ivory carving was frequently
used to produce religious items, and ivory carvers employed simple tools similar
to those of the woodworker. The ivories were often polished or painted and were
often placed with metalwork and jewels in the finished product.
Under the Carolingians ivory carving flourished again and reflected the Carolin-
gian interest in Roman imperial models. Carolingian ivory workers created small
boxes and combs, but more frequently produced book covers, which borrowed from
classical models or were patterned after contemporary manuscript illuminations.
They were often used to adorn psalters, the Gospels, and other books of Scripture
and therefore often depict scenes from the life of Christ, including his birth, Cru-
cifixion, and Resurrection. One example from Metz that was commissioned by the
bishop Drogo (d. 855), Charlemagne’s son, depicts the Temptation of Christ along
with a number of episcopal rites. The borders of the ivory covers are sometimes
decorated with a geometric design or leaf pattern.

Tenth-century ivory and metal book cover depicting

Christ as Pantocrater. (Elio Ciol/Corbis)
 Ivories | 335

Anglo-Saxon artists, although forced to find an alternate source of “ivory,” pro-

duced high-quality works made of whalebone and, particularly from the 10th cen-
tury, morse teeth (walrus tusk). Some early examples of whalebone ivory carving
include a writing tablet that was decorated with carved interlace design and carved
panels of winged beasts, and eighth-century Northumbrian crosses, which have
similar carved animals. There are also examples of small boxes or caskets of carved
whalebone, but, as with all whalebone items, there are not very many of these items
because of the limited durability of the whalebone. There are more numerous exam-
ples of Anglo-Saxon carvings in morse. Like the Carolingian artists, Anglo-Saxon
ivory carvers often created book covers that included designs from the life of Jesus
or other religious images.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Barbarian Art; Charlemagne; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian
Renaissance; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Beckwith, John. Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England. London: Harvey Miller,
1972.
Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. The Carolingian Renaissance.
New York: George Braziller, 1970.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
Lasko, Peter. Ars Sacra, 800–1200. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.
Neese, Lawrence. Justinian to Charlemagne: European Art, 565–787: An Annotated
Bibliography. Boston, MA: Hall, 1987.
Randall, Richard H., Jr. Masterpieces of Ivory from the Walters Art Gallery. New York:
Hudson Hills, 1985.
J
Jarrow. See Benedict Biscop

Jerome (347–420)

A Christian priest, theologian, and Doctor of the Church, St. Jerome is best known
for his elegant Latin edition of the Bible, the Vulgate, which became the standard
text of the Bible throughout the Middle Ages. Active in both Rome and the east,
Jerome was a master of the Latin and Greek languages and wrote numerous com-
mentaries, treatises, and letters that helped shape the traditions of eastern and west-
ern theologies. Jerome was also an important figure in the ascetic movement and in
the growth of monasticism.
Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus) was born in 347 in Stridon (near
modern Ljubljan, Slovenia) in the Roman province of Dalmatia. His father Euse-
bius, a member of a wealthy Christian family, first educated his son at home and
then sent him to study in Rome where he was taught by the great pagan grammar-
ian Donatus. While in Rome in the 360s, Jerome learned Latin and some Greek
and was baptized a Christian. In the 370s Jerome traveled extensively, visiting
Antioch and other cities in the eastern empire. In 373, while in Calchis, two of
his travelling companions died and Jerome himself fell ill. It may have been at
this point that Jerome had his famous dream in which Jesus visited him and con-
demned him for being more Ciceronian than a Christian. Taking up the ascetic
life, he then dedicated himself to the study of the scriptures and sacred learn-
ing and may have begun the study of Hebrew. In 378 he was ordained a priest
and then continued his travels, visiting Constantinople before settling in Rome
for a time in the 380s. While in Rome he served as secretary to Pope Damasus
(382–385) and surrounded himself with a group of women, notably the widows
Marcella and Paula, devoted to ascetic life. He also began work on the transla-
tion and revision of the Bible into Latin, which would serve as the starting point
for his greatest contribution, his Latin Vulgate Bible, as well as works on matters
of the faith such as the defense of the virginity of Mary. His staunch defense of
the ascetic life and condemnation of paganism and luxurious and immoral living
among Christians earned Jerome numerous enemies, who questioned Jerome’s
relations with the wealthy widows in his circle. Following the death of Damasus,

337
338 | Jewelry and Gems

Jerome left Rome for good and visited Antioch, Egypt, and Palestine before set-
tling in Bethlehem where he adopted the life of a hermit. He was joined by Paula,
who helped support Jerome financially, and other pious women he had met in
Rome. Spending the rest of his life in the Holy Land, Jerome wrote extensively
and founded a monastery, several convents for women, and a school for boys. He
died on September 30, 420 and was buried at Bethlehem. His relics were later
translated to Rome.
Although important for his advocacy of celibacy and the monastic life, Jerome’s
greatest contributions to late antique and early medieval society were his numerous
literary works. His many writings are characterized by a fierce passion in defense of
his beliefs and an elegant Latin style that helped shape the literary language of the
Middle Ages. His works include controversial and personal letters, commentaries
on Daniel and many other books of the Old and New Testaments, saints’ lives, and
lives of illustrious men. He also was a strong defender of Catholic orthodoxy and
wrote a harsh polemical work against the Pelagians, who emphasized the freedom
of the will over the grace of God in matters of salvation, as well as a work against the
teachings of Origen (184/185–253/254). A skilled linguist, adept in Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew, Jerome translated the chronological tables of Eusebius into Latin. His
most influential work, however, was his translation and edition of the Bible, which
drew from Latin, Greek, and Hebrew texts and became the standard text of the Bible
for much of the Middle Ages.
See also: Antioch; Monasticism; Rome

Bibliography
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Kelly, J.N.D. Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies. London: Gerald Duckworth
and Company, 1975.
Rebenich, Stephen. Jerome. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Williams, Meghan Hale. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian
Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Jewelry and Gems

In the early Middle Ages the various barbarian peoples that settled in the remnants
of the Western Roman Empire left an important artistic legacy in the metalwork
they created. Sophisticated and attractive works in gold and silver were created for
both secular and religious purposes. Originally employed for personal adornment,
the techniques for creating jewelry and metalwork were later employed to create
sacred and liturgical objects. These creations were so highly valued that the fine
for the murder of a metalworker was three times that of a peasant and twice that of
 Jewelry and Gems | 339

a blacksmith. The discovery of numerous artifacts at archeological sites like Tour-

nai demonstrates the creativity and talent of these early medieval artisans and the
quality of their creations.
As the various Germanic tribes made contact with the Roman Empire, they
brought their own traditions with them, which merged with those of the empire.
During the migration period, the barbarian peoples were already forging jewelry
and other metalwork. The practice of jewelry making predates contact between Ro-
mans and barbarians, but came to be influenced by contacts with the empire. The
Visigoths and Lombards especially were influenced by imperial models of jewelry.
Close contact with the empire shaped metalworking patterns, and Visigoths and
Lombards imitated Byzantine models and received gifts of jewelry and metalwork
from Constantinople. A third people, the Franks, particularly under the Merovin-
gian dynasty, showed less influence from Rome and a greater reflection of tradi-
tional Germanic models.
Early medieval artisans crafted a variety of jewelry and metalwork for their noble
patrons. There was a wide range of jewelry made of silver and gold and encrusted
with precious gems that was worn by the barbarian peoples of early medieval Eu-
rope. Rings and earrings were commonly worn, as were buckles, pins, necklaces,
bracelets, arm bands, and brooches. The jewelry of gold and silver was often deco-
rated with amethyst, pearls, emeralds, garnets, and other precious stones. Cameos
were also popular among the barbarian peoples. One of the most popular pieces of
jewelry was the fibula, a type of brooch used to hold a cloak or other article of cloth-
ing together. The fibula came in a variety of styles, including the gold disk fibula
developed by the Merovingians in the seventh century, which remained an essen-
tial part of clothing until the 13th century. Fibulae in the shape of birds or eagles,
often worn in pairs, constituted another popular design. The various techniques
used to create personal jewelry were employed for religious purposes as well, in
the creation of chalices, reliquaries, crosses, and related items. The skills used to
design gold and gem jewelry were also applied to the creation of book covers for
the important manuscripts in monastic or royal libraries.
The jewelry and other metal items used for personal adornment or for religious
purposes were created by highly skilled artisans. The designs of the jewelry fell
into one of several categories. The patterns of some pieces were simply abstract and
geometric in design. Other pieces used an animal pattern in the decoration of the
metalwork and jewelry. The animal style is generally classified as Style I or Style II.
Style I placed animal parts and compact animals in an abstract or decorative pat-
tern in the metalwork; it is recognized as a northern European style that spread
into France in the sixth century. Style II, or the ribbon animal style, originated in
Lombard Italy and spread northward. It employed animal figures in elongated, in-
tertwined, continuous, and symmetrical patterns. Also popular was the use of cloi-
sonné, the practice of setting garnets or other jewels or glass in gold compartments
or bands that were then soldered to a metal base.
340 | Jewelry and Gems

Saxon brooch from south London, England, early sixth century. Square-headed brooches
were almost universal in early medieval Europe. The square at the top held a hinged pin,
while the cross shape at the bottom concealed the pin’s clasp. The bridge between these
parts held the gathered folds of cloak or tunic. (Museum of London/The Bridgeman Art
Library)

Many of these practices and styles continued into the Carolingian period. But
as the research of Genevra Kornbluth shows, the Carolingian period was also
one of innovation, especially in the handling of gemstones. A number of qual-
ity gems were produced by Carolingian artists, demonstrating the great variety
 Jews and Judaism | 341

in Carolingian art; they were produced as a result of royal and noble patronage.
Carolingian artists also introduced a new technique in the production of gems.
They did not use the carving tools of the Roman and Byzantine Empires; instead,
they used a round drill that was fitted with a rotating ball or wheel. The gems they
produced were of high quality and unique in that they were not influenced by
Roman imperial precedents.
See also: Barbarian Art; Carolingian Dynasty; Clothing; Clovis; Lombards; Merovingian
Dynasty; Tournai; Visigoths

Bibliography
Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. Europe in the Dark Ages. Lon-
don: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Kornbluth, Genevra A. Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
Neese, Lawrence. Justinian to Charlemagne: European Art, 565–787: An Annotated
Bibliography. Boston, MA: Hall, 1987.
Ross, Marvin, and Philippe Verdier. Arts of the Migration Period in the Walters Art Gal-
lery. Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery, 1961.

Jews and Judaism

Late antiquity and the early Middle Ages was a critical period in the history of Jews
and Judaism for both positive and negative reasons. It was the period in which the
Jews suffered tremendous persecution at the hands of Romans and barbarians but
also enjoyed periods of prosperity and were welcomed by the world around them.
During the late Roman and early medieval period some of the key texts and institu-
tions that formed Rabbinical Judaism were established and some of the key texts
and institutions that were central elements of Christian antisemitism were also es-
tablished. The developments that affected the life of the Jews and their faith in late
antiquity and the early Middle Ages left a profound lasting impact on the Jewish
people and the world around them.
The history of the Jews in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages was in many
ways shaped by two significant events: the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
ce by the Romans and the conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity
in 312. The destruction of the Temple reinforced trends already in existence among
the Jews, notably the emergence of the synagogue as the center of prayer and wor-
ship and the dispersion, or Diaspora, of the Jews throughout the Mediterranean
world. With the destruction of the Temple, furthermore, the need for the priests who
served there was eliminated and a new figure, the rabbi, took prominence in Jewish
342 | Jews and Judaism

worship. Along with new leaders and institutions, a series of texts were compiled
that would transform Judaism. The first of these texts, and the first of the texts of
rabbinical Judaism was the Mishnah. Compiled in 200 ce by Judah ha Nasi, the
Mishnah was the codification of and commentary on the Oral Law that had been
delivered to Moses. The Mishnah, in turn, would be the starting point for two later
texts, the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud. Completed between 550 and
650, the Babylonian Talmud, far more important and influential than Palestinian
Talmud, includes commentary on the Oral and Written Law, legal debates, stories
concerning important rabbis and sages that provide guidance to everyday living
for Jews.
As the Jews spread throughout the empire and developed their faith they faced
a Roman population that was at best uncertain how to deal with them and at worst
openly hostile. The animosity toward the Jews and Judaism worsened after Con-
stantine’s conversion to Christianity in the early fourth century. As the first Chris-
tian emperor, Constantine set a number of important precedents for his successor,
and among those was his treatment of the Jews. In 315, shortly after taking control
of the western half of the empire, Constantine issued a law that imposed the death
penalty on Jews who attacked Christians and forbade conversion to Judaism. His
opposition to Judaism was asserted further in a letter to the churchmen meeting at
Nicaea in 325. The emperor denounced the Jews as a wicked and blind people and
encouraged the church to separate itself as much as possible from them. With the
exception of the emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 361–363), Constantine’s succes-
sors built upon his precedent and imposed increasing restrictions on the Jews. In
Roman law, the Jews were forbidden from serving in the military or in civil gov-
ernment, were prohibited from serving as lawyers or witnesses against Christians
in court, and could not own Christian slaves. They lost control of their own affairs
with the abolition of the office of patriarch, were not allowed to proselytize or build
synagogues, suffered restrictions on the public celebration of major religious fes-
tivals, and were forced to follow Christian laws on marriage. Finally, in the sixth
century, imperial policy toward the Jews was codified in the great legal reform of
the emperor Justinian, whose Body of Civil Law incorporated the anti-Jewish leg-
islation of his predecessors and omitted any legislation that recognized Judaism as
a licit religion.
Imperial policy was reinforced during the fourth and fifth centuries by canon
law and works of polemic by the church fathers and other Christian authors. In
the Council of Elvira (306), church leaders restricted Christian contact with Jews,
forbidding Christians from marrying and even eating with Jews. Legislation from
councils at Nicaea (325), Antioch (341), and Laodicea (434) prohibited Christians
from celebrating Passover with Jews and kept Christians from honoring the Jew-
ish Sabbath. Other councils barred Christians from accepting gifts from Jews or
 Jews and Judaism | 343

accepting hospitality from Jews and restated laws preventing Christians from mar-
rying or having sexual relations with Jews. As the church developed its own laws
against the Jews, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, and other church leaders
created a theological image of the Jews that identified them as killers of Christ, fol-
lowers of the devil, and enemies of God. A less virulent but equally influential view
was forged by Augustine of Hippo, who recognized the important role Jews had
played in the plan of salvation and maintained that they should stand as witness to
the truth of Christianity until the end of time.
The worst aspects of Roman and Byzantine law and practice toward the Jews was
emulated by the Visigoths in Spain where close ties between the kings and bishops
led to restrictions on the Jews in both secular and religious law. The Jewish com-
munity in Spain was an old one and predated the arrival of the Visigoths. Settling
in Spain as early as the first century of the Common Era, the Jews of Spain had
assimilated to Roman society and fulfilled a variety of roles—merchants, farmers,
landowners, professionals. Early church legislation in Spain restricted contact be-
tween Christians and Jews, outlawed ownership of Christian slaves by Jews, and
forbade Christians from asking Jews to bless their fields, which suggests that all
those things happened and that the Jews formed an important and accepted mi-
nority in Spain. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, however, attitudes began
to change, and the kings and bishops of Spain began to persecute the Jews. Anti-
Jewish legislation was far reaching and alienated the Jews who remained in Spain.
The Visigothic kings, often presiding over church councils held in the central city
of Toledo, renewed earlier restrictions of Jewish liberties and contact with Chris-
tians and imposed even harsher restrictions such as prohibiting Jews from holding
public office, forcing baptism of Jews, curtailing marriage rights, enslaving Jews,
and confiscating their property. In 636, King Chintilla effectively exiled the Jews
by proclaiming that no unbaptized persons could reside in Spain, and although late
seventh-century kings allowed the Jews back into Spain they continued to enforce
increasingly harsh anti-Jewish legislation.
Life for the Jews of Spain improved dramatically following the Muslim con-
quest of much of the Iberian Peninsula in the early eighth century. Muslim success
was, in part, due to the aid offered by the Jews who surely believed that their situa-
tion could only improve if the Visigoths were defeated. Applying traditions that ex-
isted throughout the Islamic world, the Muslims of Spain established the Jews as a
protected minority which were burdened with various restrictions on their liberties
and were expected to pay a special tax (jizyah). These restrictions were accompa-
nied with protections of Jewish position in society and the restrictions themselves
were at times ignored. The Jewish community thrived under Islamic rule and, at
times, even found their services demanded at court. The Jews were granted their
own leader, the patriarch or nasi, who represented the Jews before Muslim officials
344 | Jews and Judaism

and presided over Jewish affairs and collected the jizyah. The Jews were granted
their own religious courts to resolve disputes within the Jewish community. They
also assumed key economic positions as merchants and bankers and, especially,
doctors. Jewish scholars also performed the valuable service of translator. Their
knowledge of Greek allowed them to translate the writings of Aristotle and Galen
and other ancient thinkers as well as ancient Greek medical and scientific treatises
into Arabic.
The harsh treatment the Jews endured in Visigothic Spain also found expres-
sion in Frankish Gaul under the Merovingian dynasty, but under the Carolingians
the Jews enjoyed a period of relative prosperity and even acceptance, often liv-
ing side by side with their Christian neighbors and speaking the same language.
Although only gradually entering the northern parts of the Carolingian realm, the
Jews were an important minority in the Aquitaine and other parts of the south,
notably the town of Narbonne that included a large and important Jewish com-
munity. The first Carolingian king, Pippin the Short (r. 751–768), issued a series
of edicts (praecepta) that granted important rights to the Jews. He confirmed
their access to Roman and Jewish law and granted them rights to their own, espe-
cially religious, courts. The Jews were also permitted to own land and, in a signif-
icant break from Roman and church law, were allowed employ Christian servants
in their homes and on their property. The precedent sent by Pippin was contin-
ued and expanded by his illustrious successor, Charlemagne (r. 768–814). Along
with preserving the edicts of Pippin, Charlemagne issued new laws that made
freeborn Jews subject to military service (testimony to the equal status Jews had
with freeborn males; military service was mark of prestige) and extended Jew-
ish property rights. In 809, he removed restrictions on Jews from serving as wit-
nesses in court and implemented a new oath to be sworn by Jews in court and
allowed Jews to swear their oath on the Torah, rather than the Christian Bible.
Carolingian rulers in the ninth century continued this pattern of toleration of the
Jews. Jews were exempted from paying certain tolls and taxes, were granted the
power of political authority (bannum), and were allowed to convert pagan slaves
to Judaism. Laws were passed prohibiting markets from being held on the Jewish
Sabbath, and charters were granted binding the Jews closely to the Carolingian
emperor.
Although the policy of toleration faced strong opposition from church lead-
ers and gradually eroded in the 10th century, it benefited both the Carolingians
and the Jews in the eighth and ninth centuries. Under the Carolingians, the Jews
prospered economically. They were essential figures in the Carolingian econ-
omy as landowners and agriculturalists, and even more importantly, the Jews
were great international merchants who had extensive contacts throughout the
Islamic world. Jews from the Carolingian empire traded furs, timber, and, es-
pecially, swords with merchants in the Middle East and returned with musk,
 Jews and Judaism | 345

camphor, cinnamon, silks, and textiles. The Jews were also important figures in
the highly lucrative trade in slaves, a popular commodity in both the Christian
and Islamic worlds. Along with their economic and commercial success, the
Jews enjoyed a degree of political power. Jews served at Charlemagne’s court as
advisors and ambassadors, playing a key role in Charlemagne’s embassy to the
great Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid. Jews also ran royal mints and served as
tax collectors, judges, and administrators even exercising power over Christians.
During the reign of Charlemagne, Jews played an important role in the defense
of Aquitaine, defending Narbonne against an attack from the Muslims of Spain
in 793 and participating in campaigns against Barcelona in 802 and Tortosa in
805. Finally, the Jews shared in the general cultural renaissance of the period
promoted by Carolingian rulers. Jewish scholars and sages helped develop Jew-
ish liturgy, composed hymns, and adapted the Order of Prayer to local condi-
tions. They also wrote important religious commentaries and exegetical works
as well as philosophical and scientific works and religious and secular poetry in
Hebrew. Rabbis in the Carolingian empire provided guidance for everyday life
for Jews and wrote to the masters of the schools of Babylon to resolve more dif-
ficult problems, which increased the importance of the Babylonian Talmud for
European Jews and shaped their understanding of Jewish belief and practice for
generations to come.
See also: Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne;
Constantine; Justinian; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard. Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Cohen, Mark R. Under Cross and Crescent: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1994.
Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism.
New York: Doubleday Religion, 2008.
Glick, Leonard B. Abraham’s Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press, 1999.
Marcus, Jacob R. The Jews in the Medieval World a Source Book: 315–1791. Cincinnati,
OH: Hebrew Union Press, 1999.
Poliakov, Léon. The History of Anti-Semitism: From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews.
London: Elek Books, 1965.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims in Medieval Spain. Leiden: Brill Academic
Publishers, 1994.
Rutgers, L. V. The Jews of Lat Ancient Rome. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1995.
346 | John Scottus Erigena

Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Jews, Christians,
and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2004.
Stow, Kenneth R. Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

John Scottus Erigena (fl. 845–879)

The most original and perhaps greatest of all Carolingian Renaissance scholars,
John Scottus Erigena was a highly controversial thinker whose influence lasted long
after his death and whose thought aroused opposition into the 12th century. John
Scottus was actively involved in a theological controversy during his stay in the
Carolingian Empire, but remained a close friend and advisor of the West Frankish
king Charles the Bald. He was also the only Carolingian scholar with more than
superficial knowledge of Greek, and this knowledge contributed to his production
of a number of highly original works.
Little is known of his life, including the dates of his birth and death, although
there is some indication that he was born around 810 and lived into the 870s.
It is certain, though, that he was from Ireland, as his name implies, and left his
homeland for the Carolingian realm at some point in the 830s. At some point
after his arrival in the Frankish kingdoms, John Scottus came to the attention of
the western Carolingian king Charles the Bald. He is mentioned as being at the
court of Charles, who came to appreciate the Irishman’s genius, in the year 843,
but may have been known before that. John was recognized by contemporaries
in the Carolingian kingdom as a holy man even though he was never consecrated
as a priest or monk. He was also noted for his knowledge of Greek, which he
most surely acquired before his arrival in the kingdom of Charles the Bald. His
learning attracted the attention, not only of the king, but also the archbishop of
Rheims, Hincmar.
It was Hincmar who invited John to participate in the controversy that had re-
cently erupted over the teaching of Gottschalk of Orbais concerning predestina-
tion, which had already attracted the attention of Carolingian bishops like Hincmar
and Rabanus Maurus. John’s response, however, De divina praedestinatione (On
Divine Predestination) was as controversial as the original teachings of Gottschalk.
The Irish scholar rejected Gottschalk’s double predestination and argued that souls
were predestined to salvation, suggesting that evil, sin, and Hell were not real. His
position was judged heretical by his contemporaries and condemned, but John Scot-
tus survived because Charles the Bald remained his loyal supporter. He remained at
the royal court until his death and while there wrote a great deal of poetry, in Greek
and Latin, that celebrated the victories of the king and honored religious holy days.
 Jordanes | 347

He also was commissioned by Charles to translate the works of pseudo-Dionysius

the Areopagite, an unknown author who wrote influential works of mystical theol-
ogy around the year 500, from Greek into Latin. He was working on a commentary
on the Gospel of John at the time of his death.
The most important and influential of John Scottus’s works was the Periphyseon,
or De divisione naturae (On the Division of Nature). Drawing on his knowledge of
the Latin and Greek fathers of the church and Christian Neoplatonic thought, John
Scottus created a highly sophisticated theology, which developed some of the ideas
of his earlier works. In his discussion of the nature of God and his creation, John
divided and classified all of creation but argued that God was incomprehensible and
could not be put into any category. His work posed a serious challenge to his con-
temporaries, who had difficulty understanding it and thought it heretical. But the
work survives in numerous manuscripts, attesting to its popularity, and exercised
great influence on theologians in the 10th century and beyond.
See also: Carolingian Renaissance; Charles the Bald; Gottschalk of Orbais; Hincmar of
Rheims

Bibliography
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Marenbon, John. “Carolingian Thought.” In Carolingian Culture: Emulation and
Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994,
pp. 171–92.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Van Riel, Gerd, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy, eds. Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The
Bible and Hermeneutics. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.

Jordanes (sixth century)

Historian of the Goths, Jordanes has left the primary record for the early history of
the Gothic people. Although probably less reliable and less complete than the now
lost history of the Goths by Cassiodorus, Jordanes’s history, De origine actibusque
Getarum (On the Origins and Deeds of the Getae), is the earliest narrative source
for the history of the Goths. Like the history of the later polymath, Isidore of Se-
ville, Jordanes’s work was intended to glorify the Goths and justify their authority
over the Romans.
Little is precisely known of the life of Jordanes, including the exact dates of
his birth and death. His movements remain uncertain, but a few matters about his
life can be pieced together from his surviving writings. He identifies himself as
being of Gothic descent, and in the early sixth century he served as a notary to the
348 | Jordanes

Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric the Great, who became one of the great he-
roes of his history. An Arian Christian, as most Goths were, Jordanes converted to
Catholic Christianity at some point in his life, and some scholars have identified
him with a contemporary bishop of the same name. This identification, as with most
things, remains uncertain. It is generally held that he wrote his history in Constan-
tinople around 550, but he may also have lived in one of the empire’s provinces
along the Danube River.
His most important work, commonly known as the Getica, has long shaped our
understanding of the origins of the Goths and the end of antiquity. Jordanes was
among the first to declare that the Roman Empire came to an end in 476 with the
deposition of Romulus Augustulus, and the Getica chronicles the history of the
Goths from the origins of the people until Jordanes’s day. Although a distillation of
the much larger history of the Goths by Cassiodorus, Jordanes’s history was based
upon oral traditions drawn from the Goths themselves as well as a wide range of
other classical sources. The work is divided into four main sections: a geographi-
cal introduction, the history of the united Goths, the Ostrogoths, and the Visigoths
and separate histories of the united Goths, and others. The work covers the reign
of Theodoric the Great and other matters treated by contemporary Latin and Greek
sources, but it alone treats the earliest history of the Goths. Indeed, it is this mate-
rial that is the most important and controversial.
The model of Gothic history established by Jordanes has long been a point of
debate among historians. According to Jordanes, the Goths originated in Scandi-
navia and then moved south and east, where they came into contact with some of
the greatest civilizations of antiquity. Eventually the Goths divided into two main
groups, Ostrogoths and Visigoths. Modern scholarship has undermined many of
the claims Jordanes made, demonstrating his errors and identifying the influence
of Roman anthropology on his understanding of the character of the Gothic people.
Archeological research, however, has confirmed some of Jordanes’s claims, and as
a result most scholars treat his work cautiously, neither completely rejecting it nor
accepting it without reservation. The Getica also contains information about some
of the most important figures in late antiquity (e.g., Alaric, Attila the Hun, Justin-
ian, Theodoric the Great) as well as on the movements of barbarian peoples other
than the Goths, including the Huns and Vandals. It describes the great Battle of the
Catalaunian Plains and the funeral of Attila the Hun.
Jordanes wrote a second work on the history of the Roman people, commonly
known as the Romana. This too was a compilation based on another lost history
and was probably written in Constantinople at around the same time as the Getica.
It surveys the history of Rome from its legendary founding by Romulus to the age
of the emperor Justinian. It is generally a less valuable and less interesting survey.
See also: Arianism; Attila the Hun; Cassiodorus; Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the; Huns;
Justinian; Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great; Vandals; Visigoths
 Judith | 349

Bibliography
Goffart, Walter A. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 500–800): Jordanes, Greg-
ory of Tours, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Version. Trans. Charles C. Mierow.
New York: Barnes and Noble, 1985.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through
the Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1976.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Judith (c. 800–843)

The second wife of Louis the Pious and the mother of Charles the Bald, Judith was
an important figure in Carolingian political affairs in the early ninth century. She
was her husband’s trusted advisor, especially after the death of Benedict of Aniane
in 821. The birth of her son Charles and her strenuous efforts on his behalf have
traditionally been seen as contributing to the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.
At the very least, she was accused a variety of crimes by her husband’s enemies
and suffered a number of indignities at the hands of her stepsons, especially Lothar.
She survived these insults to see her husband and son triumph over their enemies,
as well as to see her son succeed to the throne, along with his half brothers Lothar
and Louis the German, after the death of Louis. She also developed a reputation as
a patron of letters and learning.
After the death of his first wife in 818, Louis the Pious was encouraged, despite
his reputation, to marry again to save himself from the temptations of the flesh.
According to the Royal Frankish Annals, he married Judith “after looking over
many daughters of the nobility” (Scholz 1972, 105). She was a member of a pow-
erful and important noble family, whose alliance seemed likely to benefit Louis,
and she was also recognized by contemporaries for her beauty and intelligence. She
and Louis were married in February 819, and two years later they had their first
child, Gisela. She bore Louis a son on June 13, 823, the future king and emperor,
Charles the Bald. At the time Louis had three sons from his first marriage and had
also already established a plan of succession in which his oldest son, Lothar, was to
share the imperial title with him and succeed as sole emperor on his father’s death.
Louis’s two other sons shared in the inheritance as subordinate kings of parts of the
Carolingian Empire. The birth of Charles and the need to find a place in the succes-
sion for him eventually led to some difficulty.
350 | Judith

From the time of her son’s birth until 829, Judith worked to find a share in the
succession plan for Charles. At first Louis found help from Lothar, who agreed
to protect his young stepbrother. But this situation did not last, and Judith herself
found little comfort in the promises of Lothar. According to Nithard, Lothar con-
sistently sought to undermine the agreement with his father. Judith and Louis were
not unaware of this and found an able ally in Louis’s trusted supporter Bernard of
Septimania, an association that later came back to haunt Judith. Bernard proved
a capable ally for both Louis and Judith, and he helped stabilize the southeastern
frontier of the empire. Louis felt secure enough with the support of Bernard and
Judith to alter the plan of succession in 829 to include Charles.
The change in the succession proved almost fatal for Judith and Louis; Louis
faced two major revolts in the 830s that nearly ended his reign. His older sons, led
by Lothar, rebelled against Louis in 830 and 833–834. In reaction to the changed
settlement of 829, and with the support of the so-called imperial party of bishops,
the older sons of Louis revolted against their father, with Lothar eventually tak-
ing charge. Numerous allegations were made against Judith, including sorcery and
adultery with Bernard of Septimania, who was himself married to Dhuoda, a no-
blewoman and the author of a famous manual on the duties of a prince addressed
to her son. Judith was forced to take the veil, and Louis and Charles were held by
Lothar. But Louis quickly recovered, and the rebellion was put down. Judith was
recalled from the convent and swore a solemn oath of purgation, thereby establish-
ing her innocence before a great council of the nobles and bishops of the realm.
Judith and her husband, however, had not seen the last of their troubles; a second
and more serious revolt broke out in 833. Once again, Louis’s older sons revolted,
in part because of the new division of the empire forged after the first revolt. Judith
again was dispatched to a convent, and Louis was forced to resign his office. Again,
Louis was able to restore himself to power, and again Judith was called to his side
and restored in a great ceremony.
For most of the remaining decade of her life, Judith witnessed the triumph of her
husband and son, bittersweet as those victories may have been for her. She ruled
with Louis until his death in 840. In 837 she persuaded Louis to restructure the
succession to power that Charles might receive an inheritance, and Louis granted
his son a kingdom that included much of modern France. She also helped restore
good relations between Lothar and his father and stepbrother. In 839, Lothar re-
turned from Italy, was brought back into the good graces of his father, and granted
a sizeable portion of the empire as his legacy. Lothar also agreed to aid and support
his godson Charles, who promised aid and support in return. Not only did Judith
consolidate her position and that of her son, she also, according to some accounts,
exacted vengeance on her enemies. Despite these successes, Judith also witnessed
the outbreak of civil war after her husband’s death. Although she helped her son
secure his position in his part of the empire and witnessed the marriage of her son,
Judith was sent into retirement at Tours by that same son, who also seized her lands
 Justinian | 351

from her. She, no doubt, was consoled by her son’s successes, and died on April 19,
843, shortly after her “retirement.”
Best known for her important role in her husband’s reign, Judith was also a pa-
tron of the arts and education. She sponsored several works by important Caro-
lingian scholars, including a work of history and biblical commentaries. Among
those who received her patronage was Rabanus Maurus, who dedicated biblical
commentaries on the books of Judith and Esther to her and praised her learning,
wit, and desire to imitate holy women. Walafrid Strabo, who was made tutor for
Charles the Bald from 829 to 838 by Judith, described Judith as pious, loving, and
clever. She may also have been responsible for the establishment and expansion of
her husband’s court library.
See also: Benedict of Aniane; Bernard of Septimania; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the
Bald; Dhuoda; Lothar; Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Royal Frankish Annals

Bibliography
Ferrante, Joan M. “Women’s Role in Latin Letters from the Fourth to the Early Twelfth
Century.” In The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Ed. June Hall McCash. Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 1996, pp. 73–105.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie. Am-
sterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Ni-
thard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Ward, Elizabeth. “Caesar’s Wife: The Career of the Empress Judith, 819–829.” In Char-
lemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious. Ed. Peter Godman and
Roger Collins. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990, pp. 205–27.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Julian the Apostate. See Ammianus Marcellinus

Justinian (c. 482–565)

One of the greatest emperors in Byzantine history, Justinian made profound and
lasting imprint on the course of the empire’s subsequent development. Famed
for his marriage to the actress and courtesan, Theodora, whose reputation has
been permanently darkened by the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius,
352 | Justinian

Justinian influenced much of Byzantine law, religion, and art and architecture. His
codification of the law, involvement in religious disputes, rebuilding of Constan-
tinople, and building programs elsewhere in the empire provided the foundation
for later intellectual, legal, and cultural development. Many of his achievements
were accomplished with the support of Theodora, whose strength helped Justinian
at times of crisis and whose death left the emperor less effective than he had been
earlier in his reign. His most ambitious effort, however, was the reconquest of the
west and reunification of the empire under his authority. His wars in Italy, more de-
structive than any of the barbarian invasions of the peninsula, led to the successful
restoration of Byzantine power in Italy and the destruction of the kingdom of the
Ostrogoths, but at a great cost. And the success was only short lived; three years
after Justinian’s death, Italy was overrun by the Lombards. Byzantine influence
lasted for several generations, but the effort was ultimately a failure. Justinian’s
overall legacy is marked by great successes and failures.
Rising to power as the nephew of the reigning emperor Justin (r. 518–527),
Justinian—originally Petrus Sabbatius and later Flavius Petrus Sabbatius
Justinianus—first reached Constantinople in 495 to receive an education. Later,
when his uncle took power, he joined Justin in the capital and played an important
role in government. He was rewarded by promotion as well as with a special dispen-
sation to marry Theodora, which was necessary because members of the senatorial
aristocracy could by law not marry anyone who appeared on the stage. Justin made
his nephew caesar in 525 and coemperor in 527. Hardworking, dedicated, with a
limited ability to delegate authority, Justinian dominated affairs in Constantinople
for the next 40 years.
Justinian reached a major turning point early in his reign when he faced the Nika
Revolt in 532. Although a number of Justinian’s initiatives had already been started
before that date, they were only completed after the revolt, and therefore his survival
of the rebellion was critical. The revolt broke out over the arrest of the leaders of two
rival factions in Constantinople—factions often in conflict with each other that led
to rioting. This arrest brought the factions together against the government of Jus-
tinian. The rebellion was so severe that it nearly toppled the emperor, who was on
the verge of fleeing the city with members of the imperial court. Theodora, however,
gave an impassioned speech that persuaded her husband to stand his ground. He
then gave the order for a detachment of barbarian mercenaries to enter the city and
put down the revolt. According to contemporary accounts, the barbarians entered
the hippodrome, the arena in which the rebels concentrated, and massacred 30,000
people. The leaders of the rebellion were also executed, and Justinian remained in
firm control of the empire.
There were two immediate consequences of Justinian’s suppression of the re-
volt: the completion of the reform and codification of Roman law and the re-
building of the city of Constantinople. Indeed, one of the most pressing needs the
 Justinian | 353

emperor faced after the Nika Revolt was the restoration of the city after the great
destruction caused by the rebellion. Along with aqueducts and number of public
buildings, Justinian built a great new church, the Hagia Sophia. This became the
imperial church, standing as the head of all churches in the empire and binding
all Christians in the empire together. It was also a repository and model for late
imperial art and asserted the close association between politics and religious be-
liefs in the empire. Its lavish decoration, including mosaics and different colored
marble, and massive structure inspired Justinian to declare “Solomon, I have out-
done thee!” when he first saw the completed church. Like a new Solomon, Jus-
tinian also was a great lawgiver, and he was able to complete the codification of
the law he began in 529. The Corpus Iuris Civilis (Body of the Civil Law) was
compiled by the jurist Tribonian and several commissions organized by Justinian
or Tribonian; upon completion it was organized in four main sections: the Code
of Justinian, the Digest, the Institutes, and the Novels. The codification of the law
was intended not only to organize the law, which had been in a confused state, but
also to create a bond of unity in the empire in the same way that the Hagia Sophia
was designed to do.
Justinian’s activities in law and building were those of the traditional Roman
emperor, and indeed he saw himself in that tradition. As a result, he also saw
it as his duty to rule over a united empire that included the old Roman heart-
land of Italy and Rome, the ancient capital. Therefore, beginning in the 530s
and continuing for some two decades, Justinian’s armies undertook the recon-
quest of parts of the old Western Empire. The first and almost incidental step
in this process was the conquest of Vandal-controlled North Africa. Although
long settled in North Africa and with a tradition of hostility toward Rome,
the Vandals had expressed a new openness toward the empire and the Vandal
king, Hilderic, had even converted to Catholic from Arian Christianity. But
Hilderic’s overthrow forced a change of plans for Justinian who entrusted the
invasion to his great and loyal general Belisarius, who began his campaign in
June 533. Seemingly unaware of the invasion and clearly unprepared, the Van-
dals and their king Gelimer put up feeble resistance before fleeing in disarray.
As a result of this lightening quick invasion, the Vandal kingdom collapsed
and the Vandals as a people were absorbed by the larger Roman and Berber
population.
The dramatic and rapid victory in Africa also had the consequence of opening
the way to Italy, where internal political turmoil among the ruling Ostrogoths of-
fered Justinian with the opportunity to intervene there as well. The murder of the
pro-Roman queen, Amalaswintha, provided the necessary justification for an inva-
sion of the old imperial heartland in 535. Unlike the African campaign, however,
the war in Italy was a protracted and brutal conflict. Early victories by Belisarius
were followed up by a successful counteroffensive by the Gothic king Totila in
354 | Justinian

the 540s. Challenges on Justinian’s eastern frontier undermined his efforts in Italy
as did his fear of an over-mighty Belisarius, who was recalled, and the resentment
of the Italians over the return of imperial taxation. The final phase of the Gothic
Wars was led by Narses, who replaced Belisarius. The new commander led Byz-
antine soldiers to a smashing victory over Totila at the battle of Busta Gallorum in
552 and continued the solidification of Byzantine control of Italy during the 550s,
bringing the wars to a close in 561. Unfortunately for the Byzantines, their suc-
cess was short lived as the Lombards took control of much of the Italian peninsula
beginning in 568.
Justinian’s reign was thus a pivotal one for both the Eastern and Western Empire.
He oversaw the codification of the law, which actually ended by having greater in-
fluence on later medieval and modern Europe than on the Byzantine Empire, and a
massive building program in Constantinople and Italy that laid the foundation for
later Byzantine and medieval European art. His conquest of Italy restored imperial
rule to the peninsula, destroyed the Ostrogothic kingdom, and brought the existence
of the Ostrogothic nation to an end. The conquest, however, failed, and direct Byz-
antine rule ended with the Lombard invasion. A Byzantine presence continued for
several generations in Italy, however, and the competition between the Byzantines
and Lombards caused Italy further difficulties. The conquest also came at great cost
for the empire, as did all of Justinian’s activities, and his successors proved less
suited to the challenges at hand than did Justinian.
See also: Amalaswintha; Belisarius; Code of Justinian; Constantinople; Gothic Wars;
Lombards; Narses; Ostrogoths; Procopius; Rome; Theodora; Theodoric the Great; Vandals

Bibliography
Barker. John W. Justinian and the Later Roman Empire. Madison: University of Wis-
consin Press, 1960.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1984.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S.J.B. Barnish. Liver-
pool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Maas, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. H. B. Dewing. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
 Justinian | 355

Treadgold, Warren. The History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1997.
Ure, Percy N. Justinian and His Age. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1951.
Watson, Alan. The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1997.
Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
K
Kells, Book of

Along with the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Book of Kells (formally known as Dub-
lin, Trinity College, MS 58) is one of the greatest examples of Insular style manu-
script illumination and book production. Produced in a monastery in Iona or Kells,
the book’s home for much of the Middle Ages, in the eighth or ninth century, the
Book of Kells is a lavishly illuminated work containing the complete Gospels of

Chi-Rho page from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, from the Book of Kells, ca. 800. The
Book of Kells is an illuminated manuscript of the Gospels that is considered a master-
piece of the Hiberno-Saxon style. (Jupiterimages)

357
358 | King Arthur

Matthew, Mark, and Luke and the Gospel of John to John 17:13, based mainly on
the Vulgate of St. Jerome. Along with the Gospel texts, the Book of Kells contains
a list of Hebrew names, summaries of the Gospels, biographies of the Evangelists,
and a canon table that lists the divisions of the Gospels.
Written in Insular majuscule with occasional use of minuscule letters, the Book
of Kells contains the greatest number of highly decorated initial letters and is best
known for its program of illuminations. The work contains a broad array of brilliant
colors, including blue, red, purple, green, lilac, pink, and sienna. There are numer-
ous full page illuminations in the manuscript that depict the Virgin and Child, the
Arrest of Jesus, and the four Evangelists and their symbols. Along with the large
illustrations, the Book of Kells includes marginal illustrations of humans and ani-
mals, zoomorphic designs, interlaced chains, and the decorated initials.
See also: Lindisfarne Gospels; Monasticism

Bibliography
Farr, Carol Ann. The Book of Kells: Its Function and Audience. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1997.
Meehan, Bernard. The Book of Kells: An Illustrated Introduction to the Manuscript in
Trinity College Dublin. London: Thames and Hudson, 1994.
Pulliam, Heather. Word and Image in the Book of Kells. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006.

King Arthur

Semilegendary hero and king of the Britons who defended England from Anglo-
Saxon invaders in the fifth or sixth century and who traditionally fought 12 battles,
including the great Battle of Badon Hill (Mons Badonicus) in 516. The legendary
figure of Arthur is possibly based on a historical person, who has been identified as
one of a broad range of figures, including a professional mercenary, a late Roman
military commander, a Welsh duke, and an Irish king in Scotland. He is best known,
however, through the tales of romance composed on the basis of the old legends
in the high and late Middle Ages by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, and
others that describe the adventures of Arthur and Merlin, Lancelot and Guinevere,
and their home, the fabled Camelot.
The origins of the legend can be found in the descriptions of invasion-era En-
gland by Gildas in the sixth century and Nennius in the ninth century, as well as in
the comment of an anonymous early medieval Welsh poet who says of a certain war-
rior that he “was not Arthur.” Although Gildas does not name his hero, he seldom
does name names in his history, and he does describe the victory at Badon Hill and
the brief recovery of the fortunes of the Britons after the battle—key elements in
the later fame of Arthur. Nennius identifies his hero as Arthur and lists 12 battles,
 King Arthur | 359

including Badon Hill and Camlann where Arthur died, that the great hero fought
against invading Saxon armies. Although two of the battles have been located geo-
graphically and probably did occur, the other 10 battles have not been located and
may not have occurred, or least as Nennius described them. It is from these simple
beginnings that the full-scale legend evolved in Welsh and later English sources.
It was a legend of great popularity that, at the same time, made any English prince
named Arthur suspect in the eyes of the ruling monarch.
Some scholars claim to have identified Camelot, the most famous landmark of
the legend of Arthur. As early as the 15th and 16th centuries, Cadbury Castle in
South Cadbury, Somerset, was recognized as Camelot. In the 1960s excavations
discovered early fortifications that could be associated with a historical Arthur and
also unearthed foundations of a church and numerous objects of everyday use of
high quality. Although some scholars accept this as Arthur’s castle, others reject
it and argue that the documentary record of an active warrior does not support his
association with the structures found at Cadbury.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Badon Hill, Battle of; Gildas; Nennius

Bibliography
Alcock, Leslie. Arthur’s Britain: History and Archeology, A.D. 367–634. Harmonds-
worth, UK: Penguin, 1971.
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Har-
mondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1996.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur. Ed. Norma Lorre Goodrich. New York: Wash-
ington Square Press, 1966.
The Early Medieval World
The Early Medieval
World
FROM THE FALL OF ROME TO THE
TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE

VOLUME TWO: L–Z

Michael Frassetto
Copyright 2013 by ABC-CLIO, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a
review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Frassetto, Michael.
The early medieval world : from the fall of Rome to the time of Charlemagne /
Michael Frassetto.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59884-995-0 (hardcopy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-59884-996-7
(ebook) 1. Europe—History—392-814—Encyclopedias. 2. Middle Ages—
Encyclopedias. 3. Civilization, Medieval—Encyclopedias. I. Title.
D114.F83 2013
940.1'2—dc23 2012031995

ISBN: 978-1-59884-995-0
EISBN: 978-1-59884-996-7

17 16 15 14 13 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.

Visit [Link] for details.

ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America
Contents

VOLUME ONE
List of Entries, vii
Guide to Related Topics, xiii
Preface, xix
Acknowledgments, xxi
Introduction, xxiii
Chronology of the Late Antique and Early Medieval World, xxxvii
Maps, l
Entries A-K, 1
VOLUME TWO
Entries L-Z, 361
PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
1. Tacitus’s Description of Early Germanic Society, 579
2. An Early Crisis of Church and State: Ambrose of Milan’s
Excommunication of Theodosius, 580
3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople, 582
4. Pope Leo I, the Great, Defends Rome against Attila the Hun, 588
5. Augustine of Hippo’s Definition of a True Commonwealth, 589
6. Augustine of Hippo’s Conversion Experience, 591
7. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England according to Bede, 593
8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works, Including the
Conversion of England, of Pope Gregory I, the Great, 595

v
vi | Contents

9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby, 600

10. Charlemagne’s Letter Promoting Learning in His Empire, 605
11. An Inventory of a Carolingian Royal Estate, 607
12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons, 608
13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne, 612
14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
and the Conversion of Constantine, 623
15. Gildas’s Version of the Conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons, 626
16. A Letter from Pope Gregory III to Charles Martel Seeking
Aid against the Lombards, 628
17. Gregory of Tours: Clovis and the Vase of Soissons, 629
18. Gregory of Tours: The Conversion of Clovis, 630
19. An Account of the Battle of Tours by a Spanish Christian
Chronicler, 631
20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica, 633
21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law, 649
22. Charlemagne and a Painted Mouse Humble a Proud Bishop, 659
23. Paul the Deacon Explains the Name of the Lombard People, 660
24. The Lombards Invade Italy on the Invitation of Narses, 661
25. Priscus’s Description of Attila the Hun and His Court, 662
26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian and
the Character of the Empress Theodora, 664
27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian, 670
28. Procopius’s Description of the Hagia Sophia Following
Its Reconstruction by Justinian, 675
29. Martin of Tours Gives His Cloak to a Poor Beggar, 677
30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint, 678

Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe, 689

Bibliography, 695
Index, 717
L
Law and Law Codes

Prior to their contacts with the Roman Empire in the migration period, the Germanic,
or barbarian, peoples of Europe had no written laws or legal codes. The nature
of the law was customary. Law was remembered and passed along through an oral
tradition that stretched back for generations. Although customary, the law was not
simplistic; it included a well-defined set of procedures, such as the use of the
oath. Although the extent of influence varied, depending upon when and where
the invaders made contact with the Romans, who had a great legal tradition and
had prepared important legal codes already in the third century, profoundly altered
the nature of the laws of the various barbarian tribes. The Germanic peoples who
entered the empire learned the tradition of written law and the practice of codifying
the law, and kings of the Franks, Visigoths, and other peoples issued laws and law
codes as their kingdoms were established. Exposure to the Romans and other bar-
barian peoples also led to the emergence of the principle of the law, a development
that remained important long after the initial contact with the empire. According to
this principle, each person was bound by the laws of his own group.
Like the conquest of the Roman territories on the Continent by various barbarian
peoples, the conquest of England by the Anglo-Saxons in the fifth century intro-
duced important challenges for the tradition of the law. The Anglo-Saxon accom-
plishment, however, is unique among the various peoples that created kingdoms
in the former Western Empire because Roman contact and influence had been on
the wane even before the arrival of the invaders, and in the fifth century little of the
Roman legacy survived. There were no Roman jurists, and there was no Roman
legal inheritance to speak of. As a result, Anglo-Saxon laws were issued in the ver-
nacular, were little influenced by Roman traditions, and reflected long-standing
Germanic customary law. Furthermore, the Anglo-Saxon kings of England is-
sued no special laws for the Romans, as did their contemporaries on the continent.
Aethelberht of Kent was one of the early kings to issue important laws in the ver-
nacular, and his laws were recognized as statements of his royal authority. They
were the king’s laws and were to be followed as such. The early laws dealt with
such matters as the wergeld, feud, personal injury, and payment of fines to keep
the peace. They also addressed the nature of royal and local courts and instituted
the necessary regulations that emerged from the conversion to Christianity. Begin-
ning with Alfred the Great, however, Anglo-Saxon kings showed Roman influence

361
362 | Law and Law Codes

issue written laws, called belagines (although these are sometimes thought to have
been Ostrogothic laws only).
As the Visigoths became more settled and expanded into Spain, creating the
kingdom of Toulouse (418–507), a more sophisticated legal code became neces-
sary, in part to regulate the relationship between the Goths and the Romans liv-
ing in the kingdom. There is some evidence to suggest that the legal code took
shape by the mid-fifth century, when the king, Theodoric II (d. 466), issued writ-
ten legal statutes. Although once associated with the Ostrogothic king Theodoric
the Great, the Edictum Theodorici (Edict of Theodoric) now is believed to have
been issued around 458 by the Visigothic king. The edict was intended to resolve
various issues between Romans and Goths, but was in no sense a complete code
of laws. It was under Theodoric’s brother and successor, Euric, that the legal
code now known as the Codex Euricianus (Code of Euric) most likely appeared.
Sometime around the year 475 and possibly as late as 483, Euric, or perhaps his
son Alaric II a generation later, issued this code of laws, which remained influen-
tial into the eighth century. The code, written in Latin, became the personal law
of the Visigoths thus establishing the principle of personality, and it dealt with
disputes between Romans and Goths that arose out of their cohabitation in the
same kingdom. It addressed such matters as loans, gifts, purchases, wills, interest
payments, and charters.
The Codex Euricianus was not, however, a universal legal instrument that was
territorial like the Code of Justinian, nor was it a complete compilation of all Gothic
law, but rather a collection of royal statutes. Consequently, a second legal docu-
ment was necessary and was issued by Alaric, probably in 506, to be applied to
his Roman subjects. The Breviarium Alaricianum (Breviary of Alaric), or the Lex
Romana Visigothorum (Roman Law of the Visigoths), was compiled by a number of
jurists commissioned by Alaric who borrowed from the imperial Theodosian Code
of 438. These two codes were in effect throughout the Visigothic realm by the early
sixth century and were replaced only in the mid-seventh century, when King Rec-
ceswinth issued a unified code for Romans and Visigoths. Nonetheless, the Codex
Euricianus and the Breviarium Alaricianum are the most important and influential
of the early Germanic legal codes and are in many ways as significant an achieve-
ment as the Bible of Ulfilas, the translation of the scriptures into Gothic that laid
the foundation for the written language.
Less influential but still important laws and legal codes were issued by the
Burgundians, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. The Burgundians entered the Roman
Empire and settled for a time along the Rhine River, and then for a much longer
period along the Rhone River, where they were heavily exposed to Roman influence.
Like the Visigoths, the Burgundians had followed the tradition of customary law
and were now faced with the need to provide a legal tradition for a mixed population
 Law and Law Codes | 363

of Burgundians and Romans. In the late fifth and early sixth centuries, two
Burgundian kings, Gundobad and his son Sigismund, issued legal codes intended
to resolve that problem. Gundobad, around the year 500 or slightly before, is-
sued the Lex Gundobada (Law of Gundobad), or Liber constitutionem (Book of
Constitutions), which applied to the Burgundian peoples of the kingdom and was
further refined by Sigismund. In 517 or 518, Sigismund issued the Lex Romana
Burgundionum (Roman Law of the Burgundians), which, following Visigothic
precedent, applied to the king’s Roman subjects and was most likely drawn up by
Roman legal scholars. The existence of these two codes thus confirmed the prin-
ciple of personality.
The codes had a mixed fate once the Burgundians were conquered by the Frankish
king Clovis (r. 481–511). The Lex Gundobada remained the personal law of the
Burgundian peoples under Frankish rule for centuries, but the Roman law was
quickly replaced by the Breviary of Alaric. In similar fashion, the laws and legal
compilations that had been issued in Ostrogothic Italy and Vandal Africa were re-
placed by their conquerors. In Italy, Theodoric the Great preserved what he could
of Roman administration and law, and in Africa, the Vandals faced the problem
of ruling a mixed barbarian and Roman population. In each case, however, the
conquests of Justinian eradicated whatever legal reforms took place in the king-
doms. With the exception of the personal law of the Burgundians, the laws of the
Burgundians, Ostrogoths, and Vandals had a lesser impact than did the laws of
the Visigoths.
Despite their important legacy in many areas, the Ostrogoths had a much less
significant impact on the history of law in Italy than the Lombards, who entered
Italy not long after the end of the wars between the Goths and Byzantines. Like the
Visigoths and other peoples who established themselves in former imperial territory,
the Lombards were faced with the challenge of ruling over a diverse population.
The solution the Lombards seem to have adopted, like that of their predecessors
throughout the former Western Empire, followed the principle of personality; the
Roman population followed Roman law and the Lombards followed Lombard cus-
tomary law. The king remained the source of new law and continued to produce
new laws and legal traditions. In the seventh century, however, the Lombards went
beyond what other peoples had done. Lombard law was codified by King Rothari;
and he produced the most complete set of laws of any of the barbarian kings, in-
cluding nearly all of the royal law and codified Lombard legal principles nearly in
full. In 643, Rothari published, with the help of Roman jurists, the Edictus Rothari
(Edict of Rothari), which addressed family and property law and civil laws concern-
ing personal injury and property damage. Rothari’s code was clearly influenced by
Roman law, and many of the prologues of the laws followed the formula of impe-
rial legal preambles.
364 | Law and Law Codes

The Edictus Rothari remained the fundamental legal code of the Lombard king-
dom until the kingdom was conquered by Charlemagne, and Rothari’s successors
preserved the code and added new laws to it as needs arose. These new laws too show
the influence of Roman law, as well as the growing influence of the Catholic church
on the Lombards and their legal tradition. Moreover, even after Charlemagne’s
conquest of the kingdom, Lombard law continued to be the law for most of the
population of Italy and was only supplemented by Carolingian law. The laws of
the Lombards remained an important legal tradition even after the collapse of the
Carolingian Empire, and became one of the important traditions studied by lawyers
in the High Middle Ages.
As in many other areas, the Franks left a lasting impact on medieval law and
law codes. The most famous of Frankish law codes is the Salic law, which was
compiled by the first great Merovingian king, Clovis, in the early sixth century. It
is a collection of the laws of the Salian Franks, although it does not include all the
laws of the Franks. Like the laws of the Visigoths and others, the Salic law was
most likely codified by a team of Frankish officials and Roman lawyers; it included
Frankish custom and the royal edicts of Clovis. The Salic law is not an orderly
codification of the law, but a collection of important laws and customs that was
intended, among other things, to preserve the peace in the Merovingian kingdom.
The law also concerns royal rights and prerogatives and imposes higher fines for
crimes against the king, his property, and agents. Moreover, although designed
to cover all those living in the Merovingian kingdom, the Salic law, like the laws
of the Visigoths and others, recognizes the principle of personality. The code im-
poses different penalties for crimes, depending on whether they are committed by
Franks or by Romans and provides a legal distinction between Romans and bar-
barians. Originally compiled before 511, the Salic law was revised and expanded
by later Merovingian kings, including Chlotar I and Chilperic I, in the later sixth
and seventh centuries, and a prologue and epilogue were added in later versions.
It was also revised by the Carolingians and was much studied in the eighth and
ninth centuries.
The Carolingians inherited the Salic law, just as they inherited the kingdom from
the Merovingian kings. The first Carolingian king, Pippin the Short, was also the
first Carolingian to reform the law. In 763–764, Pippin produced a law book of 100
titles—and often called the 100-Title Text—that included all Frankish law. Char-
lemagne too produced a shorter version of the code, in 70 titles, in 798, and ordered,
according to a contemporary source, a revision of all the laws of the empire made
in 802, two years after his imperial coronation. The Carolingian version of the Salic
law seems to have lost its personal character, no longer to have been based on the
principle of personality; rather it had assumed territorial status; that is, the law was
now over all peoples living in the empire and not just the Franks, presenting itself
 Law and Law Codes | 365

as applying equally to all peoples in the empire and making no distinction between
Franks and others. It continued to be concerned with peace and order and assessing
fines and wergelds, but it gave much greater weight to the authority of the king than
earlier revisions had. It also expressed a number of Roman legal ideas, including
the idea that royal land belonged to the office, not the person, of the king.
Charlemagne’s legal reforms were not limited to revisions of the Salic law.
He also oversaw the codification of the laws of the Alemanni and the Bavarians,
probably in 788, after they had been conquered by the great Carolingian king.
Charlemagne, and his successors Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald, also issued
new laws in the capitularies, which contained the word of the law as expressed by
the king. The capitularies were often stated at royal councils and then written down
and disseminated throughout the kingdom.
See also: Aethelberht I of Kent; Alemanni; Alaric II; Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons;
Breviary of Alaric; Burgundian Code; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald;
Clovis; Charlemagne; Code of Justinian; Euric; Gundobad; Justinian; Lombards; Louis the
Pious; Merovingian Dynasty; Ostrogoths; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rothari; Salic
Law; Sigismund, St.; Theodosian Code; Ulfilas; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Attenborough, Frederick L., ed. and trans. The Laws of the Earliest English Kings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Burgundian Code: The Book of Constitutions or Law
of Gundobad and Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1972.
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Lombard Laws. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1973.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
King, Peter D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1972.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Pollock, Frederick, and Frederic W. Maitland. The History of English Law before the
Time of Edward I. 2nd ed. 2 Vols. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Rivers, Theodore J., trans. Laws of the Alamans and Bavarians. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1977.
Rivers, Theodore J, trans. The Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks. New York:
AMS, 1986.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
366 | Leo I, the Great, Pope

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Barbarian Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wormald, Patrick. “Lex Scripta and Verbum Regis: Legislation and Germanic Kingship
from Euric to Cnut.” In Early Medieval Kingship. Ed. Peter Sawyer and Ian N. Wood. Leeds,
UK: University of Leeds Press, 1977, pp. 105–38.

Leander, St. See Isidore of Seville

Leo I, the Great, Pope (r. 440–461)

One of the most important early popes and, with Gregory the Great, Leo was the
founder of the medieval papacy. During his reign, Leo endured the crumbling of
the Western Empire, facing the invasion of Huns and Vandals and negotiating with
Roman emperors. He was also a staunch defender of orthodoxy and sought to en-
hance the status of the spiritual primacy of Rome.
Leo was probably born in the late fourth century, perhaps at Rome, and served
as deacon for pope Celestine I and Sixtus III. Leo’s election as pope in 440 came
while he was in Gaul on mission for the emperor, and he quickly made his mark on
the papacy. During his reign, Leo composed some 143 letters and 96 sermons that
helped solidify his position as the leader of the church and laid the foundation for
the growth of the medieval papacy. They also helped define the teachings of medi-
eval Christianity, and it is as a defender of orthodoxy that Leo made a particularly
important mark. The pope suppressed the Manichaeans in Rome and the Priscil-
lianist heretics in Spain. He also involved himself in the dispute over the nature
of Christ, approving the condemnation of Euthyches who taught monophysitism
(the belief that Jesus Christ had one nature). The pope also repudiated the council
of Ephesus in 449 that defended Eutyches and called it the “Robber Council.” He
further appealed to the emperors Theodosius II and Valentianian III to call a coun-
cil to decide the matter. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 was the result of his ap-
peal, and it was Leo’s work, Tomus, that was accepted at the council and provided
what would become the orthodox teaching that Christ possessed two natures, one
human and one divine. Leo delayed approving the decisions of Chalcedon, how-
ever, because the council proclaimed the parity of Constantinople and Rome. Leo
had consistently maintained the universal authority of the bishop of Rome and pri-
macy in the church.
Leo’s challenges were not limited to matters of dogma and organization but in-
cluded threats to the security of Rome and its inhabitants. The pope was forced on
two occasions to defend his flock from barbarian invaders. In 452, Attila the Hun
and his great army invaded Italy and threatened to besiege Rome. Leo met Attila
 Leo III, Pope | 367

near Mantua and persuaded the Hun to depart from Italy, perhaps encouraged by a
“divine disease” that struck his army or, as popularized by Raphael, by the heavenly
host led by saints Peter and Paul that appeared with Leo. Three years later, in 455,
Leo was forced to negotiate with the Vandal king Gaiseric for the safety of Rome
again. This time Leo was less successful as the Vandals pillaged and plundered the
city, but Leo did obtain the promise from Gaiseric that the people of the city would
not be harmed.
See also: Attila the Hun; Gaiseric; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Huns; Rome; Vandals

Bibliography
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety
Roman Bishops to A.D. 715. Raymond Davis, trans. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University
Press, 1989.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Wessel, Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of Rome. Leiden: Brill Aca-
demic Publishers, 2008.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Leo III, Pope (d. 816)

The long and important reign of Pope Leo III (r. 795–816) witnessed a number of
significant developments in papal policy and diplomatic relations. He was an ac-
tive builder and restorer of churches and public structures such as aqueducts and a
great benefactor of the city. He negotiated a difficult theological issue between the
churches of Jerusalem and the east and the western, especially Frankish, churches.
He also faced and suppressed two serious revolts in Rome during his reign. Despite
his numerous accomplishments, Leo is best known for the imperial coronation of
Charlemagne on Christmas Day, 800.
Although lacking the family connections of his predecessor, Hadrian I (r. 772–
795), Leo III had long been known to the papal establishment and the people of
Rome when he was made pope. He was raised and educated in the papal adminis-
tration, served as a high-level bureaucrat, and was the cardinal priest of the church
of St. Susanna in Rome before his election on December 27, 795, the day after
the death of Hadrian. The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis) describes him as
“chaste, eloquent and of resolute mind” (Davis 1992, 179). He is also described as
a “defender of the church” (179) and as a papal administrator he took active care
of the poor and the sick. His rapid election demonstrates the high regard the clergy
and people of Rome had for Leo. Although he was a faithful servant of the people
368 | Leo III, Pope

and church of Rome, Leo’s lack of important family connections caused him dif-
ficulty throughout his reign as pope.
Perhaps aware of his weak position in Rome, Leo immediately sought to
strengthen the papacy’s ties to the Carolingian king Charlemagne. Indeed, unlike
his predecessor, Leo had no desire to pursue the alliance with the papacy’s tradi-
tional protector in Constantinople, and in 796 he sent the keys of St. Peter and the
banner of the city of Rome to Charlemagne. The great king called for a new treaty
between himself and the pope, in which the king would defend the church against
internal and external enemies and the pope would, like Moses, stand with arms up-
held in prayer for victory. Leo began to date his official documents from the time
of Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombards in 774, and he also promoted the see
of Salzburg to metropolitan status at the king’s request in 798. Leo clearly tied the
papacy to the great power to the north.
Although he secured a protector and diplomatic ally, Leo still faced problems
in Rome from a rival faction, an aristocratic one that included relatives of Pope
Hadrian. On April 25, 799, the turmoil in Rome reached a crisis. On that day Leo
left the Lateran palace to lead a major religious procession throughout the city of
Rome and was attacked in front of the monastery of Saints Sylvester and Stephen
by two nephews and a former ally of Hadrian. Although the accounts vary, it is clear
that Leo was roughly handled by his attackers and may have been blinded and had
his tongue cut out by them. The Book of the Popes notes also that his attackers “left
him half-dead and drenched in blood.” He was then placed under a sort of house
arrest, being put into a monastery by his enemies, but he was rescued by his cham-
berlain, who lowered him from the monastery walls by a rope. The pope was then
safely returned to St. Peter, where his enemies would not harm him. He was then
escorted to Charlemagne’s court at Paderborn (now in Germany) by the king’s ally
Winichis, duke of Spoleto.
At Charlemagne’s court, according to some accounts, Leo miraculously regained
the powers of sight and speech and defended himself against the accusations of his
attackers. Leo was accused of adultery, perjury, and simony (the buying and sell-
ing of church offices), serious crimes that would have rendered him unfit for office.
Uncertain of how to proceed, Charlemagne kept Leo at court until the situation at
Rome quieted down before returning him to the city. In November 799, Leo was
returned with a Frankish escort to protect him and was enthusiastically welcomed
back by the people of Rome. On the day after his arrival, his attackers were tried
before Leo and his Frankish escort and were found guilty, but sentencing was de-
ferred until the arrival of Charlemagne.
Despite the importance of the situation, or perhaps because of it, Charlemagne
did not arrive in Rome for a year after Leo’s return, an indication of continued un-
certainty among the king and his advisors of how to proceed. Charlemagne left his
 Leo III, Pope | 369

kingdom in August 800 and, according to the Royal Frankish Annals, was met by
the pope and his entourage 12 miles from the city of Rome. King and pope dined
together and entered Rome the following day, November 24, 800. Charlemagne
was welcomed by enthusiastic crowds and was led by the pope to the basilica of
St. Peter, where they prayed together. On December 23, before Charlemagne and an
assembly of Frankish and Roman secular and religious nobles, Leo swore an oath
of purgation and declared his innocence of the crimes of which he was accused.
Leo’s oath was accepted as proof of innocence because no one at the assembly could
prove otherwise. Leo was restored to his place. The fate of the rebels against him
was also decided. They were condemned to death, but the sentence was reduced to
exile for life on the request of the pope himself.
Two days after his trial, Leo performed the most famous act of his reign. On
Christmas Day, 800, at the shrine of St. Peter, Leo crowned Charlemagne emperor.
According to the Royal Frankish Annals, when Charlemagne rose from prayer Leo
“placed a crown on his head, and he was hailed by the whole Roman people: To
august Charles, crowned by God, the great and peaceful emperor of the Romans,
life and victory!” (Scholz 1972, 81). The Book of Pontiffs adds that the acclamation
was repeated three times and that Leo then anointed Charles emperor. Although the
exact meaning of the coronation to the various participants in the act will probably
never be known, we need not accept Einhard’s remark that Charlemagne would
have avoided mass had he known what was going to happen. It is likely that the
new emperor was not at all pleased by the way the coronation—which he surely
knew about—had taken place, and may have thought that Leo sought to put him in
the pope’s debt. Indeed, it is possible that Leo sought to reassert his authority after
his rescue by Charlemagne, or he may have intended to bind the Carolingian ruler
even more closely to himself. It may also be that Leo had less self-serving motives
and sought to reward the king with the imperial crown as thanks for all his efforts
on behalf of the papacy and church. Whatever the case, the imperial coronation
on December 25, 800, was Leo’s most important act and one that shaped political
thought and practice for the next 1,000 years.
The remainder of Leo’s reign was relatively secure, no doubt as a result of Char-
lemagne’s support. He was an able administrator and active builder, which benefited
the city greatly. He did find himself at cross-purposes with his benefactor in 809,
however, over a matter of liturgical practice in which the Western church differed
from the church in the Holy Lands. Although Leo supported Frankish practice, he
recommended that the Frankish version not be publicly recited. And in 808, Leo
complained to the emperor about Charlemagne’s representatives in Italy.
Leo did face one final crisis after the death of Charlemagne; long-simmering
resentments that had not been eradicated in 800 boiled over, and the Roman aris-
tocracy revolted for a second time in 814. The pope acted promptly and had the
370 | Leo III, the Isaurian

leaders of the rebellion executed. Charlemagne’s successor, Louis the Pious, was
concerned by Leo’s harsh response and ordered his nephew, King Bernard of Italy,
to investigate the situation. Leo’s explanation proved satisfactory to the Carolingian
emperor, but not to the Roman nobles who in 815 sought to take lands away from
the papacy. Once again Louis, through his nephew Bernard, intervened, and this
time on behalf of the pope. The situation in Rome remained unsettled, but it was
Leo’s successor as pope who addressed the situation. Leo died June 12, 816, after
a long reign in which he drew the papacy closer to the Carolingians and, most im-
portantly, crowned Charlemagne emperor.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Lombards; Louis the Pious; Royal Frank-
ish Annals

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie. Am-
sterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Ni-
thard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Leo III, the Isaurian (c. 680–741)

The Byzantine emperor Leo III (r. 717–741) was founder of a dynasty whose reli-
gious policy caused great dissension in the empire. His policy, known as iconoclasm,
contributed to a growing schism between the church in Rome and the church in
the Byzantine Empire. The antagonism that existed between the popes and Leo III,
who also increased the burden of taxation in Italy without improving his defense
of the papacy against the Lombards, reinforced the tendency of the popes to look
to western European leaders for protection. Indeed, Leo’s iconoclastic policy drove
 Leo III, the Isaurian | 371

Pope Gregory III to appeal to the Carolingian mayor of the palace, the power be-
hind the throne in the kingdom of the Franks, for aid. The ongoing iconoclastic
controversy after Leo’s death attracted the attention of Charlemagne and his court
scholars, especially Theodulf of Orléans.
Leo took the throne in 717 in a bloody coup that eliminated the last of the
Heraclian dynasty, which had been established a century earlier. Although he
managed to take the throne, Leo was immediately faced with a great crisis—Muslim
soldiers were besieging the great capital of the Eastern Empire, Constantinople.
By a combination of luck, skill, and superior technology, including Greek fire, a
type of napalm that destroyed the attackers’ ships, Leo managed to save the city by
718. Over much of the next decade, Leo continued to expel Muslim invaders from
Byzantine territory. Indeed, his efforts were critical to the long-term survival of
the empire, which did not fall to the Muslims until 1453, and to the preservation of
three distinct cultural regions around the medieval Mediterranean—a Latin Chris-
tian, a Greek Christian, and a Muslim region. For many of his subjects, however,
Leo’s efforts at defending the empire were only secondary to the more important
efforts of the monks and priests of the realm. During the assault on Constantinople,
the patriarch marched around the city walls bearing a religious image, or icon, of
Mary, which many believed saved the city. Faith in the icon was something that
Leo did not share, and the widespread belief in them may have offended the reli-
gious sensibilities of the emperor, who most likely recalled the Mosaic prohibi-
tion against graven images. Although Leo introduced a number of governmental,
military, and administrative reforms that would greatly strengthen the empire, he
is remembered mostly for the almost disastrous religious policy that arose out of
his hostility to icon worship.
Leo, either because of religious conviction or animosity toward the priests who
promoted veneration of images, instituted a policy of iconoclasm in 727. The pol-
icy may have also been motivated by a terrible volcanic eruption in the Aegean
Sea, which Leo interpreted as divine disfavor caused by the use of icons. Whatever
his motive, Leo pronounced an imperial decree against the use of icons in the
Byzantine church and also began to attack the monasteries. Leo was exercising
what he thought was his divine right as emperor to intervene in religious matters,
but the monks had traditionally criticized religious policy making by the emperors.
His efforts were at first modest, but they became increasingly harsh, and as early
as 730 there are records of the destruction of icons. Defenders of the use of icons,
mostly monks, were harshly treated and sometimes martyred, which only hardened
the determination of those opposed to the new policy. Leo’s son and successor,
Constantine V (r. 741–775), took an even harder line against icons. Ultimately, the
iconoclastic policy was overturned, but not before contributing to increased ten-
sions between the church in the east and the west.
Leo’s foray into religious policy making was not well received at Rome by Pope
Gregory II or Gregory III. Whatever the merits of the policy were, and there alone
372 | Leo III, the Isaurian

Leo’s actions would have received condemnation from Rome, the popes would
have opposed Leo purely on the grounds of principle. It was not the responsibility of
the emperor to determine matters of the faith; rather he was to protect the church and
its ministers. In many ways, the emperors in Constantinople had failed to protect
the church in Italy—a responsibility many centuries old by Leo’s time. Moreover,
not only did Leo fail to protect the pope and his church in Italy, especially from the
Lombards who had been seeking to conquer the peninsula since 568, but he had
increased the administrative demands on the popes and had significantly increased
taxation in Italy. As a result, relations between Rome and Constantinople worsened
to the point that Gregory III turned for help to the great rising power in the north,
the Carolingian Franks and their leader Charles Martel, for aid against the Lom-
bards. Charles needed his alliance with the Lombards and was unable to help, but
an important precedent was set for both the Carolingians and the papacy. Over the
next generation an alliance between the two was established, and a break between
Rome and Constantinople occurred. Indeed, Leo’s intervention in religious policy
and reorganization of administration in Italy drove the popes into an alliance with
the Carolingians, an alliance that contributed to the Carolingian usurpation of the
royal power from the last of the Merovingian kings in 751.
Leo’s iconoclastic policy continued to have repercussions into the late eighth and
even early ninth century, long after the emperor’s death. In the late eighth century,
the empress Irene and her son Constantine V presided over the Second Council of
Nicaea, which decreed the restoration of the veneration of icons. A second wave of
iconcoclasm was initiated by a series of emperors from 815 to 842, but once again
the policy was overturned and the veneration of icons was formally restored in a
ceremony that continues to be celebrated in the Orthodox Church as the Triumph of
Orthodoxy. Despite the ultimate failure of his religious policy and the dissension it
caused within the empire and with the pope in Rome, Leo left an important legacy
for the Byzantine Empire and saved it during its darkest hour.
See also: Alcuin of York; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Gregory II,
Pope; Gregory III, Pope; Iconoclastic Controversy; Irene; Libri Carolini; Lombards; Louis
the Pious; Merovingian Dynasty; Rome; Theodulf of Orléans

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians. Longman:
London, 1983.
 Leovigild | 373

Obolensky, Dmitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1543. New

York: Praeger, 1971.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Sullivan, Richard. Heirs of the Roman Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1974.

Leovigild (r. 568/569–586)

Visigothic king of Spain (r. 568/569–586), Leovigild enjoyed great military success
against a variety of rivals, including the Byzantine Empire as well as other barbarian
peoples. His power was recognized by other kings in Europe, and his son Hermene-
gild married a Merovingian princess. But Hermenegild also sought to overthrow
his father and rebelled. Hermenegild’s revolt and marriage also revealed one of the
fundamental tensions of Leovigild’s reign, the tension between Catholic and Arian
Christians. Although Leovigild took great steps to unify the kingdom religiously as
well as politically, the great religious dilemma was resolved only during the reign
of his other son, Reccared. Leovigild did attempt to establish common ground be-
tween his Arian beliefs and those of the Catholic majority in Spain, but ultimately
failed in his efforts. Both Hermenegild and Reccared converted to Catholic Christi-
anity, and it was Reccared who provided the solution of the great religious question
that Leovigild tried so hard to answer.
Raised to the status of coruler and given charge of Spain by his brother Liuva I
(r. 568/569–573), Leovigild was one of the great kings of the sixth century. He
sought to unify Spain, both politically and religiously, under his authority. To
secure that end, he modeled royal ceremonial rites more closely after the prac-
tices of the Eastern Empire and abolished the law forbidding intermarriage be-
tween Goths and Romans. He also undertook frequent campaigns to suppress
rebels and rivals for power. As one contemporary chronicler noted, Leovigild
restored Gothic territory in Spain to its traditional boundaries. He led his armies
in annual campaigns against a variety of foes including Byzantines, Basques,
and other barbarian peoples. The king also suppressed a number of independent
cities, including Córdoba, and extended his kingdom into the northeast. He thus
incorporated most of the peninsula into his kingdom. As a sign of his growing
power and self-confidence, Leovigild founded the city Reccopolis, an action
usually reserved for Roman emperors, and in 573 made his sons Hermenegild
and Reccared coregents to help administer the kingdom. Moreover, his efforts
brought him recognition outside the kingdom, including an important marriage
between his son Hermenegild and the Merovingian princess Ingunde in 579. Of
course, his military success also generated dissension within the kingdom, and
374 | Leovigild

Hermenegild’s marriage to the Catholic Ingunde, as well as his close relationship

with Leander, leader of the Catholic church and brother of the important author
Isidore of Seville, eventually led the young king to convert to Catholicism from
his father’s Arianism.
Despite the marriage alliance between his son and the Catholic Merovingian
princess, Leovigild was committed to the Arian faith and sought to unify his king-
dom under the Arian banner. He took a number of steps to ensure the success of
his version of the Christian faith at the expense of the Catholic church in Spain,
including banishing a number of bishops. His efforts, however, did not turn to
persecution; instead he promoted conversion. To accomplish that end and the tri-
umph of Arianism in Spain, he held a council at Toledo in 580. The council pro-
moted the Arian faith of Leovigild but also sought to convert Catholic Christians in
Spain, passing several decrees that were intended to make conversion more likely.
The council introduced theological changes that brought Spanish Arianism closer
to Catholic teaching by recognizing that the Son of God was equal (aequalis) to
the Father, not just similar (similis), as the Arian church in Spain had taught. The
council also recognized the Catholic sacrament of baptism and abolished the law
mandating rebaptism for converts, thus eliminating an impediment to conversion.
Leovigild’s council also adopted a more conciliatory policy toward the veneration
of relics, which was unknown to Arian Christians. The more tolerant and open at-
titude of Leovigild’s church enjoyed some success, and at least one bishop, Vincent
of Saragossa, converted. His effort failed nonetheless, because of the strength of
the Catholic faith among his Roman subjects and because of the intellectual weak-
ness of the Arian church.
The failure of Leovigild’s religious policy is no better illustrated than in the
actions of his two sons Hermenegild and Reccared, both of whom converted
to Catholic Christianity. The more serious conversion for Leovigild was that
of Hermenegild, which was accompanied by a revolt against his father. In 579,
Hermenegild made his conversion and broke with his father. He actively sought
allies against Leovigild and found them in Constantinople and among the people
his father had conquered. He also found a friend and supporter in Pope Gregory
I the Great, who later promoted Hermenegild as a martyr to the faith. Indeed,
Hermenegild portrayed himself as a victim of persecution and used that as justifi-
cation for rebellion against his father. His efforts ultimately failed, and his rebel-
lion was put down by 584. Leovigild exiled his son to Valencia in 584 and then
to Tarragona, where Hermenegild was murdered in 585. Despite Gregory’s sup-
port for Hermenegild, most contemporary Catholic writers, including Isidore of
Seville and the Frankish historian Gregory of Tours, had little sympathy for him
or his revolt.
Reccared too converted to Catholic Christianity, but only after his father’s death,
and in other ways he shared in the important legacy Leovigild left. Although not
successful in his religious policy, Leovigild left his successor with a powerful and
 Letter to Baugulf | 375

unified kingdom. Leovigild had conquered much of the peninsula and had reformed
the royal administration in a way that borrowed from Roman imperial practices,
including celebrating his victories on the coins he minted. He also elevated the sta-
tus of the king above his noble and non-noble subjects and introduced a number
of new officials to the royal administration. These reforms benefited Leovigild’s
successor, as did his efforts to unify the kingdom religiously. Though Leovigild’s
attempts failed in that regard, the notion of unifying the kingdom religiously was a
powerful one and needed only Reccared’s recognition that it could only be unified
by the Catholic Christian faith.
See also: Arianism; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory of Tours; Hermenegild; Merovin-
gian Dynasty; Reccared I; Toledo; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1983.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2nd rev.
ed. Trans. Guido Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Thompson, Edward A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Letter to Baugulf

The circular letter on learning to the abbot Baugulf of Fulda, or De litteris colen-
dis, was, with the capitulary Admonitio Generalis of 789, the cornerstone of Char-
lemagne’s program of intellectual and cultural reform. Although he addressed it
only to the abbot Baugulf, Charlemagne ordered that the letter be circulated among
various Carolingian ecclesiastics, and it thus contributed to the development of the
Carolingian Renaissance. The letter outlines Charlemagne’s desire to provide basic
education for the boys of his kingdom and reveals his notion that providing a basic
Christian education was essential to his duty as king.
Despite its importance, the exact date of the letter remains uncertain, and mod-
ern knowledge of it is the result of mere chance. The composition of the letter,
probably at Charlemagne’s own dictation, is traditionally dated to the period 780
376 | Libri Carolini

to 800. Some scholars have proposed a more specific dating to the years 781 to 791
or even to 794 to 796, but the broadest range remains the most generally accepted
of the dates of the document. The letter itself is known only from two manuscripts.
One manuscript from the 12fth century was destroyed in a bombing raid during
World War II, and the other one, which was discovered only in 1927, is from the
eighth century. Although only one copy of the letter is still extant, it was most
likely copied and sent some time later with some additions to many monasteries
by Baugulf.
The letter includes Charlemagne’s desire that the monks and secular clergy of
his realm should devote themselves to follow the “life set out in their rule and their
practice of holy religion” (279). But more than that, they “ought also to be zealous
in the cultivation of learning and in teaching those who by the gift of God are able
to learn” (279). He encourages learning and education so that his subjects can bet-
ter follow the will of God and praise God without error in speech or practice. He
notes in the document that although he has received many letters with expressions
of good pious belief, he has noticed many errors of speech in them. Charlemagne,
therefore, encourages Baugulf and the clergy to study the Scriptures and litera-
ture in general so that they may better know God’s message and better do God’s
will. The king’s appeal to the monks and clergy of the realm to devote themselves
to study and teaching was an important stimulus to the growth of the Carolingian
Renaissance.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Capitularies; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne

Bibliography
Brown, Giles. “Introduction: The Carolingian Renaissance.” In Carolingian Culture:
Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994, pp. 1–51.
Charlemagne. “A Letter of Charles on the Cultivation of Learning, 780–800.” In Caro-
lingian Civilization: A Reader. Ed. Paul Edward Dutton. Peterborough, ON: Broadview,
1993, pp. 79–80.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.

Libri Carolini

The official Carolingian response to the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which
restored the veneration of icons in the Byzantine Church, the Libri Carolini
(Caroline Books), or as it is more formally known, the Opus Caroli Regis (Work of
 Lindisfarne Gospels | 377

King Charles), offers a sophisticated theory of religious art and a formal rejection
of Byzantine icondulism. The work, long held to have been produced by the great
scholar Alcuin, is now generally held to have been written by Theodulf of Orléans
but with some editorial assistance from Alcuin.
Written in Charlemagne’s name in response to the decisions of Second Nicaea,
which was held without representation from the Carolingian church, the Libri
Carolini demonstrates the wide patristic and biblical learning of its main author,
Theodulf of Orléans. Composed from 790 to 793 and presented at the Council
of Frankfurt in 794, the Libri, which were never formally promulgated, present
the Carolingian view of the use of images and the role of art in religious prac-
tice. Divided into four books, which address the various decisions of the council,
the Libri asserts the aesthetic and didactic value of art. For Theodulf, as for Pope
Gregory the Great, art could help instruct the laity in the lessons of the Bible. Paint-
ings and other art could also be admired for their beauty and elegance. Theodulf,
however, rejected the use of classical imagery of pagan gods or the personification
of the sun and moon as contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. Moreover, as a
result of a faulty translation of the decisions of Nicaea which used adoratio (a type
of veneration reserved for God alone) to translate the term used for veneration of
sacred images, Theodulf forcefully denounced the council’s and denied that images
possessed any spiritual qualities. The Libri thus offered a theory of art that stressed
the talent of the artist and beauty of his creation and denied that images had any
mystic function.
See also: Alcuin; Charlemagne; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Iconoclastic Controversy;
Irene; Theodulf of Orléans

Bibliography
Chazelle, Celia. The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era: Theology and Art of Christ’s
Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Freeman, Ann. Theodulf of Orleans: Charlemagne’s Spokesman against the Second
Council of Nicaea. London: Variorum, 2003.
Noble, Thomas F. X. Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Lindisfarne Gospels

One of the great works of medieval book illumination, the Lindisfarne Gospels
(British Library, MS Cotton Nero [Link]) was produced in the late seventh or early
eighth centuries in Northumbria and is an important example of the Insular or
Hiberno-Saxon style, which mixed Anglo-Saxon and Celtic artistic traditions. The
manuscript includes the complete text of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew,
378 | Lindisfarne Gospels

Mark, Luke, and John—which are preceded by a letter of Jerome’s to Pope Damasus
and canon tables of Eusebius. The text of the Gospels is a pure version of the Vul-
gate compiled by Jerome, and the entire manuscript is lavishly decorated. The Lind-
isfarne Gospels, according to an insertion from the 10th century and based on an
oral tradition, were written and illustrated in 698 by the monk Eadfrith, who later
became bishop of Northumbria. The binding of the manuscript was supplied by
Eadrith’s successor, Ethelwald, in 721, and the cover was decorated with precious
gems and metals by the anchorite Billfrith. According to the 10th-century insertion,
the manuscript was prepared to honor St. Cuthbert, former bishop of Lindisfarne,
who died in 687 and whose relics were translated in 689.
The manuscript is extensively and beautifully illuminated, each Gospel opens
with a miniature of the evangelist, a major illustrated initial, and a cross-carpet
page (a page devoted solely to decoration). Decorated initials are found through-
out the manuscript along with numerous other illuminations that recall the artistic
motifs found in the Sutton Hoo collection. The illustrations include interlaced

Title page of St. John’s Gospel from the Lindisfarne Gospels,

from around 698. (The British Library Board)
 Liutprand | 379

ribbons and other geometric designs, birds and beasts and other images from na-
ture, and spaces in between are often filled with red dots. The illustrator used a
wide variety of colors. In response to the Viking invasions in the 10th century, the
community fled with its treasures, including the Lindisfarne Gospels, to county
Durham. At this point, the priest Aldred added the insertion concerning the com-
position of the manuscript and added an interlinear translation into Old English
of the text.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Jerome; Kells, Book of; Monasticism; Northumbrian Renaissance;
Sutton Hoo

Bibliography
Backhouse, Janet. The Lindisfarne Gospels. Oxford: Phaidon, 1981.
Brown, Michelle. The Lindisfarne Gospels and the Early Medieval World. London:
British Library, 2010.
Brown, Michelle. The Lindisfarne Gospels: Society, Spirituality, and the Scribe. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2003.

Liutprand (d. 744)

The greatest of the Lombard kings of Italy, Liutprand ruled during a time of great
prosperity and growth for the Lombard kingdom (r. 712–744). He expanded the
boundaries of the kingdom in Italy and sought to bring the entire peninsula under
his authority. The Lombard duchies of the south were brought to heel by Liutprand,
and he conquered many of the possessions of the Byzantine Empire in Italy. He
also enjoyed success against the papacy, which owned extensive estates in central
Italy coveted by Liutprand. His advances in central Italy were watched closely by
the popes of his age, and his successes in Italy, paradoxically, laid the foundation
for the later invasions of the Carolingian king Pippin and the conquest of the king-
dom by Charlemagne. Although Carolingian rulers ultimately brought about the
demise of the Lombard kingdom, Liutprand was a trusted ally of the Franks. He
was also a skilled ruler who introduced important legal and administrative reforms
in the kingdom.
Although vilified in the Liber Pontificalis (The Book of the Popes), Liutprand
was most likely a devout Christian, who came to the throne after the Lombards had
converted from Arian Christianity to Catholic Christianity. He took the throne in
712, following a period of disarray in the Lombard kingdom, and shortly thereafter
pursued the traditional Lombard policy of striving to unite Italy. His efforts led him
into conflict with the popes of his day—Gregory II, Gregory III, and Zachary—but
he did attempt to maintain good relations with the popes and, as Paul the Deacon
notes, made pious donations to the church in his kingdom. He defended the Italian
380 | Liutprand

peninsula against attacks from Saracen pirates and declared himself the defender of
the church and orthodoxy in response to the policy of iconoclasm instituted by the
Byzantine emperor Leo III, the Isaurian. Indeed, he took the opportunity to combine
his desires to unify Italy under his authority and to establish himself as defender
of the church when he seized imperial territory in Italy during the turmoil of the
iconoclastic controversy. He also reached a diplomatic settlement with Pope Zach-
ary shortly after the pope ascended the throne, as part of which he returned four
towns previously seized from papal territory. It seems, then, that Liutprand was not
the enemy of the papacy he is sometimes styled by hostile sources, and he clearly
was not the threat to the papacy that his predecessors were.
Although not an open enemy of the institution of the papacy, Liutprand did threaten
papal territories, just as he threatened the rest of the peninsula. During his long reign
as king, Liutprand gradually extended the boundaries of the kingdom and the extent
of Lombard power. In the 720s, in coordination with the Frankish mayor of the palace
Charles Martel, Liutprand secured his northern border at the expense of the duchy of
Bavaria. He also exploited Byzantine weakness in the 720s when he seized several
cities in Italy, an action that unsettled Pope Gregory II, with whom Liutprand had
previously had good relations. The pope in turn arranged an alliance with the Lom-
bard duchies in the south, Spoleto and Benevento, which angered the king and may
have forced him to attack papal territory in defense of Lombard interests. Although a
treaty was negotiated between Rome and the king, the attack led to ill feelings, as well
as Liutprand’s subjugation of the southern duchies to his authority. After a period of
quiet in the 730s, Liutprand was once again forced into action against the pope, now
Gregory III, who had supported rebellion in the duchy of Spoleto and had called for
the defense of Ravenna against Lombard aggression and conquest.
It was during the hostilities at the end of the late 730s that Pope Gregory III laid
the foundation for the later destruction of the Lombard kingdom. After Liutprand’s
renewed aggression and conquest of papal territories, Gregory sent a note to the
Carolingian mayor Charles Martel, seeking aid against the Lombard king. This
appeal by the pope proved fruitless for several reasons. The Lombards and Franks
had long been allies, and Paul the Deacon tells the story of Charles sending his
son Pippin to Liutprand to receive the traditional gift of the king’s hair. Liutprand
sent both his hair and many gifts to confirm the friendship between the two rulers
and their peoples. It was also important at that time for Charles to preserve the al-
liance with Liutprand because Muslim armies from Spain continued to threaten
the Frankish kingdom. Despite the failure of this attempt by Gregory, later popes
did seek and receive aid from the Carolingians against the Lombards. Hostility
between the pope and the king survived Gregory’s reign, but it was eased during
the early years of Pope Zachary, who personally met with Liutprand and negoti-
ated the return of several papal towns. Indeed, it was Liutprand’s devotion to the
Catholic faith and respect for the holy see that contributed to Zachary’s success.
 Lombards | 381

Although Liutprand’s dream of uniting all of Italy ultimately was not real-
ized, he exercised great influence over events on the peninsula and greatly en-
hanced Lombard royal authority in Italy. He also strengthened royal power within
the Lombard kingdom. He strengthened his ties with the dukes and other nobles
throughout the kingdom. He also enhanced his ties with all free people in the king-
dom by imposing an oath that bound them all to him. He improved royal bureau-
cracy and the administration of justice. He also cultivated a more sophisticated
concept of power. Finally, Liutprand revised the Lombard code of law. Although
his struggles with the papacy led in the end to an alliance that brought about the
end of the Lombard kingdom, Liutprand clearly presided over a highly successful
period in Lombard history and left his successors, both Lombard and Frankish,
an important legacy.
See also: Arianism; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Franks; Gregory II, Pope;
Gregory III, Pope; Lombards; Paul the Deacon; Pavia; Rome; Zachary, St.

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Noble, Thomas X. F. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Lombards

A Germanic people who first appear in the sources in the first-century ad, set-
tling along the Elbe River, the Lombards, or Langobardi (Long Beards), devel-
oped a reputation for being an especially fierce people. Although they suffered oc-
casional setbacks, they won numerous victories over other barbarian peoples, and
at the same time were skilled diplomats, able to maintain good relations with the
Avars, Byzantines, and Franks. They are best known, however, for their invasion
and conquest of much of Italy, which undermined the efforts of the emperor Jus-
tinian to reestablish imperial power in Italy. Although pagan or Arian at the time of
382 | Lombards

the invasion, the Lombards were able to establish good relations with the bishops
of Italy and eventually converted to Catholic Christianity. Their efforts to unify the
Italian peninsula under a Lombard king caused the popes in Rome great anxiety.
The Lombard struggle with the papacy contributed to the formation of the papal
states and the destruction of the Lombard kingdom in 774 by Charlemagne, whose
aid had been sought by the pope.
The origins of the Lombards remain obscure, and the early Roman and me-
dieval texts add little to our knowledge of the earliest period. The first mention
of the Lombards was made by Tacitus (c. 56–117) in the Germania, who placed
them along the lower Elbe River. Later Roman and early medieval writers placed
them in lower Austria by the fifth century and then south of the Danube River in
Pannonia (modern western Hungary and eastern Austria) in the sixth century. Paul
the Deacon, the eighth-century historian of the Lombards, placed their origins in
Scandinavia and then traced their migrations into Pannonia. His version of the his-
tory, however, follows the standard pattern of migration that most late Roman and
early medieval historians ascribed to various barbarian tribes. The period between
the first appearance of the Lombards and their settlement in Pannonia is uncertain;
the archeological records suggest that theirs was a pastoral existence. They also
seem to have developed a fairly well-organized tribal structure and a reputation
for fierceness that was later justified in their contacts with Rome and other barbar-
ian peoples.
However, that may be, by the end of the fifth century it is most likely that the
Lombards had moved into Pannonia; in the next century they were led by the vig-
orous king Audoin (r. 546–560/561). By the time of Audoin, the Lombards had
become a force to be reckoned with and had defeated the Heruls and Gepids in
battle. Audoin had gained such renown that he was able to arrange his marriage to
a grandniece of Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogothic king of Italy, a marriage that
may have been the inspiration for the Lombard invasion of Italy. Indeed, it was Au-
doin’s son, Alboin, who led the Lombards into Italy.
After distinguishing himself in battle against the Gepids during his father’s life-
time, Alboin continued to wage war as king in his own name. Although defeated by
the Gepids in 565, Alboin rejoined battle two years later after forming an alliance
with the Avars. His victory led to the destruction of the Gepids and death of their
king at the hand of Alboin, who made a goblet of his rival’s skull and then mar-
ried his rival’s daughter. After his victory over the Gepids, according to tradition,
Alboin entered Italy at the invitation of the disgruntled Byzantine general Narses.
Although Narses’s invitation may have played a part in the invasion, Lombard
awareness of the weakened state of Italy, brought about by the Gothic Wars and
divisions in the church, as well as possible family connections, surely also played
a role. After settling affairs in Pannonia, Alboin entered the peninsula in 568 with
up to 150,000 followers; he quickly conquered much of northern Italy and may
 Lombards | 383

have even threatened Rome. Alboin’s success in Italy, however, was cut short by an
assassination plot involving his wife, who had grown tired of seeing her husband
drink from her father’s skull.
The death of Alboin reveals two of the weaknesses of the Lombard system, the
tradition of elective kingship and a powerful noble class. A new king did emerge
immediately in the wake of the assassination; Cleph (r. 572–574) was elected, but
he was then assassinated in his turn. This was followed by a 10-year period in which
no king was elected and the dukes ruled throughout Lombard Italy. The dukes also
continued the subjugation of Italy, spreading south into Tuscany, Beneventum, and
Spoleto. There was, however, little effort to intermingle with the Italian population,
and the Lombards both kept themselves separate from and continued to oppress
the native population. Their warlike tendencies also led them north in an attempt
to conquer Burgundy, an almost fatal mistake. The Lombard dukes faced the might
of the Merovingian Franks in Burgundy, a might enhanced by an alliance with the
Byzantine Empire. The Lombards paid dearly for their expedition north and were
nearly destroyed by the Merovingians. It was this experience, at least in part, that
led to a restoration of the kingship, as the dukes joined together to elect Cleph’s son
Authari (r. 584–590) as king. His reign was noteworthy for his marriage to Theude-
linda, a Bavarian Catholic princess, recovery of much of the territory lost to the
Franks and Byzantines, and efforts to strengthen the Lombard kingship.
During the seventh century, Authari’s successors built on his legacy, continu-
ing to strengthen the monarchy and to preserve their ethnic identity. They also
expanded Lombard control in Italy, but introduced important changes in the govern-
ment and religion of the Lombards. Both developments are evident already during
the reign of Authari’s immediate successor, Agilulf (r. 590–616), whom Authari’s
widow, Theudelinda, chose to be king and her new husband. Agilulf stabilized the
Lombard frontiers in Italy, limiting imperial territory in the process. He also in-
troduced the practice of early designation of royal successors, identifying his son,
Aldoald (616–626), as the heir while the boy was still young. Although an Arian
Christian, Agilulf had his son baptized a Catholic and allowed his Lombard subjects
to baptize their children as Catholics.
This concession was surely made in deference to Theudelinda, who exercised
great power and influence, was courted by Pope Gregory I, and was a patron of the
Irish Catholic missionary, St. Columban. Indeed, it was during the reign of Theude-
linda and Agilulf that Columban established the famous monastery of Bobbio.
Theudelinda’s efforts on behalf of the Catholic faith failed, however, and when,
according to Paul the Deacon, her son went insane, the new king, Ariald (r. 626–
636), was an Arian Christian. Indeed, the reaction against Theudelinda, which may
have been motivated by the Lombards’ desire to maintain their own identity, lasted
two generations and continued into the following reign. The reign of Rothari was
characterized not only by the promotion of Arian Christianity, but also—and more
384 | Lombards

importantly—by the codification of the Lombard laws. The laws revealed both
Germanic tradition and Roman legal practice and show the ambivalent attitude the
Lombards had toward the Romans.
Although indebted to both their Ostrogothic and Roman predecessors in ruling
Italy, the Lombards introduced their own customs and social and political arrange-
ments in Italy, as Rothari’s laws demonstrate. The most significant aspect of the
Lombards’ rule in Italy was their effort to retain their ethnic identity, which led to
their limited intermingling with the native Italian population as well as their pref-
erence for Arian Christianity. Their political system was organized around a king,
whose capital was, eventually, established in the city of Pavia. The king came in-
creasingly to rely on taxes and revenues from his royal estates and remained the
leading figure in the kingdom, assisted at court by a growing bureaucracy and a
number of officials appointed by the king. The dukes were the next most impor-
tant power in the kingdom and numbered as many as 35 during the kingdom’s
existence. They were sometimes independent of the king, as were the dukes of
Spoleto and Beneventum, and were great powers in their own right, who were often
elected to the kingship. At the bottom of the social hierarchy were half-free peas-
ants, slaves, and freedmen, but the most important class was that of the arimmani
(Lombard word for soldiers). The arimmani were free men who were responsible
for serving in the Lombard military and were essential to the success of the Lom-
bard kings.
Despite the successes of Rothari and other early seventh-century kings, the Lom-
bards faced turmoil during the latter part of the century. They suffered from internal
dissent brought on by religious differences and the ambition of the dukes. More-
over, the Lombards faced foreign invasion by the Merovingians and the Byzantines
during the reign of King Grimoald (r. 662–671), who also had to evict invading
Avars from part of Lombard Italy. There was a major rebellion in the north during
the reign of King Cuncipert (r. 680–700), which the king suppressed, enabling him
to bring a group of northern bishops under his control. It was also during this pe-
riod, that the Lombards, under King Aripert I (r. 653–661), converted to Catholic
Christianity from the Arian faith of Rothari and some earlier Lombard kings.
The turmoil of the late seventh century gave way to the high point of Lom-
bard history in the eighth, under the great kings Liutprand, Aistulf, and Desider-
ius, whose very success led paradoxically to the demise of the Lombard kingdom.
The first of these kings, Liutprand, exploited the turmoil in Italy brought on by the
Iconoclastic Controversy in the Byzantine Empire. The controversy emerged be-
cause of the decision of Leo III, the Isaurian, to eliminate the use of icons in wor-
ship, alienating the papacy, which was already disenchanted with the empire for
its failure to protect Italy. Liutprand moved quickly to improve his control of the
kingdom and expand its boundaries at the expense of the empire. Although an ag-
gressive and expansionist king, Liutprand strove to maintain good relations with
the pope. A Catholic Christian, the king tried to cooperate with Rome even though
 Lombards | 385

the popes felt threatened by his efforts to control Italy. His mixed success is demon-
strated by the efforts of Pope Gregory III to forge an alliance with the Carolingian
mayor, Charles Martel, against the Lombards—Charles was reluctant because of
his own ties with Liutprand—and the treaty Liutprand signed with Pope Zachary,
who nonetheless promoted ties with the Carolingians.
Liutprand’s successor, Aistulf, was the most aggressive and bloodthirsty of the
Lombard kings. According to one contemporary source, Aistulf was a “shameless
Lombard king” who possessed “pernicious savagery” and cruelty (Davis 1992,
55). In keeping with Lombard tradition, he sought to unify the peninsula under
his authority, and therefore posed a great threat to papal territories in central Italy.
He seized Ravenna, the imperial stronghold in Italy, from the Byzantines and
ended the imperial presence there. The victory over the empire, however, forced
the popes to find a new protector and brought about the beginning of the end of
the Lombard kingdom. Pippin the Short, recently crowned king of the Franks,
agreed to come to the aid of the pope and invaded Italy twice in the 750s to restrain
Aistulf. Although Aistulf signed treaties guaranteeing the safety of the pope and
his lands, the Lombard king nonetheless frequently broke them. He surely would
have violated his last agreement with Pippin had Aistulf not died in a hunting ac-
cident in 756.
Aistulf was succeeded by Desiderius, the final Lombard king of Italy. His reign
began well and was supported by the pope himself. Moreover, Desiderius enjoyed
good relations with the Carolingians, who formed an alliance with the Lombard
king against the duke of Bavaria. Benefiting from the unrest in the Frankish king-
dom at the death of Pippin, Desiderius forged a marriage alliance with the Carolin-
gians, joining his daughter to Charlemagne. But the marriage was repudiated by the
great king shortly after, and the growing threat posed by Desiderius to the papacy
led Pope Hadrian I to seek aid from Charlemagne, who invaded Italy in 773 and by
the next year had conquered the kingdom. Charlemagne assumed the iron crown
of the Lombard kingdom and incorporated Lombard Italy into his growing empire.
Although the Lombard kingdom came to an end in 774, its memory is preserved in
the region of Italy that still bears the name Lombardy.
See also: Aistulf; Alboin; Arianism; Avars; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles
Martel; Desiderius; Franks; Gothic Wars; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory III, Pope;
Hadrian I, Pope; Justinian; Liutprand; Merovingian Dynasty; Narses; Ostrogoths; Paul the
Deacon; Pavia; Pippin III, Called the Short; Ravenna; Rome; Rothari; Theodoric the Great;
Theudelinda; Zachary, St.

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
386 | Lothar

Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Lombard Laws. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1973.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommoda-
tion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Hallenback, Jan T. Pavia and Rome: The Lombard Monarchy and the Papacy in the
Eighth Century. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1982.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper and Row,
1962.
Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Lothar (795–855)

Carolingian king and emperor, Lothar was the son and successor of Louis the Pious
and brother of Charles the Bald and Louis the German. As the oldest son of Louis
the Pious, Lothar was recognized early in his father’s reign as the heir designate
and was associated with his father as emperor in 817. In the 820s he played an im-
portant role in Italy as his father’s representative and formalized a long-standing
relationship between the Carolingian dynasty and the papacy. The remarriage of
Louis to Judith and the birth of Charles the Bald complicated the relationship be-
tween Lothar and his father. In the 830s Lothar led two revolts against his father,
both of which failed, leaving Lothar in disgrace. He ultimately was restored to his
father’s good graces, but after the death of Louis the Pious the empire was torn apart
by civil war. Lothar, although bested by his brothers, came to terms with them and
ruled as emperor until his death in 855.
The firstborn son of Louis the Pious and his wife Irmengard (d. 818), Lothar
had reached adulthood in 814 when his grandfather Charlemagne died, and Louis
assumed the throne. His maturity benefited Louis by making Lothar an important
associate in government, but it also plagued Louis, because Lothar became the
 Lothar | 387

focus of opposition to the new emperor. In the opening years of his reign, how-
ever, Louis was well served by Lothar, who ruled in Bavaria from 814 to 817.
In 817, when Louis implemented the Ordinatio imperii, his plan of succession
for the empire, Lothar was made coemperor and recognized as Louis’s succes-
sor, while Lothar’s brothers, Louis the German and Pippin, were made subkings,
subject to the authority of Louis and Lothar. Lothar was given the responsibility
of ruling Italy, which led to the revolt of his cousin, Bernard, king of Italy. The
revolt was brutally suppressed by Louis, and Lothar assumed his responsibilities
in Italy.
In the 820s, Lothar played an important role in Italy and in the relations of the
Carolingian Empire and the papacy in Rome. He exercised a number of royal, or
imperial, functions in Italy by calling councils and issuing capitularies. Aware that
Judith, his father’s second wife, was about to give birth, Lothar called on the pope,
Paschal I, to crown him emperor in 823. In this way he was able to assert his place
in the empire and confirm his title of emperor, because papal coronation was be-
coming the official means to assume the imperial title. Although this action may
have been an effort to counter any efforts by Louis the Pious to limit his authority,
Lothar remained an important figure in the family and the state. He had previously
stood as godfather to Judith and Louis’s first child, Gisele, and now stood as godfa-
ther for his new half-brother, later known as Charles the Bald. Indeed, godparentage
had become a very significant responsibility in Carolingian society.
Lothar also played an important role in regularizing relations between the pa-
pacy and the Carolingian dynasty. In 824, Lothar issued the Constitutio Romana
(Roman Constitution) on his father’s behalf. This constitution was issued after a
period of turmoil in the city of Rome and confirmed Carolingian rights in Rome
and papal territories. The constitution legislated that the Frankish rulers were to
be notified upon the election of a new pope and that the people of Rome were
to swear an oath of loyalty to the Carolingian emperor. The Carolingians also
enforced loyalty to the pope and promised to protect papal territories in central
Italy.
Although he remained an important figure in government, Lothar, along with his
brothers Pippin and Louis the German, became increasingly concerned about the
place of their newest brother Charles, a concern that eventually led them into re-
bellion against their father. Their concerns were found to be justified in 827, when
their father reorganized the succession plan to include Charles. For many ecclesi-
astics, the Ordinatio of 817 was sacred, and consequently any violation of it was
regarded as an act against God. For others in the empire, especially members of the
nobility, its sacred character was less of an issue, but nevertheless the restructuring
of the succession plan provided an excuse to revolt. And in the late 820s and early
830s, Lothar and his brothers did revolt against their father and Charles. Lothar
was motivated by his desire to rule as well as by the encouragement of ambitious
388 | Lothar

Frankish Emperor from his psalter, ninth century.

(The British Library Board)

members of the nobility. He was also supported by leaders in the church who be-
lieved in the sacred nature of government and the Ordinatio and often reminded
Lothar about these ideas.
Lothar was involved in two rebellions against his father Louis. The first revolt
occurred in 830; it was initiated by his brother Pippin who had the most to lose in
the new succession plan. Lothar quickly joined the rebellion from Italy, entering it
because of his dissatisfaction over his father’s promotion of Bernard of Septima-
nia to high rank at the court, a move that threatened Lothar’s own position. Lothar
quickly took charge of the situation and placed Louis and Charles under house ar-
rest. His efforts at ruling, however, met with little success, and, as the chronicler
Nithard noted, “the state of the empire grew worse from day to day, since all were
driven by greed and sought only their own advantage” (Scholz 1972, 131). Lothar’s
position was undermined by Louis, who secretly negotiated with both Pippin and
Louis the German. By Easter 831, Louis had been restored to the throne. Lothar was
returned to Italy in disgrace, and his supporters were jailed, but he was permitted
 Lothar | 389

to remain as king in Italy. Louis also restructured the plan of succession once again
and created four equal kingdoms out of the empire for his four sons.
Louis, however, failed to keep his bargain with his sons and faced a revolt again,
one that was much more serious than the revolt of 830. In 833 Lothar and Louis and
Pippin formed an alliance against their father. The four and their armies met on the
so-called Field of Lies, where Louis the Pious’s armies abandoned him for Lothar,
who took his father into custody. Judith was sent to Italy, Charles was sent off to a
monastery, and in October, Lothar forced his father to perform an act of penance
and abdicate at a great council. Lothar’s rough treatment of his father, however,
alienated his brothers, especially Louis, who came to the aid of the older Louis. By
February 834 the tide had turned, and Louis the Pious was restored to the throne.
The emperor and his allies defeated Lothar’s army, and Lothar surrendered and was
once again returned to Italy.
Turmoil in the Carolingian Empire, however, continued during Louis’s last years
and into the early 840s. Lothar remained quietly in Italy for several years while his
father secured his position once again. On the death of Pippin, Louis restructured
the succession yet again, establishing a large kingdom for his son Charles. Lothar
was restored to his father’s good graces, largely thanks to the efforts of Judith who
desired a good relationship between Charles and Lothar, shortly before the older
Louis’s death. Lothar and Charles were to share the empire, and, although placed
on equal footing with Charles, Lothar inherited the imperial title. His claims to this
title, as well as his claims to territory drove his efforts in the following years. In-
deed, almost immediately after Louis’s death, his sons once again fell into civil war,
as in various combinations they struggled to enforce their claims to power and ter-
ritory. Although he reconciled with his godson Charles, Lothar soon turned against
him and was then faced by a hostile alliance from his two brothers. Open warfare
took place, which culminated in the bloody Battle of Fontenoy in 841, which was
marked by massive losses for all combatants. Although weakened, Lothar struggled
on, but his brothers reaffirmed their alliance against him with the famous Oath of
Strasbourg in 842, and in 843 Lothar agreed to a division of the empire in the Treaty
of Verdun.
From the end of the civil war in 843 until his death in 855, Lothar ruled as em-
peror over the central portion of the empire, which included the imperial capital
of Aix-la-Chapelle (modern Aachen, in Germany) and Italy. Although tensions re-
mained and Lothar was constantly attempting to assert his position in the realm,
the brothers did manage to rule peacefully during Lothar’s lifetime. They held an
important council in 844 that sought to reorganize the church, as well as councils in
847 and 851 that emphasized brotherly rule and the unity of the empire. At the same
time, however, Lothar attempted to keep his two brothers apart and sought to forge
alliances with one against the other. He found little success in that until his recon-
ciliation with Charles in 849, which was commemorated by the commissioning of
390 | Louis the German

a new illuminated Gospel from Tours and a magnificent gem, the Lothar Crystal,
which told the story of Susannah and the Elders. On September 22, 855, Lothar re-
tired to a monastery, where he died six days later. He was succeeded in the northern
section of his territory by his son Lothar II (d. 869), and in Italy by his son Louis
(d. 875), who assumed the title of emperor. Although he successfully maintained
his position in the empire during his life, Lothar’s middle kingdom, especially the
inheritance of Lothar II, remained a source of contention for many years to come.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the
Bald; Fontenoy, Battle of; Franks; Judith; Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Nithard;
Rome; Strasbourg, Oath of; Verdun, Treaty of

Bibliography
Godman, Peter, and Roger Collins, eds. Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the
Reign of Louis the Pious. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056. London: Longman,
1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Louis the German (d. 876)

Third son of Louis the Pious, who inherited the eastern portion of the Carolin-
gian Empire on his father’s death. A participant in the civil wars against his father,
Louis the German also supported his father at key moments when his older brother,
Lothar, seemed too harsh in his treatment of the elder Louis. After his father’s death,
Louis the German was involved in fratricidal warfare with Lothar and Charles the
Bald that led to the fragmentation of the empire of Charlemagne. Although there
was at least nominal cooperation between the brothers and nominal recognition of
the imperial authority, the empire was essentially divided into three separate king-
doms ruled by Louis and his brothers. The kingdoms created by the sons of Louis
the Pious established the outlines of later medieval and even modern France and
Germany, and Louis the German himself set important precedents for later rulers
of medieval Germany.
Born probably in Aquitaine circa 804, Louis was raised to prominence in Louis
the Pious’s reorganization of the empire in 817. In that division of the realm, which
 Louis the German | 391

made Lothar coemperor and heir to the imperial throne, Louis was made king of
Bavaria, the base of power for Louis that lasted throughout his entire life. In the
820s Louis served his father in his assigned region of Bavaria, but in the 830s,
perhaps in response to his father’s efforts to create a region in the kingdom for
Charles the Bald, the son of his second wife, Louis took part in two rebellions
against Louis the Pious. Indeed, Louis the German, with his brother Pippin, initiated
the revolt of 830, intending to “liberate” his father from the pernicious influence of
his stepmother Judith and his father’s close advisor Bernard of Septimania. After
the initial success of the revolt, Lothar took control of it and alienated his younger
brothers. Louis the Pious, under house arrest, secretly sent messengers to Louis and
Pippin, encouraging their support in exchange for greater territories in the empire.
The younger Louis readily accepted, and his support for his father was essential to
the collapse of the rebellion of 830.
The empire continued to face turmoil over the next several years, and once again
Louis the German took an active role in revolt against his father. In 833, Louis and
his brothers Lothar and Pippin revolted against the elder Louis, deposing him and
placing him, Judith, and Charles the Bald in monasteries. Lothar’s bad treatment
of his father, however, and his efforts to gain greater control of the empire angered
Louis. As he had in 830, Louis the German played a key role in restoring his father
to the imperial throne. His efforts were rewarded in 839 when, after the death of
Pippin, Louis the Pious sought to restrict his son Louis to Bavaria and favored both
Charles the Bald and the rehabilitated Lothar. The younger Louis quite naturally
struggled to maintain his authority in the eastern part of the Carolingian Empire.
On the death of Louis the Pious in 840, the difficult situation in the empire ex-
ploded into open civil war between his three surviving sons. Lothar sought to gain
control of the entire empire, and his ambition drove his younger brothers Louis
and Charles into an alliance against him. The two brothers formed an alliance in
the spring of 841 and fought a terrible, bloody battle against Lothar at Fontenoy
on June 25, 841. Louis and Charles triumphed over Lothar and remained firm in
their alliance, despite Lothar’s efforts to divide them. In the following year, Louis
and Charles confirmed their alliance in the famed Oath of Strasbourg, which was
sworn and recorded in early forms of the Romance and German languages. Lothar
was gradually worn down by his younger brothers and came to terms with them in
843 with the Treaty of Verdun, which assigned Lothar the imperial title and cen-
tral kingdom of the empire. Charles was assigned the western kingdom, and Louis
received the eastern kingdom, including territories that extended east of the Rhine
River and north of the Alps.
Although the three brothers had come to terms and continued to meet and to
appear on the surface to cooperate with each other, none of the three were content
with the settlement, and each conspired to enlarge his share at his brothers’ ex-
pense. As king of East Francia, Louis was the sole binding force in a newly created
territory and sought to solidify his authority throughout his kingdom, in part by
392 | Louis the German

establishing or favoring monasteries—a policy used effectively by his successors

in the 10th century. As ever, Bavaria remained his power base and the starting point
for his expansionist tendencies to the east and west. His efforts to expand his east-
ern frontier met with little success, but he did send forth missionaries in an effort
to extend both religious and political authority. He also made several attempts to
seize West Francia from his half brother and former ally, Charles the Bald. In 853
a group of west Frankish nobles sought his aid, and in 854 he sent his son to Aqui-
taine. In 858, Louis himself invaded his half brother’s kingdom, but on neither oc-
casion was he able to unseat his brother, in part because Charles the Bald received
the full support of the bishops of his realm.
Louis also cast covetous eyes on the kingdom of his older brother Lothar, or least
that of Lothar’s heirs. When Lothar died in 855, his kingdom was divided among
his sons, with his son Louis inheriting the imperial crown. The other son, Lothar,
inherited much of the northern part of his father’s kingdom, Lotharingia, but died
without heir. Louis the German and Charles each sought to acquire the territory.
Louis invaded in 870, and he and his brother came to terms in the treaty of Meers-
sen in that year. They divided the realm of Lotharingia between themselves, with
both brothers gaining important territory and Louis obtaining the capital, Aachen.
Louis also attempted to seize the imperial title after the death of his nephew Louis
in 875, but was outmaneuvered by Charles the Bald, who was crowned emperor.
Along with his struggles against his brothers, Louis the German faced challenges
to his power from his sons, Carloman (d. 880) and Louis the Younger (d. 882),
but not Charles the Fat (d. 888). As early as 856 he faced rebellion from his son
Carloman, who built up his power in Bavaria at his father’s expense. In 860 Louis
sought to curtail his son’s advances, and in 863 an open power struggle developed
between the two. By 865 the two had been reconciled, but Carloman’s brother,
Louis the Younger, suspicious of his older brother, revolted. The revolt was brought
to a close by 866, thanks in part to the efforts of Charles the Bald to reconcile his
brother and his nephew. Although Louis the Younger quarreled with his father on
occasion after 866 and continued to be mistrustful of his brother, Louis the German
never faced the kinds of revolt that his brother Lothar or his father Louis the Pious
had faced. In part, this was due to his ability to reconcile with his sons after disputes
broke out. It was also due to his willingness, perhaps as a result of his awareness of
potential problems from his sons, to bestow power on his sons. In the late 850s and
early 860s, Louis granted land and authority to his sons—they were given power
to rule that was less than that of a king but more than that of a noble. They were
granted important territorial regions, and in that way they were the precursors of
the territorial dukes of the later Middle Ages.
At his death, Louis’s three sons divided the realm among themselves. One of
them, Charles the Fat, went on to assume the imperial title that his father had at
times pursued, only to lose it when deposed in 887.
 Louis the Pious | 393

Louis the German’s reign was marked by relative stability in his own kingdom
and efforts, not always successful, to expand his western and eastern frontiers. In a
good Carolingian fashion, he promoted missionary activity among the pagan folk
on his eastern frontier. His efforts to convert the pagan and expand his border pre-
figured the activities of 10th-century rulers, and his arrangement with his sons also
foreshadowed later medieval developments. Although in many ways a traditional
Carolingian ruler, Louis laid the foundation for developments in later medieval
Germany.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Charles III, the Fat;
Fontenoy, Battle of; Franks; Judith; Lothar; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Strasbourg, Oath of;
Verdun, Treaty of

Bibliography
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Ganshof, François L. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolin-
gian History. Trans. Janet L. Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056. London: Longman,
1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Louis the Pious (778–840)

The only surviving son and heir of the great Carolingian king, Charlemagne, Louis
the Pious ruled the empire from 814 until his death in 840. As emperor he intro-
duced important reforms of the structure and organization of the empire and contin-
ued the religious and cultural reforms associated with the Carolingian Renaissance.
Traditionally accused of causing the collapse of the Carolingian Empire because
of his excessive devotion to the church and his domination by his wife and other
advisors, Louis is no longer blamed for the empire’s collapse. Instead his reign and
his understanding of his office are seen in a more positive light, especially the first
decade, when he instituted a number of far-reaching political and religious reforms.
394 | Louis the Pious

Although the empire did not fall because of Louis but because of fundamental flaws
in its structure that had already emerged in Charlemagne’s last years, its fortunes
did suffer during Louis’s reign because of the revolts his sons waged against him.
Louis’s youth was marked by his early introduction to power. In 781, when not
quite three years old, Louis was crowned and anointed king of Aquitaine by Pope
Hadrian I. This crowning has traditionally been seen as Charlemagne’s concession
to demands for independence in Aquitaine, a territory incorporated into the empire
by Pippin the Short, but more likely he intended it as an effective means to gov-
ern the province and provide practical experience for Louis. Aquitaine did provide
important lessons for Louis, who faced revolts from native Gascons and repeated
raids from Muslim Spain. Louis effectively responded to both these threats dur-
ing his reign as king and even undertook counteroffensives into Spain. Although
he frequently communicated with his father, Louis ruled Aquitaine on his own
and was never visited by Charlemagne in the subkingdom. He also participated in
military campaigns outside Aquitaine, including campaigns in Italy and Saxony.
Moreover, while king of Aquitaine, Louis had a number of experiences that shaped
his later life. In 794, Louis married Irmengard, the daughter of a powerful noble,
who bore him three sons and two daughters. He also initiated a program of church
reform with Benedict of Aniane. Finally, Louis’s future was shaped by his father’s
ordering of the succession. In 806, Charlemagne implemented a plan of succes-
sion that divided the realm among his sons, a long-standing Frankish tradition, in
which Louis would continue to be king of Aquitaine. On September 11, 813, after
his other brothers had died, Louis was crowned emperor by his father at a great as-
sembly in Aix-la-Chapelle.
In 814, following his father’s death, Louis succeeded to the throne as the sole
emperor of the Frankish realm and brought a more profound understanding of the
office of Christian king or emperor than his father had had. Like his father, Louis
was filled with the sense of Christian mission that his position entailed, perhaps
best demonstrated by his expulsion of prostitutes and actors from the imperial court
and his dismissal of his sisters, none of whom had been allowed by his father to
marry, to religious communities. Unlike his father, however, Louis understood his
position strictly in imperial terms, an understanding reflected in his official title:
“Louis, by Order of Divine Providence, Emperor and Augustus.” Unlike his father
who made reference to his royal dignities in his official imperial title, Louis dis-
pensed with royal dignities in his official title from the beginning of his reign and
provided a solid foundation for the empire in 817. In that year, following a serious
accident while crossing a bridge in which several were injured, Louis held a coun-
cil at Aachen. At the council, Louis established a new framework for the Frankish
empire, whose territorial integrity would remain inviolate. In the Ordinatio imperii,
Louis instituted a plan that would have allowed the empire to continue as a politi-
cal and spiritual unit forever. His eldest son, Lothar, was associated with Louis and
 Louis the Pious | 395

would ultimately succeed him as emperor over the entire Frankish realm. Louis’s
younger sons, Louis the German and Pippin of Aquitaine, would receive subking-
doms—a concession to Frankish tradition—but would be subject to their father and
then their brother. This bold new design was rooted in Louis’s firm convictions that
God had bestowed upon him the burden of government and that the empire itself
was a divinely ordained unit.
Equally important steps were taken by Louis to reorganize and strengthen rela-
tions with the pope in Rome. In 816 he was crowned by Pope Stephen IV in the
city of Rheims, a coronation that has traditionally been seen as a concession to
papal authority and an abdication of sovereignty. Louis, in fact, gave nothing up
by accepting coronation from Stephen, but merely solidified relations between
the pope and emperor and confirmed what was implicit in the coronation of 813.
Furthermore, because the pope was the highest spiritual power and the represen-
tative of Peter, the great patron saint of the Carolingians, it was only logical that
Louis should receive papal blessing. But more important than the coronation was
the new constitutional and legal settlement that Louis imposed on Rome in two
stages, in 816/817 and 824. Starting with the unwritten rules that had guided re-
lations between the Carolingians and the pope for the previous two generations,
Louis issued the Pactum Ludovicianum in 816 and confirmed it the following year
with the new pope, Paschal I. This document identified the territories under papal
control and precisely defined the relationship between Rome and the Frankish
rulers. Although recognizing papal autonomy, the pact proclaimed the duty of
Carolingian rulers to protect Rome. This agreement provided a written basis for
the relationship between the pope and the Carolingian emperors and regularized
the relationship between them by incorporating it into traditional Carolingian gov-
ernmental structures.
An even greater step in the development of the relationship between Louis and
Rome occurred with the publication of the Constitutio Romana in 824. In 823,
following a period of turmoil in Rome involving the pope and high-ranking of-
ficials of the city’s administration, Lothar, acting as his father’s representative,
issued the Constitutio, which confirmed the long-standing relationship between
the Carolingian rulers and the popes. The Constitutio was intended to protect
the pope and people of Rome and to provide a clear written framework for the
place of Rome in the empire. The Constitutio stated the obligation of the pope to
swear on oath of friendship to the emperor after his election as pope but before
his consecration. The people living in the papal territories were also to swear an
oath of loyalty to the emperor. The Carolingians claimed the right to establish
courts in Rome to hear appeals against papal administrators. The Constitutio
summarized, in writing, the customary rights and obligations of three genera-
tions of Frankish rulers, providing a more solid foundation for the exercise of
Carolingian power in Italy.
396 | Louis the Pious

Louis also instituted important reforms of the church in his empire during
his reign as emperor, building upon reforms that were begun while he was still
king of Aquitaine. With his close friend and advisor, Benedict of Aniane, Louis
implemented monastic reforms that attempted to standardize monastic life in
the empire. The reforms were intended to establish a uniform monastic practice
in an empire in which a variety of monastic rules were followed. The reforms,
implemented in 816–817, introduced the Rule of Benedict of Nursia, or at least
Benedict of Aniane’s understanding of it, as the standard rule of the empire.
Louis’s reform legislation also sought to improve further the morality and educa-
tion of the clergy.
Louis’s political and religious reforms were not uniformly popular in the em-
pire, and in 817 a revolt broke out that affected the shape of the emperor’s reign.
His nephew, Bernard, king of Italy, with the support of bishops and nobles, revolted
against the settlement of 817. Louis quickly, and ruthlessly, suppressed the revolt.
Bernard was sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to blinding—a partic-
ularly unpleasant punishment that led to Bernard’s death soon after it occurred. The
nobles were exiled, and the bishops, including Theodulf of Orléans, were deposed
from their sees. Four years after the revolt, in 821, Louis issued a general amnesty,
recalling and restoring the exiles and bishops. As part of this reconciliation, Louis
underwent voluntary penance for the death of Bernard. Although the act, under-
taken from a position of strength, was regarded as meritorious at the time, it set a
bad precedent for later in Louis’s reign.
Louis clearly made substantial improvements on the organization of the em-
pire and on Carolingian relations with Rome in the first half of his reign, but in
the second half he suffered from the revolts of his sons and the near collapse of
the empire. The difficulties Louis faced were the result, in part, of his second
marriage to Judith, a member of the Welf family, which had extensive holdings
in Bavaria and other parts of Germany. The birth of a son on June 13, 823, the
future Charles the Bald, and the promotion of Bernard of Septimania further
complicated matters for Louis. He also suffered from the death of his closest
advisor, Benedict of Aniane, in 821. These problems were made more serious
by the ambitions of Louis’s older sons, especially Lothar, as well as those of the
nobility, who could no longer count on the spoils of foreign wars of conquest to
enrich themselves or their reputations. In fact, the end of Carolingian expansion,
with the exception of missionary activity among the Danes and other peoples
along the eastern frontier, limited the beneficence of the Carolingian rulers and
allowed the warrior aristocracy to exploit the tensions within the ruling family
for their own gain.
The situation came to a head in the late 820s and early 830s and led to almost 10
years of civil strife throughout the empire. A revolt broke out in 830 after Louis had
promoted Bernard of Septimania to the office of chamberlain and granted territory
 Louis the Pious | 397

to Charles in the previous year. With the support of various noble factions, the
older sons of Louis rebelled against their father in April and accused Bernard and
Judith of adultery, sorcery, and conspiracy against the emperor. Lothar, although
not originally involved, joined the rebellion from Italy and quickly asserted his au-
thority over his younger brothers. Lothar took his father and half-brother into cus-
tody, deposed Bernard, who fled, and sent Judith to a convent. But his own greed
disturbed his brothers, who were secretly reconciled with their father. At a council
in October, Louis rallied his supporters and took control of the kingdom back from
Lothar. Judith took an oath that she was innocent. Louis reorganized the empire,
dividing it into three kingdoms and Italy, which Lothar ruled. The sons of Louis
would rule independently after their father’s death, and no mention of empire was
made in this settlement.
Although Louis was restored, the situation was not resolved in 830, and prob-
lems remained that caused a more serious revolt in 833–834. Along with the ques-
tion of how to provide for Charles, the problem of the ambitions of Lothar and his
brothers remained, as did that of an acquisitive nobility. Furthermore, certain lead-
ing ecclesiastics, including Agobard of Lyons and Ebbo of Rheims, argued that
Louis had violated God’s will by overturning the settlement of 817 when he restruc-
tured the plan of succession in 830. The older sons formed a conspiracy against their
father that led to a general revolt in 833. Meeting his sons and Pope Gregory IV
(r. 827–844) at the so-called Field of Lies, Louis was betrayed and abandoned by his
army and captured by his sons. Once again, the emperor was subjected to humili-
ating treatment at the hands of Lothar. Judith was sent to Rome with the pope, and
both Charles and Louis were sent to monasteries. In October Lothar held a council
of nobles and bishops at which Louis was declared a tyrant, and then Lothar vis-
ited his father in the monastery of St. Médard in Soissons and compelled Louis to
“voluntarily” confess to a wide variety of crimes, including murder and sacrilege,
to renounce his imperial title, and to accept perpetual penance. Lothar’s actions,
however, alienated his brothers Louis and Pippin, who rallied to their father’s side.
In early 834 Louis the German and Pippin revolted against their brother and were
joined by their father, who had regained his freedom. Lothar was forced to submit
and returned in disgrace to Italy. In 835 Louis made a triumphant return. He was
once again crowned emperor, by his half-brother Bishop Drogo of Metz, and he re-
stored Judith and Charles to their rightful places by his side. The bishops who had
joined the revolt against Louis were deposed from their offices by Louis at this time.
Louis remained in power until his death, but his remaining years were not peace-
ful ones; familial tensions remained. It was important to Louis, and especially to
Judith, that Charles be included in the succession, but Louis recognized at the same
time that it was necessary not to alienate his other sons too completely in the pro-
cess. And, of course, Lothar’s ambitions remained even though he remained out of
favor for several years after 834. Louis faced further revolts from Louis the German
398 | Louis the Pious

Emperor Louis the Pious in the dress of a Christian

Roman ruler from De laudibus sanctae crucis by
Hrabanus Mauris. (The British Library Board)

as well as the son of Pippin; after Pippin died in 838, his portion of the realm was
bestowed on Charles rather than Pippin’s own heirs. One of Louis’s last important
acts was his reconciliation with Lothar, who pledged his support for Charles and
was rewarded with the imperial title. Louis also divided most of the empire between
Lothar and Charles, an act that almost certainly guaranteed further civil war after
Louis’s death on June 20, 840.
Despite the very real breakup of the empire in the generation after his death,
Louis should not be blamed for the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, which had
revealed its flaws already in the last years of Charlemagne’s life. Louis’s reign,
particularly the first part before 830, was a period of growth for the empire, or at
least the idea of empire. In fact, his elevation of the idea of empire as the ultimate
political entity and his own understanding that the empire was established by God
was a significant advancement in political thought and remained an important po-
litical idea for his own line and for the line of his successors. His codification of
Carolingian relations with Rome was equally important, creating a written docu-
ment that strengthened and defined imperial-papal ties for the ninth and tenth cen-
turies. Although he faced difficulties in the last decade of his life that prefigured the
 Louis the Stammerer | 399

breakup of the empire in the next generation, Louis was a farsighted ruler, whose
reign provided many important and lasting contributions to early medieval govern-
ment and society.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Astronomer; Benedict of Aniane; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolin-
gian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Louis the German; Ordinatio Imperii;
Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rome

Bibliography
Cabaniss, Allen, trans. Son of Charlemagne: A Contemporary Life of Louis the Pious.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1961.
Ganshof, François Louis. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Godman, Peter, and Roger Collins, eds. Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the
Reign of Louis the Pious. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas X. F. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Louis the Stammerer (846–879)

The son and successor of the Carolingian king Charles the Bald, Louis had a short
and undistinguished reign that followed a lifetime of disappointing his father. Born
in 846, Louis would find himself frequently involved in his father’s struggles to se-
cure personal control over his West Frankish kingdom and maintain the continuity
of the dynasty. Louis, however, often joined with his father’s rivals in the 860s. In
862, Louis married his concubine, Ansgard, without his father’s approval or even
knowledge. Despite this tension, Charles made his son king of Aquitaine in 867 and
made him lay abbot of several monasteries.
In 877, as Charles prepared to depart for Rome, the king issued the capitulary
of Quierzy, which made Louis the regent but one to be advised by a special group
of advisors. Charles also ordered his son to join him in Rome to receive impe-
rial coronation. Louis faced the threat of rebellion following his father’s death in
October, 877, but the efforts of the archbishop Hincmar of Rheims secured Louis’s
succession and Hincmar crowned Louis king at Compiègne on December 8, 877.
Louis’s coronation as king was repeated by Pope John VIII the following year in
400 | Louis the Stammerer

preparation for eventual imperial coronation and to strengthen the ties between the
pope and the West Frankish ruler. In 878, Louis repudiated his first wife and mar-
ried Adelaide, who would bear the future Charles III, the Simple in 879 after the
death of Louis on April 10.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Hincmar of Rheims

Bibliography
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
M
Marriage

One of the most important and central institutions in any society, marriage was a
custom that underwent profound and lasting change during late antiquity and the
early Middle Ages. Traditions common among the Germanic peoples, including
polygyny and concubinage, were gradually worn away by the influence of Roman
civilization, and especially Christianity. Certain Germanic customs continued, but
the institution of marriage came to be defined as an indissoluble union between two
people. Although women lost a degree of social mobility as a consequence of the
new practice of marriage, they gained greater security and a more important role
in the family.
Perhaps the earliest account of the marriage practices of the Germanic peoples
is to be found in the Germania of the great first-century Roman historian, Tacitus.
He explains that the German peoples possess a very strict marriage code that is
most worthy of praise. The barbarians, as he calls them, each take only one wife,
with the exception of those whose status brings them many offers of marriage. The
dowry, he says, is brought to the wife from the husband and not, as it in Rome, to
the husband from the wife. The gifts presented are quite revealing of the attitudes
of the barbarians, according to Tacitus. The dowry generally consists of oxen, a
horse and bridle, or a shield, spear, and sword. The bride bestows gifts of arms
on her husband, thus establishing a bond between the two in which they willingly
share hardships and good times. The new bride joins her husband’s household and
shares in all its labors.
Tacitus explains that the marriage is a permanent bond, and that secret love let-
ters are unknown. Adultery, he says, is seldom practiced and severely punished.
And women generally remain committed to one man; Tacitus does not mention the
fidelity of men, making it likely that men were less faithful than women. Tacitus’s
view of Germanic marriage, however, must be accepted only with extreme caution;
he was, after all, as much a moralist as a historian. For Tacitus, the Germanic people
were noble savages, whose moral and ethical behavior stood in stark contrast to the
immorality of the Romans of the first century. His moralistic agenda notwithstand-
ing, Tacitus’s depiction of marriage among the Germanic tribes on Rome’s frontiers
offers at least a glimpse into early Germanic marital customs.
It is generally held that the early Germans recognized two forms of legitimate
marriage, one that involved parental participation and one that did not. The latter

401
402 | Marriage

form has been traditionally known as Friedelehe, a practice in which a free woman
entered a relationship with a free man. (Marriage between slaves was not rec-
ognized as legitimate and marriage between the free and unfree was strictly for-
bidden in law.) Although the romantic nature of this form of marriage has been
rightly questioned, it most likely existed as a form of quasi-marriage, in which the
rights and economic security of the woman involved were relatively unprotected.
Of course, this marriage custom was not approved, and the man involved could be
forced to pay heavy fines if the bride’s family pressed charges. Another form of
marriage that occurred without parental involvement was Raubehe, marriage by ab-
duction. The most famous example of this type of marriage was the kidnapping of
the Thuringian princess, Radegund, whose hand in marriage was fought over by the
sons of the great Frankish king Clovis (r. 481–511). The legal codes of the various
Germanic peoples, however, came to punish this practice severely—at least when
it took place within the individual kingdoms.
Although there were exceptions, the most common type of marriage was a for-
mal arrangement between a suitor and the prospective bride’s parents. Marriages
were contracted when the couple involved reached the legitima aetas (legitimate
age) or perfecta aetas (perfect age). This age varied among the various Germanic
peoples: 20 for the Burgundians, 12 or 15 for the Franks, and 25 for the Visigoths.
First marriages are believed to have taken place generally when couples were in
their mid-teens, although some scholars suggest that first marriages took place
when the couples involved were in their mid-twenties.
The arrangement of the marriage of a daughter involved three specific steps:
the petitio (formal marriage proposal), the desponsatio (betrothal), and the nuptiae
(wedding ceremony). The suitor offered a formal pledge, the arrha, which could
include payment to the parents. If the pledge was accepted, then the suitor and the
woman’s parents entered a legally binding contract, followed by the exchange of
rings before witnesses. Penalties for breaking the contract were quite severe for the
woman and her family but less severe for the man. Betrothed women could be ex-
ecuted if they married someone else, and parents could be fined heavily. Penalties
for the groom were modest; at worst they involved payment of the dowry. Following
the betrothal, the bride was delivered to her spouse’s household, which symbolized
the transfer of legal authority from the father to the husband.
Marriages were also important economic transactions, especially for the woman.
The bride was entitled to two significant monetary grants from her new husband,
which were granted to guarantee her financial security now that she was released
from her father’s legal custody. The bride, as Tacitus notes, received the dos (dowry,
bridegift). The dowry could be quite substantial, particularly among the elite of
Germanic society. Visigothic law set the maximum dowry at one-tenth of the hus-
band’s property, but it could include up to 20 slaves and 20 horses. Among the
 Marriage | 403

Franks and Lombards the dowry was even larger: one-third of the husband’s prop-
erty among the Franks and one-quarter of the property among the Lombards. The
bride was also entitled to the morgengabe (morning gift). This gift was customarily
given by the husband to his wife following the consummation of the marriage and
was generally less substantial than the dowry. Although it could be as extravagant
as the five cities Chilperic gave to Galswintha, the morgengabe was usually more
modest in value and involved money, jewelry, and clothing. The bride, however,
did not come empty-handed to the marriage but contributed her trousseau, which
included personal items (dresses, bracelets, earrings, and other jewelry) and house-
hold items (linens, a bed, benches, and stools). The bride’s contribution to the mar-
riage could be quite substantial, as was that of Rigunth, a Frankish princess, whose
trousseau amounted to 50 wagonloads of goods. And Galswintha’s was so great that
Chilperic murdered her rather than divorce her and return it.
The institution of marriage from the fifth to eighth centuries was relatively
unstable and marked by ease of divorce, polygyny, and concubinage among the
German peoples who took over the Roman Empire. Divorce was a fairly simple af-
fair, at least for the man. A wife could be repudiated for a variety of things, including
adultery, inability to bear children, and “bad” behavior. She could also be divorced
for no reason, provided the husband was willing to give up control of her property.
The woman had to endure the worst behavior; she could not even divorce her hus-
band for adultery. Moreover, as Tacitus notes, the wealthier Germans practiced po-
lygyny, and this practice became increasingly popular among the Germanic peoples
who took over the Western Roman Empire. Although not practiced by all Germanic
peoples in the post-Roman world, polygyny was quite common among the Franks.
Ingunde, the wife of Chlotar I, asked her husband to find a husband for her sister
and, liking his sister-in-law so well, Chlotar married her himself. And he may have
married others as well while still married to Ingunde. Chilperic was expected to
renounce Fredegund and his other wives to marry Galswintha, and Dagobert I had
many wives and concubines. There is evidence that even the early Carolingians
practiced polygyny before they implemented the rule of monogamy. Along with
multiple wives, Frankish rulers possessed concubines, and they were emulated in
this practice by members of the nobility.
The instability of marriage among the Germanic peoples, especially the Franks,
was particularly disadvantageous to women. Women were particularly vulnerable
to divorce and had an insecure position in the marriage. But the instability of mar-
riage did offer some women the opportunity of social advancement, particularly
lower class or slave women like Fredegund. Women did have rights to the property
they brought into the marriage, and a wife could keep this property if she were
divorced through no fault of her own. Unlike their ancient Roman counterparts,
Germanic women had greater economic and legal independence from their
404 | Martin of Tours, St.

husbands, and like Roman women they were released from paternal authority when
they married.
Marriage customs, however, underwent dramatic change during the eighth and
ninth centuries as a result of reforms implemented by the Carolingian dynasty. The
church had long struggled to limit multiple marriages, concubinage, and divorce
among the Franks and other Germans, with only marginal success. Beginning with
Pippin and, with greater force, his son Charlemagne, Frankish law came to conform
to church law. The Carolingians instituted a reform of marriage laws and custom
that established marriage as an indissoluble bond between two people. The Carolin-
gian rulers continued the practice of concubinage, but they practiced serial marriage
instead of multiple marriage. Charlemagne himself had several concubines and a
series of wives, but he remained with each until her death. His personal example
of monogamous marriage was translated into law. In his Admonitio Generalis he
forbade remarriage after divorce, and in a law passed in 796 eliminated adultery as
a reason for divorce. A man could separate from an adulterous spouse according to
this law, but he could not remarry while his wife lived. Although Carolingian leg-
islation limited the social mobility open to some women, it made marriage a more
stable and secure institution and strengthened the role of the woman in the family.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Chilperic I; Clovis;
Dagobert; Fredegund; Galswintha; Merovingian Dynasty; Radegund

Bibliography
Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. 2nd. ed. New
York: Harper and Row, 1987.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Reynolds, Philip L. Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage.
Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Tacitus. The Agricola and the Germania. Trans. H. Mattingly. Trans. Rev. S. A. Hand-
ford. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1970.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500–900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Martin of Tours, St. (c. 316–397/400)

A former Roman soldier and convert to Christianity, St. Martin was an important
figure in the history of Christianity in Gaul in the fourth century. He was an active
preacher, miracle worker, bishop of Tours, and founder of monasticism in Gaul.
His tomb became a popular pilgrimage site, famed for its miracles, and his relics,
especially the cloak of St. Martin, were highly venerated. The Merovingian and
Carolingian kings were devoted to Martin, and the bishops of Tours, most notably
 Mercia | 405

Gregory of Tours, actively promoted his cult. The Life of St. Martin, written by
Sulpicius Severus, also helped promote the cult of the saint and is a model of early
medieval Christian hagiography.
The son of a Roman soldier, Martin was born in Sabaria in Pannonia (modern
Szombathely, Hungary) at about 316 and later joined the Roman military. While
serving as a soldier, Martin encountered a naked beggar near Amiens on a cold win-
ter’s day. Martin took off his cloak, cut it in half, and gave part to the beggar. That
night, Jesus, wearing the cloak, appeared in Martin’s dream and praised him for tak-
ing care of the poor. Martin then accepted baptism as a Christian while remaining in
the Roman army for another two years before deciding that as a Christian he could
not fight. After his release from the army, Martin went to Tours, where he became a
disciple of Hilary of Poitiers and preached against Arianism. He then went to Italy
and entered into opposition to Arians there before undertaking the life of a hermit.
In 360 he returned to Gaul with Hilary, who had been exiled by the Arian em-
peror, and founded Marmoutier, the first monastery in Gaul. In 372, Martin was
consecrated bishop of Tours, a position he accepted reluctantly and continued to
live the life of an ascetic. As bishop he continued the fight against heresy and
preached Catholic orthodoxy. He destroyed pagan temples, built new churches, and
performed miraculous cures and two resurrections from the dead. He died in 397
(possibly 400), and his relics were finally entombed in Tours and became the center
of an important pilgrimage and cult site.
See also: Arianism; Monasticism; Tours

Bibliography
Donaldson, Christopher William. Martin of Tours: Parish Priest, Mystic, and Exorcist.
New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Sulpicius Severus. “Life of Saint Martin of Tours.” In Soldiers of Christ: Saints and
Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Ed. Thomas F. X. Noble and
Thomas Head. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, pp. 1–29.

Mercia

An Anglo-Saxon kingdom of the English Midlands, Mercia rose to prominence

under Penda in the seventh century and then dominated southern English politics in
the eighth and ninth centuries. The kingdom included modern Derbyshire, Leices-
tershire, Nottinghamshire, Stafforshire, and Warkwickshire and was bordered by
Northumbrian to the north, East Anglia and Essex to the east, and Wales to the
west. The kingdom’s name came from the Old English word mierce (border) and
406 | Mercia

may indicate that it was a border territory between the invading Anglo-Saxons and
the native Britons.
Little is known about the earliest period of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Mercia,
but the first kings of Mercia were most likely leaders of tribes that settled along
the Tame river and established royal sites at Tamworth and Repton. The first king of
Mercia known by name is Cearl whose daughter married the king of Northumbria.
The first king of note was Penda (r. 632/633–654) who transformed the kingdom
into a major power and fought with Northumbria for dominance in the north. He
also extended his influence into southern England, defeating rival kingdoms in the
south without formally establishing his authority over those kingdoms. A pagan
king, Penda nonetheless allowed his son Paedao to introduce Christianity into Mer-
cia. It was another of Penda’s sons, Aethelred (675–704), who ended Northumbrian
influence south of the Humber River and laid the foundation for the subsequent ex-
pansion of Mercian power. It was under Offa (r. 757–796) that Mercia enjoyed some
of its greatest successes and extended its hegemony throughout southern England.
Offa managed to take control of Kent in the 760s and then imposed his authority on
Sussex and then spread his influence into Wessex. He is also credited with building
an earthwork, Offa’s Dyke, along the Welsh frontier. His power was recognized by
Pope Hadrian I and by Charlemagne, with whom Offa corresponded and negotiated
a trade agreement in 796.
Mercian power declined, however, as the power Wessex grew in the ninth century
and suffered as well from the attacks of the Danes. In 874, the last independent Mer-
cian king, Burgred (r. 852–874), was driven from the kingdom by the Danes, and
appointed Ceolwulf II (r. 874–881) who served the interests of the Danes. After the
disappearance of Ceolwulf, the eastern half of the kingdom was controlled by the
Danes and the western land came under the influence of the West Saxon kings. The
Danes were driven out by the West Saxons, especially during the reign of Aethelf-
laed, Lady of the Mercians (r. 911–918). Thereafter, Mercia was ruled by the West
Saxon kings and was incorporated into the kingdom of the English. Mercia main-
tained an important position in the new kingdom and was a powerful earldom in
the 10th and 11th centuries.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Charlemagne; Hadrian I, Pope; Offa of Mercia; Penda

Bibliography
Brown, Michelle, and Carol Ann Farr, eds. Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe.
London: Continuum, 2001.
Campbell, James. The Anglo-Saxons. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.
Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. New York:
Routledge, 1997.
 Merovingian Dynasty | 407

Merovingian Dynasty (450–751)

Ruling family of Frankish Gaul from the mid-fifth to the mid-eighth centuries,
when it was replaced by Pippin the Short and the Carolingian dynasty. Creators of
the most effective and longest lasting successor state to emerge in the post-Roman
world, the Merovingians rose to prominence under their greatest king, Clovis
(r. 481–511), who first forged various Frankish peoples into a unified kingdom.
Although his successors were generally not his equals, they managed to expand
the boundaries of the realm and strengthen the dynasty’s hold on the kingdom.
For most of the two centuries after the death of Clovis, the Merovingian kings
were the among the most powerful and important of the rulers who came to power
in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. They were plagued, how-
ever, by internal strife, as each of the various descendants of Clovis strove to
seize control of the kingdom under his own authority and at the expense of his
brothers or other male relatives. Indeed, the central weakness of the dynasty was
the tradition of dividing the realm among all legitimate, and sometimes illegiti-
mate, male heirs. This often led to civil war, including the truly bitter competi-
tion between the Merovingian queens Brunhilde and Fredegund in the late sixth
century. Despite this underlying structural weakness, the dynasty prospered in
the seventh century under the kings Chlotar and Dagobert. By the late seventh
century, however, the dynasty faced internal discord, early death and weakness
of several kings, and an increasingly acquisitive nobility. Although certainly not
the “do-nothing kings” (rois fainéants) of popular tradition, the late Merovin-
gians became increasingly irrelevant in the kingdom by the late seventh and early
eighth centuries. Their authority was severely curtailed by the rising power of
the Carolingian mayors of the palace, who deposed the last Merovingian king,
Childeric III, in 750.
The dynasty traditionally traced its origins to a certain Merovech, the son of a sea
god, but the first historical king of note was Childeric I (d. 481), the father of Clovis.
Little is known of Childeric’s reign other than what Gregory of Tours reported in his
history and what appears in the later chronicle of Fredegar. According to Gregory,
Childeric was a successful warlord from northeastern Gaul and Germany—modern
Belgium and the Rhineland—who fought battles at Orléans and Angers, and also
seized several islands from the Saxons when they fought the Romans. Childeric
also negotiated a treaty with the Saxon leader Odovacar, possibly the same leader
who deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476. Although a great warrior and success-
ful conqueror, Childeric, according to Fredegar, was deposed for profligacy. Child-
eric, however, made an arrangement with one of his faithful followers, who was to
agitate for Childeric’s return and then send the king half of a coin they had divided
when it was safe to return. While in exile, Childeric stayed with a Thuringian king,
408 | Merovingian Dynasty

whose wife Basina followed Childeric back to the Franks and became his queen
because she saw in him a ruler of great power.
Two other sources, the king’s tomb at Tournai and a letter from Bishop Remigius
of Rheims, provide information on Childeric’s reign. The burial site provides im-
portant information on the cultural sophistication and Romanization of the Franks
already in the mid-fifth century. Although there is ample evidence of the “barbar-
ian” nature of the Franks in the tomb, there is also evidence of Roman influence.
The tomb was built near a Roman cemetery and Roman road and contains a brooch
and Byzantine coins that suggest contacts with the imperial capital at Constanti-
nople. Moreover, there was other jewelry of high quality. The bishop’s letter to
Childeric’s son Clovis reveals the extent of Childeric’s domain and suggests that
Childeric was in contact with the Catholic Christian bishops of Gaul.
On the death of Childeric in 481, his son Clovis ascended the throne, and it is
with Clovis that the history of the Merovingian dynasty truly begins. Although
well known from the pages of the history of Gregory of Tours, Clovis must remain
a shadowy figure; the portrait offered by Gregory is very much the creation of the
bishop of Tours himself. Gregory’s king is depicted as having been in many ways
God’s instrument, one that punished the wicked; expelled God’s enemies, the Ari-
ans, from Gaul; protected the saints, bishops, and church; and converted directly
to Catholic Christianity from paganism. Indeed, one of the most famous tales of
Clovis’s reign involves his conversion. His wife Clotilda, a Burgundian Catholic,
sought to convert her husband to her faith, but with little success. Her efforts were
hindered when their first son died after she had him baptized; Clovis questioned
the power of the Christian God and preferred the power of the traditional gods of
the Franks. Ultimately, Clovis converted, as Gregory tells us, during a battle that
he was losing. He offered to convert to his wife’s faith if he should win the battle,
which he did. Gregory then describes how Clovis accepted baptism, like a new
Constantine, from the hands of Bishop Remigius, and with him 3,000 of his fol-
lowers converted as well.
Gregory also describes the great conquests of Clovis over rival Franks, Romans,
Visigoths (an almost crusade-like battle against Arian Christians), Burgundians (to
avenge injuries against his wife), and others. Clovis occasionally employed great
trickery to defeat his rivals, but all, in Gregory’s eyes, in a good cause. Perhaps the
best illustration of the character of Clovis is given in Gregory’s tale of the ewer
of Soissons. After defeating the Roman “king” Syagrius of Soissons, Clovis came
into possession of great booty, part of which was a sacred vessel of importance to
the bishop of Soissons. Honoring a request from the bishop, Clovis asked if the
follower to whom he had given the vessel would return it. But the follower refused
and cut the vessel in half, offering the king only his share. Later, Clovis cut his fol-
lower in half with a great blow with his broadsword, declaring that this was what
the warrior had done to his cup at Soissons. The tale was designed to demonstrate
 Merovingian Dynasty | 409

Clovis’s authority and, more importantly, his devotion to the Catholic bishops even
before his conversion.
Although a marvelous and memorable portrait, the image presented by Gregory
of Tours is most likely not a portrait of the historic Clovis. Rather, Gregory’s por-
trait was intended for Clovis’s descendants, who failed to obey the bishops and the
church and divided the kingdom in civil war. The historic Clovis was rather dif-
ferent from Gregory’s portrait. Although he was a good friend of the bishops, Clo-
vis most likely did not convert directly to Catholic Christianity; at the very least
he leaned toward Arianism before receiving baptism from the Catholic Remigius.
Moreover, he was most likely not the ruthless barbarian Gregory made him out to
be. He was most certainly a successful warrior king, but he also seems to have been
influenced by Roman culture. Most notably, his codification of Frankish law in the
Lex Salica (Salic law), a written Latin version of Frankish custom, suggests the
influence of Roman legal traditions. Clovis also borrowed Roman administrative
techniques, particularly those involving collecting taxes. In 511, Clovis divided his
kingdom among his sons, which traditionally has been understood as an example
of the personal nature of Merovingian kingship (so that division of the kingdom
would simply be the division of his personal property among his heirs). This divi-
sion, however, followed Roman administrative boundaries, with each region hav-
ing a Roman city as capital, and may have been influenced as much by Roman as
Frankish traditions.
The legacy of Clovis was undoubtedly a mixed one, however. Although he had
established a great kingdom and forged important connections with the bishops of
Gaul, he also established the tradition of the division of the realm—traditionally
recognized as the fatal flaw in the history of the Merovingian dynasty. The divi-
sion practically guaranteed that civil war between the descendants of Clovis would
occur regularly, and within a decade of his death civil war had indeed broken out.
The sixth century was particularly plagued by this problem, which was exacerbated
by the Merovingian practice of polygyny and serial marriage. As a result of royal
marriage practices, only little influenced by the increasing Christianization of the
Merovingians and their kingdom, there were numerous claimants to the throne,
especially since both legitimate and illegitimate sons could succeed their fathers.
Moreover, heirs to the throne had to be recognized by all other Merovingian kings,
and often war was the only means to enforce a claim or depose a pretender. Al-
though certainly a problem, civil war did have the benefit of eliminating those with
weak claims to the throne and strengthening the ties between the Merovingian kings
and the Frankish aristocracy and episcopacy.
The most famous example of a civil war, or blood feud, among the Merovin-
gians was that of the queens Fredegund and Brunhilde, the wives of Chilperic I
(r. 561–584) and Sigebert (r. 561–575), respectively. The traditional competition be-
tween rival Merovingian kings may have been worsened by the hatred that existed
410 | Merovingian Dynasty

between their queens, who were motivated by a thirst for power, the concern to pro-
tect their families, and possibly, in Brunhilde’s case, the desire for revenge. Although
the Merovingian kings had been in the habit of marrying lowborn women, Sigebert
married a Visigothic princess, Brunhilde, which inspired Chilperic to do the same.
Perhaps already married to Fredegund, who was at least an important concubine,
Chilperic married Brunhilde’s sister, Galswintha, whom he murdered, possibly at
Fredegund’s instigation, shortly after the marriage. This led to the promotion of
Fredegund and the beginning of several decades of assassinations and attempted
assassinations of bishops, kings, and queens. Fredegund engineered the murder of
Sigebert, Chilperic, and several bishops, and attempted to murder Brunhilde. De-
spite her best efforts, Fredegund was survived by Brunhilde—often just as ruthless
as her rival in promoting the interests of her male heirs—who ruled the Merovingian
kingdom through her sons and grandsons during the last decade of the sixth century
and the first decade of the seventh. In 613, however, the nobility of Austrasia—one
of the three subkingdoms that emerged in the sixth century, along with Neustria and
Burgundy—rallied behind Fredegund’s son Chlotar to depose Brunhilde, try and
condemn her for numerous crimes, and execute her in the most brutal fashion.
The two generations following the fall of Brunhilde, from 613 to 638, were times
of the resurgence of the dynasty and in many ways its high point, as well as the mo-
ment of the first appearance of members of the family that became the Carolingian
dynasty. In gratitude for his support, Chlotar II (r. 613–629) made Pippin of Landen,
an early Carolingian, mayor of the palace and granted other concessions to his family
and that of Arnulf of Metz, who had formed a marriage alliance with Pippin. Bal-
ancing the interests of the major aristocratic families of the realm would be one of
the chief concerns of Chlotar and his son Dagobert (r. 629–638/639). They did this
by promoting the status of the monarchy as a sacral institution against the nobility,
and also by legislating actively. Chlotar issued numerous diplomas and charters. He
passed the Edict of Paris in 614, which has often been seen as a surrender of royal
power but may be better understood as a means by the king to force the aristocracy
to ensure law and order throughout the kingdom. Clearly the king was successful
in this. Fredegar notes that Chlotar reigned happily (feliciter), suggesting a time of
peace and order. Chlotar, and Dagobert after him, laid the foundations for a chan-
cery—an essential tool for the diplomatic activities of the kings—and built up a sort
of school at the royal palace, to which the sons of nobles were invited to be educated,
strengthening ties between the monarchs and the nobles. Moreover, to further their
hold on the kingdom and to establish a counterweight to the power of the nobles,
Chlotar and, especially, Dagobert drew closer to the church. Dagobert, for example,
strengthened the dynasty’s ties with the powerful abbey of St. Denis near Paris.
Despite the successes of Chlotar and Dagobert, the Merovingians suffered a
period of decline after Dagobert’s death. Although the dynasty suffered over the
course of the next century, the decline was not as precipitous as is traditionally
 Merovingian Dynasty | 411

Merovingian-Frankish king Dagobert I, 605–639, flanked by noblemen, from a 14th-century

manuscript. (The British Library Board)

held. Indeed, the dynasty kept a firm hold on the throne until the usurpation of Pip-
pin the Short in 751, and even then the first Carolingian king faced opposition and
took very cautious steps to secure the throne. An earlier attempt at usurpation by
the Carolingian mayor Grimoald in the 650s failed, a failure that demonstrates the
continued authority of the Merovingian line. In the 650s and 660s, Clovis II and
his wife Balthild had a successful reign, and Balthild after her husband’s death was
an effective regent who refashioned the dynasty’s relations with the church and re-
formed the church in the kingdom. At the same time, however, the Merovingians
faced increasing competition from various factions of the nobility, particularly from
the later Carolingian line. The nobility of the subkingdoms came more and more to
compete for access to and control of the monarchs, many of whom were weakened
by youth or incompetence. The office of mayor of the palace became increasingly
important in the late seventh century, and the mayors of the two main subkingdoms,
Austrasia and Neustria, competed for control of the kingdom. In 687, the Neustrian
mayor of the palace, Berthar, and the Merovingian king Theuderic III (r. 675–691)
invaded Austrasia. The Austrasian mayor, Pippin of Herstal, met and defeated his
rival at the battle of Tetry and then deposed Berthar from office, replacing him with
Pippin’s own man. Theuderic was forced to accept Pippin as mayor and both the
power of Pippin’s family and the authority of Austrasia over Neustria were con-
firmed following the battle.
By the late seventh and early eighth centuries, the Merovingian dynasty was
being gradually replaced by the Carolingian dynasty. Effective control of the king-
dom had been taken by Pippin and his successor Charles Martel, even though
the Merovingians continued to issue charters and remained on the throne. Dur-
ing Charles Martel’s reign as mayor of the palace, the various Merovingian kings
412 | Merovingian Dynasty

who held the throne were increasingly marginalized, even if not to the extent por-
trayed by Einhard in his description of the last of the line (who owned only one es-
tate, were maintained by the Carolingians, and trotted out once a year in a donkey
cart to appear at a council of state). In fact, the Merovingians had become so ir-
relevant to Martel’s ability to rule that during the last four years of his life he ruled
without a king on the throne and divided the realm between his two sons, Pippin
the Short and Carloman, just as the Merovingian kings had done. His successors
were forced to restore a Merovingian, Childeric III, to the throne in 743 because
of political unrest in the kingdom, but he was little more than a figurehead. In 750,
Pippin felt secure enough to take the step Grimoald had taken in the previous cen-
tury. He sent a petition to the pope—perhaps feeling it necessary to substitute the
sanction of the church and the Christian God for the divine aura that Childeric could
claim as the descendant of a sea god—asking whether the person with the title or
the person with the power should rule as king in Francia. The pope answered as
Pippin had hoped, and in 751 the last of the Merovingian kings was deposed and
the Carolingian dynasty was established on the Frankish throne.
See also: Austrasia; Balthild, St.; Brunhilde; Carloman, Mayor of the Palace; Carolingian
Dynasty; Charles Martel; Childeric III; Chlotar II; Clothilda; Clovis; Dagobert; Fredegar;
Fredegund; Gregory of Tours; Neustria; Odovacar; Pippin of Herstal; Pippin I, Called Pip-
pin of Landen; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Rois Fainéants; Romulus Augustulus;
Saint-Denis, Abbey of ; Tertry, Battle of; Tournai; Tours, Battle of; Visigoths
Bibliography
Dill, Samuel. Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age. 1926. Reprint, London:
Allen and Unwin, 1966.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Harmondsworth, UK: Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–
751. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500–900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
 Milan | 413

Milan

Situated between the Ticino and Adda rivers in the Po Valley in northern Italy, Milan,
or Mediolanum as the Romans called it, became an important city and a Roman im-
perial capital from the late third to fifth centuries. Milan’s geographic location con-
tributed to its rising importance because it provided Roman rulers easy access to Italy
and imperial territories north of the Alps. The site of the conversion of St. Augustine,
Milan earned a reputation as an important Christian center, especially under its great-
est bishop, Ambrose. Although the city’s status declined in the early Middle Ages, it
would rise to prominence once again in the 11th century and the later Middle Ages.
Founded by Celtic tribes around 400 bc, Milan became a Roman settlement in
the third century bc and quickly grew into one of the major centers in northern Italy.
The most important phase of Milan’s history began in the late third century when the
emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) established the city as one of the main administra-
tive centers for the western half of the empire. Diocletian’s coemperor, Maximian
(r. 286–305), undertook major renovations of the city, building baths, a circus, and
great new palace. He also erected massive walls to secure the defense of the new polit-
ical and military capital. The emperor Constantine declared the city the Vicar of Italy
and issued the Edict of Milan (313), which legalized Christianity, in the city. Later
fourth century emperors used the city as a base to enforce their authority in the Western
Empire and to keep a watchful eye of the barbarian peoples of the north. Milan’s im-
portance was reinforced by the great Christian bishop Ambrose, whose sermons and
personal example inspired numerous Christians, including Augustine. Ambrose over-
saw construction of a cathedral and baptistery and other churches in Milan and used
his position as bishop of the imperial capital of the west to defend and spread Catholic
Christianity and to ensure that even emperors understood their place as Christians.
Milan suffered during the barbarian invasions of the fifth century and lost its po-
sition of leadership in the Western Empire. In 402, the city was sacked by the Vi-
sigoths during their invasion of Italy, and in 404, the capital of the Western Empire
was moved to Ravenna, which contributed to the city’s decline. Matters worsened
for Milan during the fifth and sixth centuries. In 452 Attila sacked the city. During
the Gothic Wars of the sixth century, Milan was seized by the Byzantine general
Belisarius in 538 but then retaken and destroyed by the Goths in 539. The remnants
of the city were taken by the Lombards in 569 when they invaded and seized control
of much of Italy. Although fleeing from the Lombards, Milan’s clergy returned in
the early seventh century and contributed to a modest revival of the city’s fortunes.
New building took places, and the city’s walls seem to have been reinforced. In 604
the Lombard ruler Agilulf crowned his son there, and a Lituprand’s brother was en-
throned as bishop in the eighth century. When the Lombard kingdom fell to Char-
lemagne in 774, Milan became part of the Carolingian empire and continued on its
path of revival and would reemerge as a major city in the 11th and 12th centuries.
414 | Missi Dominici

See also: Ambrose of Milan; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Belisarius; Charlemagne; Constan-
tine; Gothic Wars; Lombards; Ostrogoths; Ravenna; Rome; Theodosius the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Krautheimer, Richard. Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
La Rocca, Cristina. Italy in the Early Middle Ages: 476–1000. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2002.
McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994.
Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. New York:
Longman, 1999.

Missi Dominici

Carolingian royal officials who represented the king’s interests in specified regions.
The missi dominici (singular: missus dominici), or messengers of the lord king,
were responsible for announcing the king’s will on the local level and for ensur-
ing that justice was done throughout the realm. The missi dominici were specially
chosen by the king, and the office was used as a means to establish royal control in
a large and growing empire.
Although missi dominici seem to have been used by the kings of the Merovingian
dynasty as well as by the early Carolingian mayors of the palace, the office was only
fully exploited by Charlemagne, who turned it into a regular and important part of
his administration. At first even Charlemagne used the office on an occasional basis,
but as his reign progressed the missi dominici became a more formal and regular tool
of government. By 802, at the latest, the missi dominici had become a normal tool of
Charlemagne’s government and were sent out to all parts of the empire on an annual
basis to perform their various services for the king. But there is evidence to suggest that
they were used much earlier; they were probably used to disseminate the capitulary of
Herstal in 779 and were also most likely used to administer oaths of fidelity to Char-
lemagne in 789 and 792–793. The missi dominici remained an important part of Caro-
lingian government, at least through the reigns of Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald.
There were two categories of missi dominici: the missi ad hoc, or “special”
missi, and the “ordinary” missi. The powers of the two were not different, but the
special missi were used for specific missions to examine particular circumstances
or injustices. The more important office, however, was that of the “ordinary” missi
dominici. Although early in Charlemagne’s reign they were chosen from many of
the king’s retainers, regardless of social rank, after 802, they were chosen only
from the secular and ecclesiastical nobility, to reduce the possibility of corruption.
Indeed, the classic format of the missi dominici included a lay aristocrat, such as
 Monasticism | 415

a count, and an ecclesiastical noble, such as an abbot or bishop. They were given
responsibility for exercising royal authority in a specific geographic area within the
kingdom known as a missaticum.
The missi dominici held numerous responsibilities as the king’s official represen-
tatives. Their primary duty was to enforce the royal will. They were charged with
transmitting new capitularies throughout the kingdom, enforcing the new laws laid
out in those capitularies, investigating the conduct of counts and other royal agents,
and collecting revenues. They were to ensure that justice was done properly in the
royal and local courts, and they could hear judicial appeals. They were also em-
ployed to administer oaths of fidelity to the king and to prepare the army for mili-
tary campaigns. The counts throughout the realm were expected to provide food
and lodging for the missi dominici, and legislation was enacted to ensure they were
properly received when they reached their missaticum. Although an often effective
tool of government, the missi dominici were not above corruption themselves, as
the reforms of 802 suggest. And Theodulf of Orléans noted the difficulties faced by
the missi dominici, who were frequently offered bribes. The missi dominici were,
nonetheless, an important element of Carolingian administration.
See also: Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Louis the
Pious; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingian, 751–987.
London: Longman 1983.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Monasticism

Among the most important institutions of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages,
monasticism represented the highest form of religious life in the period. It offered
a highly structured and well-regulated means of pursuing the religious life, either as
an isolated ascetic or as a member of a larger community. The monastic life, which
was patterned after the life of Jesus and the Apostles, involved the work of God,
prayer, asceticism, chastity, and a path to salvation in a community set apart from
the rest of society. Although isolated, monasteries themselves often made important
416 | Monasticism

contributions to the broader society and were often important to the economic, in-
tellectual–cultural, and political life of the early Middle Ages.
The origins of Christian monasticism can be traced to the deserts of Egypt in the
third century when St. Antony (c. 251–356) accepted Jesus’ call to the wilderness
and undertook the life of a religious solitary (the word “monk” comes from the
Greek meaning “living alone”) at about the year 270. Renouncing wealth and family
and seeking to defeat personal temptation and worldliness by living a life a seclu-
sion and rigid asceticism, Antony went out into the desert and eventually developed
a reputation as a holy man, attracting many followers. Soon there were numerous
anchorites, or solitary hermits, living in colonies and seeking the spiritual life in the
deserts along the Nile. At times, these early hermits found themselves in a sort of
competition—“spiritual athletes” attempting to follow ever more rigorous devotions
to God, depriving themselves of food and sleep and remaining constantly at prayer.
To temper the excesses of these spiritual athletes and eliminate the problem of spiri-
tual pride, St. Pachomius (c. 292–346) and, especially, St. Basil the Great (330–379)
introduced coenobitical or communal monasticism. These communities included a
large population of monks under the direction of an abbot who guided them in their
daily routine. The daily life as defined by Pachomius and Basil included times of
prayer and meditation, communal worship, and manual labor. The communities also
clearly separated its members from the outside world and included dormitories, a
refectory, a church, an infirmary, and other structures. It was coenobitical monasti-
cism and the formal written rules associated with it that would be the predominant
form of monastic life throughout the late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.
The foundation set by Antony, Pachomius, and Basil would be developed over
the fourth and fifth centuries by religious/monastic leaders in the Eastern Church
and exported to western church. A central figure in both these developments was
St. John Cassian (c. 360–435) whose personal example and writings greatly influ-
enced monastic life. A monk in Bethlehem, Cassian toured the Egyptian communi-
ties in 385 and later moved to southern Gaul and established two monasteries—one
for males and one for females—near Marseilles. He also wrote Conferences, a
spiritual guidebook, and Institutes, a monastic rule, or book of instruction, for the
community he founded. Cassian was not alone in transferring monastic practices
to the west. St. Hillary of Poitiers (c. 315–67) was sent into exile in the east and
returned to establish a community of ascetics in Poitiers, and Honoratus (d. 429)
following a pilgrimage to the Holy Land established the important community of
Lérins. Perhaps of even greater significance was St. Jerome who traveled back and
forth between Rome and the Holy Land and actively encouraged the monastic life
in both places. He lived for a time as a hermit in Syria and later established reli-
gious communities in Rome, where he oversaw a community of women led by the
noblewomen Marcella and Paula, and Jerusalem, where Paula financed the building
of communities for men and women.
 Monasticism | 417

Originating in the east, monasticism sunk deep roots in Gaul and other parts of
the Western Church and its successor states. In the later fourth century, the former
Roman soldier and bishop, St. Martin of Tours, dedicated himself to the ascetic life
and founded a community in Marmoutiers. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) es-
tablished a community dedicated to religious living and prayer and study in North
Africa, and Cassiodorus (c. 490–585) founded a community at Vivarium that was
dedicated to the study of sacred and secular learning in the pursuit of God. In
Ireland, monasticism was particularly dynamic, and the structure of the Irish church
was patterned around monastic communities. Isolated cells along the stark Irish
coastline were centers of lonely ascetics who stood for hours in the icy North
Sea, arms outstretched in a cross, in prayer as a means to humble the flesh and
honor God. Monastic communities were often associated with royal families and
were centers of learning and literacy and produced some of the most magnificent
manuscripts of the early Middle Ages, including the Book of Kells. Irish monks
also helped spread monasticism to England and the Continent. Irish missionaries
founded communities in northern England and on the continent at Luxueil and Bob-
bio, which became some of the most important early medieval religious centers.
The most influential of the Irish monks and missionaries was St. Columban (d. 615),
whose rule was widely followed in Ireland and on the Continent.

Beehive-shaped cells of the early Christian monastery at the top of Skellig Michael, a re-
mote island off the coast of Ireland. Founded in the sixth century. (Anthony Patterson)
418 | Monasticism

The most influential figure and the father of Western monasticism, however, was
St. Benedict of Nursia (c. 480–547). Born into a noble Roman family and well edu-
cated, Benedict heard the call of the desert and took up the religious life, settled in
a cave in Subiaco. Attracting a substantial following, Benedict established a formal
community, which he left after an attempted poisoning. He eventually established
a monastery on Monte Cassino that would be one of the great monastic centers
of the early Middle Ages. As important as Monte Cassino was, Benedict’s most
important contribution was his Rule. Drawn from a variety of sources, including
the Rule of the Master, Benedict’s rule is noteworthy for its simplicity, flexibility,
and humanity. As with other rules, Benedict’s outlined the daily activities of the
monks, stressing equal parts prayer and manual labor, and established guidelines
for the recruitment and training of new monks. It not only stressed the importance
of humility, chastity, and obedience but also offered exceptions for the novice, sick
or the elderly. The Rule of Benedict also outlined the duties of the abbot, who was
responsible for his monks and was expected to offer both stern discipline and com-
passion and comfort as the situation warranted.
The wisdom and humanity of the Rule of Benedict account for its ultimate tri-
umph in Western monasticism, but in the first two centuries of its existence it com-
peted with other monastic rules or was used in combination with them. Indeed,
there are few references to Benedict and his Rule in the sixth century beyond the
important account by Gregory the Great. Benedict surely had influence in the sixth
century, however, because Gregory composed part of his life of Benedict with the
aid of four monks who knew the saint, and it is possible that St. Columban knew
Benedict’s Rule. But in general in the seventh and eighth centuries, Benedict shared
influence with Columban and the monks associated with the Irish tradition and
other monastic lawgivers such as Caesarius of Arles. It was commonplace to com-
bine elements from the Benedictine, Celtic, and other monastic traditions in the so-
called regula mixta (mixed rule) in the monasteries of barbarian Europe.
It is possible that Benedictine monasticism was exported to England by the mission
Gregory sent under the direction of St. Augustine of Canterbury, but this is widely
disputed by scholars today. But even if Augustine did not bring the Rule, it did arrive
by the mid-seventh century. There is evidence for its introduction to Northumbria in
660, and both Benedict Biscop, founder of Wearmouth and Jarrow, and the Venerable
Bede, the great Anglo-Saxon scholar, were greatly influenced by the Rule of Bene-
dict. The Anglo-Saxon missionaries of the eighth century, especially St. Boniface,
brought the Rule with them on their evangelical missions to the continent. The reform
activities of these missionaries greatly influenced the Frankish church and the lead-
ers of Frankish society, especially the great rulers Charlemagne and Louis the Pious.
Under Charlemagne, the Benedictine Rule was increasingly important in the
empire he established, and it was recognized by the great ruler as the best rule for
the monastic life. His esteem for the Rule was so great that he sent an abbot from
 Monte Cassino | 419

the realm to Monte Cassino in 787 to obtain an authentic copy. Although important
to Charlemagne, the Rule of Benedict was established throughout the realm as the
official monastic rule only by his son Louis the Pious. With the help of his close
friend and advisor, Benedict of Aniane, Louis imposed the Rule on all monasteries
of the empire by the decrees of two councils held in Aachen in 816 and 817. Over
the next several centuries, the Rule of Benedict was the official standard of all mon-
asteries, and it was the foundation for major monastic forms at Cluny in the 10th
century and at Cîteaux in the 12th.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Basil the Great; Benedict of Aniane; Benedict of Nursia;
Cassian, St. John; Cassiodorus; Charlemagne; Carolingian dynasty; Gregory I, the Great,
Pope; Jerome, St.; Monte Cassino

Bibliography
Brooke, Christopher. The Age of the Cloister: The Story of Monastic Life in the Middle
Ages. Mahwah, NJ: Hiddenspring, 2003.
Clark, James G. The Benedictines in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell and
Brewer, 2008.
Dunn, Marilyn. Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle
Ages. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2003.
Farmer, David Hugh, ed. Benedict’s Disciples. Leominster, UK: Fowler Wright, 1980.
Fry, Timothy, ed. and trans. RB 1980: The Rule of Benedict in Latin and English with
Notes. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981.
Gregory the Great. Life and Miracles of St. Benedict (Book Two of the Dialogues). Trans.
Odo J. Zimmerman and Benedict Avery. Collegeville, MN: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1949.
Harmless, J. William. “Monasticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Stud-
ies. Eds. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008, pp. 493–517.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Russel, Norman, trans. The Lives of the Desert Fathers: Historia Monachorum in
Aegypto. Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2006.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

Monte Cassino

One of the most important religious communities of the Middle Ages, Monte
Cassino was founded in 529 by the father of western monasticism, Benedict of
Nursia. Roughly 80 miles southeast of Rome and on a mountain some 1,500 feet
high, Benedict’s establishment was built on an old pagan shrine and was the place
where Benedict first implemented his monastic rule. In the late sixth century, 577
or 580, the monastery was destroyed by the Lombards during their invasion of Italy.
420 | Monte Cassino

The remains of Benedict were removed to Fleury after the monastery’s destruction
and its monks fled to Rome. Monte Cassino’s fame endured, however, and in 718
Pope Gregory III sent monks from nearby communities to rebuild the monastery.
During the eighth century the community attracted a number of notable figures,
including the Carolingian mayor of the palace, Carloman, and the great historian
of the Lombards, Paul the Deacon. In the later eighth century, with the support of
the Carolingians, Abbot Gisulf (796–817) oversaw the complete restoration of the
monastery and further enhanced its fame and a growing number of pilgrims. In 883,
however, the monastery was destroyed again, this time by marauding Muslims from
North Africa. In 952 the monks returned and rebuilt the monastery, which would
remain one of the great centers of monastic life for the rest of the Middle Ages.
See also: Benedict of Nursia, St.; Carloman, Mayor of the Palace; Carolingian Dynasty;
Gregory III, Pope; Lombards; Monasticism; Paul the Deacon

Bibliography
Bloch, Herbert. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 3 Vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1988.
N
Narses (c. 480–574)

Byzantine general and eunuch, Narses was an important figure in the administra-
tion of the emperor Justinian (r. 527–565) and his wife Theodora. A highly loyal
member of the court, who may have shared Theodora’s faith, Narses played a key
role in support of the emperor during the Nika Revolt of 532. He later took charge
of Byzantine forces during the reconquest of Italy. Taking over from Belisarius,
Narses brought the Gothic Wars to a close and achieved final victory for Justinian.
He also played a key role in the reorganization of the administration of the penin-
sula after the conquest and then struggled against the Lombards as they advanced
into Italy.
Narses was probably already in his forties when he arrived at court at the
beginning of Justinian’s reign. He came from Armenia, a slave eunuch who en-
tered imperial service and by the later 520s was commander of the emperor’s
bodyguard. He was probably close to Justinian as a result, and his loyalty to
the emperor brought him into the confidence of Theodora. Although not an
educated man, Narses could unravel a problem quickly and was noted for his
humanity and dignity in all situations. Indeed, he was a man of such decency
that the fifth-century Byzantine historian Procopius never mentions him in his
Secret History. His loyalty and many talents were displayed most clearly dur-
ing the Nika Revolt in 532, when he joined Belisarius and others to bring an
end to the revolt. His role as the commander of the imperial bodyguard was of
particular importance, and he and his guard helped in the massacre that brought
an end to the rebellion.
His service in the Nika Revolt led to advancement for Narses, and, in 538, he
was sent to Italy to determine whether the war could be ended more quickly. His
appointment essentially made him Belisarius’s commander, and the two fell into
repeated conflict. These disagreements, along with Belisarius’s prominence, led to
the appointment of Narses as commander of the armies in Italy and the recall of
Belisarius. Narses, having witnessed the troubles of Belisarius, insisted that he him-
self be granted the tools necessary to complete the job. In 551, Narses was given
command of the war in Italy, and in 552 he invaded with a large force that included
a substantial number of Lombards as mercenaries. Although opposed by the armies
of the Ostrogothic king Totila, Narses proceeded along the coast to Ravenna. He was

421
422 | Narses

joined by a second Byzantine army and then met the Gothic king at a decisive battle
in late June or early July. The Battle of Busta Gallorum, on a plain in the northern
Apennines, was a complete disaster for the Goths, who left 6,000 dead on the battle-
field and withdrew with their king mortally wounded. In October, Narses again met
in battle with the Goths and again defeated them. This time, however, an armistice
was settled between the two sides. But the war was still not at an end, and Narses
and various Gothic leaders met in battle several more times in 554 and 555. For the
next several years, Narses was able to restore imperial authority over Italy. In 561,
the Ostrogoths once again rose up and once again were defeated by Narses, and this
time it was the final defeat of the Goths, who disappeared from history at that point.
Narses remained in Italy after the final defeat of the Ostrogoths and after the
death of Justinian. As conquering general, Narses remained in authority for the
next several years, but he was deposed from office, after enriching himself greatly,
because the Italian population complained that his rule was worse than that of
the Goths. His position might have remained secure had he not lost the favor of
Justinian’s successor, Justin II (r. 565–578), who sacked the old general. After los-
ing his military command, Narses retired from imperial service. The invasion of the
Lombards in 568 under their king, Alboin, led to the recall of Narses, even though,
according to the Lombard historian Paul the Deacon, the general himself had in-
vited the Lombards because of the treatment he received from Justin. Whatever the
case, the Lombards proved too powerful even for Narses, who had little success
against them. He once again retired from public life and died a few years later, after
a career of long and effective service to the empire.
See also: Alboin; Belisarius; Gothic Wars; Justinian; Lombards; Ostrogoths; Theodora

Bibliography
Barker. J. W. Justinian and the Later Roman Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1960.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1984.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. H. B. Dewing.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
 Nennius | 423

Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.

Nennius (fl. early ninth century)

Along with the sixth-century monk Gildas, Nennius was one of the most important
early contributors to the legend of King Arthur. His work, the Historia Brittonum
(History of the Britons), contains the earliest mention of king Arthur and greatly
influenced the 12th-century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth, who elaborated on the
earlier Arthurian tales.
Nennius was a Welsh historian and antiquary who wrote at the end of the eighth
or the beginning of the ninth century. His famous Historia Brittonum is tradition-
ally dated between circa 800 and 829/830 and appeared originally in Wales. It re-
mains uncertain, however, whether Nennius wrote the Historia himself or merely
copied it from an earlier source or sources. Although best known for its treatment
of the legendary Arthur, the Historia is not without reliable historical information;
it includes details on the early residents and Anglo-Saxon invaders of the island,
material on the kingdom of Bernicia, and topographical information. The descrip-
tions of the struggles in Bernicia accord well with the tradition recorded by Bede
and appear to follow Gildas, who noted that victory sometimes went to the invaders
and sometimes to the Britons.
Nennius’s work is most famous for his account of the Britons’ struggle against
the Anglo-Saxon invaders, particularly his description of the one great leader,
whom he named Arthur. Most significantly, the history of Nennius includes a list
of the 12 great victories, culminating with the Battle of Badon Hill, that Arthur won
against the invaders. The Historia also contains the history of the world in six ages,
tales of miracles and prodigies in England, and details of the life of St. Patrick. The
work exists in some 35 manuscripts from the 10th to the 13th centuries and was a
popular and influential work.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Badon Hill, Battle of; Bede; Gildas; King Arthur

Bibliography
Alcock, Leslie. Arthur’s Britain: History and Archeology, A.D. 367–634. Harmond-
sworth, UK: Penguin, 1971.
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972.
Nennius. Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals. Ed. John Morris. Totowa, NJ:
Rowan and Littlefield, 1980.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
424 | Neustria

Neustria

The “new land” or “new western land,” Neustria was one of the three subkingdoms,
along with Austrasia and Burgundy that emerged under Merovingian rule and com-
prised much of northwestern Gaul. Under the Merovingians, Neustria included
lands from north of the Loire and west of the Meuse but under the Carolingians in
included only the territory between the Loire and the Seine. Its main cities were
Soisson and Paris, Neustria’s capital beginning in the sixth century.
Neustria emerged in the mid-sixth century following the death of Chlothar I
(d. 561) and came to dominate political affairs for much of the sixth and seventh
centuries. Under the ambitious queen Fredegund and then later under her son Chlo-
thar II, Neustria controlled Frankish affairs, and under Dagobert, Chlothar’s son,
the kingdoms of Neustria and Austrasia were reunited. In the late seventh century,
as Merovingian power waned, Ebroin the mayor of the palace assumed leadership
of Neustria, and the kingdom suffered division again. At the battle of Tertry, the
Austrasian mayor of the palace, Pippin I of Landen defeated his Neustrian rival and
brought to an end the ascendancy of Neustria and joined it to Austrasia.
During the reign of the Carolingians, Neustria was reconstituted as a smaller sub-
kingdom than it had been under the Merovingians. Charlemagne established it as a
subkingdom when he gave it as a kingdom to his son Charles the Younger in 790.
Under Louis the Pious, Neustria was granted first to Lothar and then to Charles the
Bald. It formed an important component, along with Aquitaine, of the West Frank-
ish kingdom and was granted by Charles the Bald to Robert the Strong as a marcher
region to help defend it against the Vikings. It would form the core of the domains
of Robert’s descendants, the future Capetian kings.
The culture and customs of Neustria were distinct from its sometime rival
Austrasia. The population of Neustria was predominantly Gallo-Roman, in con-
trast to the more Germanic Franks of Austrasia, and spoke a form of Latin known
as “Langue d’oil,” which was the ancestor of modern French. The Neustrians also
followed customary law, inherited from Germanic practice, rather than the written
law of the Austrasians and others.
See also: Austrasia; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Chlothar II; Fredegund; Merovin-
gian Dynasty; Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany the Transformation of the Merovingian
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
 Nithard | 425

Nithard (c. 800–844)

Carolingian count and historian, Nithard was an active figure in the affairs of his
days. A lay abbot, grandson of the great king and emperor Charlemagne, and par-
ticipant in the civil wars between the sons of Louis the Pious, Nithard is best known
as the chronicler of the wars of Lothar, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald.
His account provides our best account of the wars and important insights into the
character of his hero, Charles the Bald, as well as into the nature and ideal of Caro-
lingian kingship.
Little is known of Nithard’s life, other than what he reveals in his work of his-
tory, and even the date of his death is uncertain. He is traditionally thought to have
died on June 14, 844, in battle against Pippin II of Aquitaine (d. 864), but it has
been suggested that he died fighting the Vikings on May 15, 845. In either case,
his death occurred in battle, and it followed a life active in public affairs and close
to the great powers of the day. He was the son of Charlemagne’s daughter Bertha
(779/780–after 823) and her lover, the court scholar Angilbert. He was raised at
court, where he received an excellent education, as indicated in his observations
on the movement of a comet in 841–842 and his ability to quote Scripture and Vir-
gil. Later in life he became a partisan of Charles the Bald and joined the king in
the fratricidal struggles of the early 840s. Nithard served as an envoy to Lothar for
Charles in 840, seeking unsuccessfully to make peace with the emperor. In 841, he
fought on Charles’s side in the Battle of Fontenoy, and in 842 Nithard served on a
commission to determine the division of the empire between Charles and Louis the
German. In 843, in return for his faithful service, Nithard was made lay abbot of
St. Riquier by Charles the Bald. He was buried in the monastery after his death in
battle in 844 or 845, and was memorialized in an epitaph that celebrates his wisdom
and mourns his death and the brevity of his term as abbot.
Nithard was also the court historian of Charles the Bald, at whose request he
wrote his famous work, Four Books of Histories (Historiarum Libri VI). Although
clearly partisan, Nithard’s work provides the best view of the events of the 830s
and 840s. It begins with an introduction to the wars that outlines events from the
death of Charlemagne through the death of Louis the Pious. This book describes the
civil turmoil in the 830s, which set the stage of the wars of the early 840s, and in
it Nithard, as he does throughout the work, sides with Charles and portrays Lothar
in the worst possible light. Books two through four describe the wars of Charles,
Louis, and Lothar. These books contain valuable information about the partisans
in the wars, the various battles, and related material, including two versions of the
Oath of Strasbourg (842), one in an early form of Romance, the other in an early
form of German. The Histories also contain a sympathetic portrait of Charles the
Bald, commentary on ideal Christian kingship, and an eyewitness perspective on
the events Nithard describes. Although not elegantly written, the Histories remain
426 | Northumbrian Renaissance

compelling reading; Nithard could capture scenes effectively and often wrote pas-
sionately. The fourth book, which Nithard wrote reluctantly because of his shame
over the course of the civil war, ends rather abruptly. It may have been left unfin-
ished by the author.
See also: Angilbert; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Fontenoy, Battle
of; Lothar; Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Strasbourg, Oath of

Bibliography
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Northumbrian Renaissance

Also known as the Northumbrian Golden Age, the Northumbrian Renaissance was
an important cultural artistic movement in the northern Anglo-Saxon kingdom of
Northumbria. Lasting from the mid-seventh to the mid-eight centuries, the renais-
sance made important contributions to the development of Christian learning and
culture and reflected the deep roots the Christian faith had sunk by that time. Im-
portant centers of the renaissance were the many monasteries of Northumbria, es-
pecially Jarrow and Wearmouth, which were centers of study as well as of book
copying and illumination. Numerous works of Christian and classical Latin learn-
ing were produced during the renaissance, and the study and teaching of the liberal
arts formed the heart of the movement.
Among the most representative and impressive examples of Northumbrian Re-
naissance culture is the Lindisfarne Gospels, which reflects the focus on Christian
learning and the insular style of book illumination that was popular at this time.
Another important contribution of the movements is the Codex Amiatinus, an il-
luminated manuscript and the earliest extant complete copy of Jerome’s Vulgate.
The movement was stimulated, in part, by the activities of Benedict Biscop, whose
interests in book culture and acquisition of numerous manuscripts during his trips
to Rome provided the material resources for the renaissance. Perhaps the most cel-
ebrated figure of the renaissance is Bede, a monk and scholar who wrote works
of computus, history (notably the History of the English Church and People), and
hagiography. His tradition of scholarship was carried to the continent by Alcuin,
whose teaching and learning helped shaped the Carolingian Renaissance of the late
eighth and ninth centuries.
 Notker the Stammerer | 427

See also: Alcuin; Anglo-Saxons; Bede, Benedict Biscop; Carolingian Renaissance; Jerome;
Lindisfarne Gospels

Bibliography
Blair, Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Hawkes, Jane and Susan Mills. Northumbria’s Golden Age. Stroud, UK: Sutton Publish-
ing, Ltd., 1999.
Neuman de Vegvar, Carol. The Northumbrian Renaissance: A Study in the Transmission
of Style. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1987.

Notker the Stammerer (c. 840–912)

Poet, liturgist, historian, and monk of St. Gall, Notker the Stammerer (Latin: Bal-
bulus) is an important figure of the Carolingian renaissance. His liturgical composi-
tions had a major influence on the development of medieval chant, but he is perhaps
best known for his Gesta Karoli Magni (Deeds of Charlemagne), an anecdotal biog-
raphy of the great Carolingian ruler that helped shape the emerging legend of Char-
lemagne and offered the late Carolingians a guide for proper Christian kingship.
Born near the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland, Notker would join that com-
munity, where his brother was a chief official. Notker, who would later describe him-
self as “toothless and stammering,” remained in the monastery all his life, dedicating
himself to prayer and scholarship. As a young monk, he listened to the stories of the
warrior Adalbert, who had served in Charlemagne’s armies. He himself would later
serve as a teacher at the monastery; his students included, later bishops and abbots of
the Carolingian Empire, and his contacts were widespread as indicated by his letters
and other literary works. His surviving corpus demonstrates his learning and talents
as a writer, even if at times he appears uncomfortable when writing in certain verse
forms. Among his many works was a history of the East Frankish kingdom from 827
to 881, a martyrology, and a life of St. Gall written in verse and prose. A number of
charters of the monastery were copied by Notker, and the monk wrote numerous let-
ters, including one in which he outlined a plan of study for the young. His reputation
in the ninth century and throughout much of the Middle Ages, however, rested on
his talents as a poet. Notker wrote poems on friendship and other secular themes that
displayed great depth of emotion and literary talent. Even greater were his religious
poems, including four hymns he wrote in honor of St. Stephen and some 50 verse
works with melodies for the cycle of the church year. Notker was also an influential
composer of early medieval music and introduced the sequence, a choral work that
follows the Alleluia in the mass, into Germany.
Although best known in the Middle Ages for his verse, Notker is best known
today for his Gesta Karoli, written most likely between 885 and 887. The work,
which was never finished, was composed for the Carolingian ruler, Charles the Fat
428 | Notker the Stammerer

(r. 876–887), and was designed to provide a guide to kingship by citing examples
from the Life of Charlemagne. Drawing from the tales told of the Carolingian ruler
by Adalbert, Notker provides an image of Charlemagne as a great king and hero
who defeated his enemies abroad and humbled the proud at home. Anecdotal in
nature, the Gesta includes scenes of Charlemagne mocking proud bishops and ar-
rogant noble youth who fail to learn their lessons as well as their fellow students of
more modest means. The king is shown as a supporter of education and the church,
encouraging his subjects to learn the Scriptures and bishops to perform the mass
properly. Charles is compared with the great biblical kings David and Solomon and
is praised for his deep religious piety. In contrast to Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne,
Notker’s life emphasizes the Christian nature of the king’s rule and his deep concern
of God’s plan and church. Charlemagne’s martial side, however, is not neglected,
and he is portrayed as a courageous warrior whose empire knows almost no bounds.
The king is depicted as a fierce warrior who defeated the Avars, Saxons, and Slavs,
and Notker hoped to encourage Charles the Fat to emulate his great grandfather, the
Iron Charles. Along with the recollections of Adalbert, the Gesta was shaped by a
variety of literary works. There are numerous biblical allusions throughout the text,
and Notker also cites the Roman poet Virgil and the Christian poet Prudentius as
well as saints’ lives by Athanasius and others, letters of contemporaries like Alcuin
and Walafrid Strabo, and the works of Augustine of Hippo. The Gesta is thus an
important example of the achievements of the Carolingian Renaissance and a life
of Charles that portrays him as the ideal Christian king.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Charles III, the
Fat; Einhard

Bibliography
Crocker, Richard. The Early Medieval Sequence. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1976.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. David Ganz.
London: Penguin Books, 2008.
Ganz, David. “Humour as History in Notkers’s Gesta Karoli Magni.” In Monks, Nuns,
and Friars in Medieval Society. Eds. E. King, J. Schaefer, and W. Wadley. Sewanee, TN:
University of the South Press, 1989, pp. 171–83.
Laistner, M.L.W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1951.
MaClean, Simon. Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and
the End of the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
O
Odovacar (c. 433–493)

Odovacar was a Germanic warrior of the Scirian tribe who rebelled against the last
western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, and Romulus’s father, the master
of the soldiers, Orestes. Odovacar deposed Romulus and is thus traditionally said
to have ended the line of emperors ruling the Western Empire. Unlike earlier re-
bellious military commanders, he neither declared himself emperor nor promoted
someone else as emperor. Instead, he recognized the authority of the emperor in
Constantinople, Zeno, and established himself as king in Italy. His reign of 17 years
was plagued by a long war with his eventual successor, Theodoric the Great, who
murdered Odovacar but benefited from the traditions of Odovacar’s monarchy.
Odovacar was born probably in 433, and was the son of Edica-Edikon, a servant
of the great Hunnish ruler, Attila. Edica-Edikon prospered greatly under Attila, and
created an independent Germanic kingdom after the death of the Hun and collapse
of his empire. The kingdom did not last long, however, as Edica-Edikon was killed in
battle in 469. Odovacar and his brother Hunnulf both fled the kingdom, with Odova-
car going to Italy, followed by many of his father’s supporters. In Italy, Odovacar en-
tered the service of the western emperor as a member of the imperial guard, but sided
with the emperor’s powerful general, Ricimer, when civil war broke out between
them in 472. His support for Ricimer was crucial to Ricimer’s victory, and Odovacar
learned much from his example, even though Ricimer died shortly after his victory.
In 476, Odovacar led a revolt of Germanic soldiers against the emperor, Romulus
Augustulus, the son and puppet of Orestes. Orestes had earlier forced the emperor
Julius Nepos into exile and declared his son emperor. The claim was not recognized
in Constantinople, but Orestes strove to make it effective in Italy. He faced the re-
bellion led by Odovacar because he was unwilling to grant Germanic soldiers in the
army equal status with Roman soldiers. Odovacar defeated Orestes and executed
him on August 28, 476. Odovacar deposed and exiled Romulus rather than execute
him because, according to a contemporary, of his youth and beauty. But Odovacar
compelled Romulus to send a delegation of senators to Zeno, the emperor in Con-
stantinople, declaring that no new emperor was needed and that they welcomed the
rule of Odovacar. The Germanic warrior was willing to give up the title king for
patrician and authority to rule in Italy. Zeno was in an awkward position, since the
legitimate western emperor still lived, but he addressed Odovacar as patrician none-
theless. Odovacar sought accommodation with the emperor during his reign, and as

429
430 | Odovacar

a sign of good faith executed the murderer of Julius Nepos. Despite his best efforts,
and willingness to recognize the sovereignty of the emperor in the east, Odovacar
was not able to sign a treaty with the emperor. He did, however, establish peace in
Italy and an important and effective royal administration that was built on coopera-
tion with the senatorial aristocracy.
Although somewhat eased by the death of Julius Nepos in 480, relations between
Zeno and Odovacar remained tense; they became highly strained in 486. The em-
peror faced a rebellion, and Odovacar, if not openly supporting the rebel, seems
at least to have been in negotiations with him. In response, Zeno encouraged the
Rugians, who had settled just north of Italy, to attack Odovacar. In 487, however,
Odovacar struck first and destroyed the kingdom, thus ending the possibility of the
establishment of a rival kingdom in Italy. His victory, however, had very negative
consequences for Odovacar; the king’s wife was an Ostrogoth, and her death and
the flight of her children came to the attention of Theodoric the Great.
In 488, Theodoric negotiated a secret treaty with Zeno that granted Theodoric
the right to rule Italy in the emperor’s place if he defeated Odovacar. In the fol-
lowing year, Theodoric’s armies reached Italy, and Odovacar, sensing treachery on
Zeno’s part, took steps to break formally with the emperor. He established his son
as caesar and hoped that the break would be welcomed by the aristocracy, which
had become increasingly alienated from the emperor over religious issues. Odova-
car and Theodoric fought two bloody battles, in 489 and 490, which cost both sides
numerous casualties but which were both won by Theodoric. The second victory
was, in some ways, a worse defeat for Odovacar, because the senatorial aristocracy
shifted its support to Theodoric. But the invader’s victory was not sealed; Odova-
car made a stand in Ravenna, a near impregnable stronghold. Theodoric besieged
the city, and Odovacar held fast from August 490 until February 493. In July 491,
Odovacar launched a ferocious but unsuccessful assault on the besiegers. Finally,
the bishop of Ravenna negotiated a treaty between the two rulers that would allow
the two to rule Italy together. Odovacar submitted, and Theodoric entered Ravenna
on March 5, 493. A few days later, Theodoric murdered Odovacar, claiming that
his rival was plotting against him. On that same day, according to a contemporary
chronicler, “all Odovacar’s soldiers were slain wherever they could be found, and
all his kin” (Bury 1959, 426). Odovacar and his family and people were thus anni-
hilated by Theodoric, but Odovacar left his murderer an important foundation for
the establishment of a great kingdom in Italy.
See also: Attila the Hun; Huns; Orestes; Ostrogoths; Ravenna; Ricimer; Rome; Romulus
Augustulus; Theodoric the Great; Zeno

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
 Offa of Mercia | 431

Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages.
1931. Reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Los Angeles: Univer-
sity of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Offa of Mercia (d. 796)

One of the greatest and longest ruling kings of Anglo-Saxon England, Offa
(r. 757–796) is also the great king about whom the least is known. The only informa-
tion about Offa and his reigns come from outside the kingdom of Mercia. It in-
cludes charters and chronicles written in Northumbria, Wessex, and elsewhere in
England. Although possibly as great a ruler as Alfred, who clearly respected Offa,
the Mercian king lacks a contemporary Mercian biographer to announce and record
his greatness. Despite this lack of information, it is clear that Offa had a profound
impact on England during his long reign, and his power and organizational ability
are demonstrated by the famed earthwork he built, Offa’s Dyke, along the Welsh
frontier. Alfred himself praised Offa as a king and adopted laws, now lost, from
Offa. And the pope and the greatest king of the early Middle Ages, Charlemagne,
treated Offa with respect and recognized his power.
Offa came to power in 757 by driving his rival Beornred into exile by force of
arms. His military success at the beginning characterized the rest of his long reign;
it was the key to his success, but it was also the key to the demise of the kingdom
in the following generation. Indeed, the great Anglo-Saxon scholar and friend of
Charlemagne, Alcuin of York, recognized that it was Offa’s ruthlessness that se-
cured not only his success but also his untimely death. It was this ruthlessness that
secured his power inside and outside of Mercia, restoring the kingdom of Mercia
to a position of preeminence in England. After conquering Mercia by the sword,
Offa extended his authority over other kingdoms in England. The first to fall vic-
tim to Offa was Kent, in the 760s. The struggle to control the kingdom of Kent was
long lasting and brought Offa the bitter enmity of the archbishop of Canterbury.
The Kentish kings were able to restore their independence for nearly a decade after
776, but they were finally suppressed in 785.
In the 770s, Offa brought the kingdom of Sussex under his control by defeat-
ing, according to a Northumbrian chronicle, the “men of Hastings” in battle. In the
780s he asserted his authority over Wessex, when that kingdom fell into civil war
after a prolonged period of peace under one of its kings. Offa was able to exploit
432 | Offa of Mercia

Offa’s Dyke passes through the Shropshire countryside. The earthwork formed a bound-
ary, albeit discontinuous, between England and Wales. (Andrew Fogg)

the situation when a usurper revolted and both he and the king died in battle. Fur-
ther claimants to the throne of Wessex rose up, including Beorhtric, who received
support from Offa and married one of Offa’s daughters. The Mercian king’s support
was essential for Beorhtric’s victory, and this support allowed Offa to extend his in-
fluence and authority over Wessex. His influence was also felt in Northumbria, and
his political authority extended far to the south, where several lesser kingdoms also
succumbed to his advance. He also extended his authority westward at the expense
of the Welsh, and an expansion borne witness to by Offa’s greatest extant legacy,
Offa’s Dyke, an engineering and organizational marvel of the eighth century that ex-
tends some 150 miles over mountainous terrain. Indeed, this fortification may have
been part of a military system of fortified towns of the kind later made famous by
Alfred the Great. By the 780s Offa could claim to be king of the English, a title rec-
ognized in the charters of contemporaries. Perhaps in recognition of his power and
in emulation of the Carolingian dynasty, Offa had his son consecrated as king in 787.
Offa’s political power was recognized and respected on the continent. He corre-
sponded with Pope Hadrian (r. 772–795) and received legates in the mid-780s from
the pope. He also convinced Hadrian to establish a new archiepiscopal see in his
kingdom at Lichfield in 787. The new archbishop proved a counterbalance to the
hostile archbishop of Canterbury, but he did not last long after the death of Offa.
Nonetheless, Offa sought to establish the ecclesiastical independence of the church
 Ordinatio Imperii | 433

in his kingdom and empowered it by the foundation of monasteries, including

St. Albans. His representatives also participated in church councils in England and
on the continent, including the Council of Frankfurt in 794.
It was not only the pope who recognized Offa; the great Frankish king, Char-
lemagne, also corresponded with Offa and respected his power. Always courteous
in correspondence with Offa, Charlemagne wrote seeking advice or mercy from
Offa in regard to exiles from Mercia in the Frankish kingdom. Charlemagne’s opin-
ion of Offa was most likely influenced by the Mercian king’s participation through
his clergy at the Council of Frankfurt and by the active trade that existed between
the two kingdoms. In 796 a trade agreement was forged between the two kings, in
which merchants from both kingdoms were to be protected by both kings. The ex-
tent of trade is demonstrated by the improvement in English coinage under Offa,
who was likely influenced by the coinage of his Carolingian contemporary. Offa’s
coin, the penny, remained the basis of English coinage until the 13th century and
surpassed all other coins in England in his day. The coins also demonstrate further
the political shrewdness of the king; they often bore Offa’s image or that of his wife,
Cynethryth, in imitation of Byzantine or late Roman practice.
Offa was clearly a king of wide-ranging influence in England and the continent.
He was also a brutal king, who managed to rule much of England by suppressing or
eliminating the sovereigns of the other English kingdoms. It was this brutality that
proved the undoing of his kingdom in the generations following his death on July
26, 795, and that ended the revival of the power of Wessex. Although the political
power of his kingdom was short lived, his influence lasted well beyond his death
in the coinage he introduced to England, his military construction, and the laws he
implemented that were adopted by Alfred.
See also: Alcuin of York; Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Carolingian Dynasty; Char-
lemagne; Hadrian I, Pope; Mercia; Wessex

Bibliography
Keynes, Simon. “The British Isles: England, 700–900.” In The New Cambridge Medi-
eval History. Vol. 2. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995, pp. 18–42.
Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. Oxford: Claren-
don, 1946.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Ordinatio Imperii

Succession plan designed by Louis the Pious in 817. The Ordinatio Imperii (Disposi-
tion for the Empire) was intended to establish a unified empire, while still recognizing
434 | Ordinatio Imperii

the long Frankish tradition of dividing the realm between the king’s heirs. It was
thought to be divinely inspired by contemporaries, especially the members of the
church. It shaped Louis’s policies for much of the next decade, but it was gradually
undermined by the birth of another son to Louis and his second wife, Judith. Viola-
tion of the Ordinatio then became a justification for rebellion for Louis’s opponents.
In 817, Louis the Pious met with the leaders of the realm to determine the empire’s
fate. He may have been inspired to do this because of an accident he had near Easter.
As he was leaving the church he had attended for services on Maundy Thursday, the
arcade through which he walked collapsed and injured the emperor and several of
his companions. Shortly thereafter, Louis held a great assembly at his capital, Aix-la-
Chapelle (modern Aachen, in Germany), at which he established a succession plan,
the Ordinatio Imperii, based upon the idea of the empire’s unity. Louis sought divine
inspiration, holding a three-day vigil of prayer and fasting before promulgating the
Ordinatio. At the assembly, he bestowed the imperial title upon his eldest son, Lothar,
made him coemperor, and granted him the duty of ruling Italy. He granted his other
sons, Louis the German and Pippin, royal authority over subkingdoms in the eastern
and western parts of the empire. Sovereign in their own territory, the younger sons
would be subject to the authority of Lothar once Louis died.
This attempt at establishing the empire’s unity was not met with uniform support.
Although Louis made an attempt to recognize Frankish tradition, his settlement was
met by passive resistance from the Franks, whose tradition favored divided succes-
sion. He also faced opposition from his nephew Bernard, king in Italy, who was
ignored in the settlement and in fact was essentially stripped of his authority by
the appointment of Lothar to rule in Italy. Bernard rose up in rebellion against his
uncle, a rebellion that was quickly suppressed by Louis. Bernard was blinded for
his rebellion and died from the punishment. The Ordinatio’s later history was trou-
bling for Louis, who revised the plan of succession to include a fourth son, Charles
the Bald, and was accused of violating the document, and thus violating God’s will.
Having provided this justification for rebellion, Louis found himself the target of
revolts in 830 and 833–834, as members of the nobility and the church supported
the uprisings of Louis’s older sons.
See also: Aix-la-Chapelle; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Judith; Lothar; Louis
the German; Louis the Pious

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul Edward, trans. “The Ordinatio Imperii of 817.” In Carolingian Civilization:
A Reader. Trans. Paul Edward Dutton. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1993, pp. 176–79.
Ganshof, François Louis. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Pullan, Brian, trans. Sources of Medieval Europe from the Mid-Eighth to the Mid-
Thirteenth Century. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1966.
 Orestes | 435

Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Orestes (d. 476)

Roman military commander and father of Romulus Augustulus, who is tradition-

ally recognized as the last western Roman emperor. Orestes, whose son was still a
boy when he was promoted to the imperial dignity, was the real power behind the
throne, as Ricimer had been before him. His efforts to seize power failed, however,
because of the unwillingness of Zeno, the emperor in Constantinople, to recognize
Romulus, and because of the opposition of Odovacar.
Orestes, a Roman but a subject of the Huns, rose to prominence in the ser-
vice of the greatest Hunnish king, Attila. He was the Latin secretary of Attila, and
sometime rival of another of Attila’s aides, Edica-Edikon, the father of Odovacar.
According to some accounts, the rivalry between the two nearly brought about Ed-
ica-Edikon’s demise, and surely created tensions between Orestes and Odovacar.
After the collapse of the empire of Attila, Orestes offered his services elsewhere
and was raised to the rank of master of soldiers and given the rank of patrician by
the emperor Julius Nepos. The emperor saw in Orestes a Roman with connections
with leading aristocratic families and also with important experience and contacts
with the barbarians, who served in Rome’s army in great numbers or settled along
Rome’s frontiers as friend or foe.
The emperor ordered Orestes to Gaul to protect the province from the threat of
various German tribes, but the new master of soldiers had other plans. Instead of
going to Gaul, Orestes marched on the capital of the Western Empire at Ravenna.
In the face of the advance, Julius Nepos fled to Dalmatia on August 28, 475. In
control of Italy and the capital, Orestes chose not to assume the imperial dignity
himself, but instead conferred it on his young son Romulus Augustulus on October
31, 475. Orestes, however, remained the real power in Italy, ruling through his son.
Although he successfully seized control, Orestes’s usurpation was not recog-
nized by the emperor Zeno in Constantinople, who maintained that the legitimate
emperor of the Western Empire was the exile Julius Nepos and not Romulus Augus-
tulus. Despite this lack of recognition, Orestes kept control of Italy for a year after
his rebellion against Julius Nepos. His downfall was the result, not of the refusal
of Zeno to recognize Romulus but of Orestes’s inability to preserve the loyalty of
his troops. The vast majority of his army was made up of German soldiers of vari-
ous tribes. They demanded grants of land in Italy as reward for their service in the
Roman army. Grants of land had been a traditional reward for military service, and
436 | Ostrogoths

other barbarian peoples had received these grants, but never in Italy. True to his
Roman roots, Orestes refused to grant his Germanic soldiers land in Italy, and as a
consequence, he faced a revolt led by Odovacar, who declared that he would make
this concession if he ever obtained power. Orestes was quickly overwhelmed by
Odovacar and the Germans in the imperial army. Orestes was executed on Odova-
car’s orders on August 28, 476, and shortly thereafter Odovacar forced Romulus
Augustulus to abdicate, but allowed him to retire and did not kill him. Odovacar
did not resurrect the system established by Orestes; instead he refused to establish
a new puppet emperor in the west and ruled over Italy under the sovereignty of the
emperor in Constantinople. The death of Orestes and deposition of his son Romulus
is thus traditionally seen as the end of the Roman Empire in the west, even though
much that was Roman survived long after their deaths.
See also: Attila the Hun; Huns; Odovacar; Ricimer; Rome; Romulus Augustulus; Zeno

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages.
1931. Reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Ostrogoths

As barbarian people whose name means “Goths of the rising sun,” or “Goths glori-
fied by the rising sun,” or simply “East Goths,” the Ostrogoths played an important
role in the history of the later Roman Empire. Identified as early as the first century
by Roman writers, the Ostrogoths were at first part of a larger population of Goths
that included the Visigoths. During the third century, the larger Gothic population
came into contact, often violent, with the Roman Empire. Defeated by the empire,
with which they then cultivated better relations, the Goths divided into eastern and
western groups, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, and their subsequent histories
diverged. For the Ostrogoths, as well as the Visigoths, history in the fourth and
fifth centuries was shaped by the movements of the Huns and the rise and fall of
the great Hunnish empire of Attila. In the fifth century, a reconstituted Ostrogothic
tribe formed into a powerful group led by kings. The most famous and important of
these kings, Theodoric the Great, participated in political life in the Eastern Roman
 Ostrogoths | 437

Empire and created a successor kingdom in Italy in the late fifth and early sixth
centuries. Despite the qualities of Theodoric and the strength of his kingdom, the
Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy did not long survive the death of Theodoric. In the
530s, the great emperor Justinian sought to conquer the Western Empire, which
had fallen under barbarian control in 476. For some 20 years, Justinian’s soldiers
and generals fought Ostrogothic armies before finally defeating them, destroying
Theodoric’s creation, and essentially eliminating the Ostrogoths as a people and a
force in history.
Ancient accounts record that Gothic history began in 1490 bc, when a Gothic
king led his people in three boats from Scandinavia to the mouth of the Vistula
River. Eventually the Goths moved to the area between the Don and Danube Rivers,
before being forced out in the mid-third century ad by the Huns. The traditional ac-
counts of the origins of the Goths by ancient historians like Jordanes, however, are
not generally accepted. The origins of the Goths are no longer traced to Scandina-
via but rather to Poland, where archeological discoveries place a sophisticated, but
nonliterate, culture. It was from there that the Goths moved, after which move they
made contact with the Roman Empire. In the third century the Goths had repeated
clashes with the empire, winning some and putting the empire, already in serious
straits, into even greater jeopardy. Roman emperors gradually turned the tide and
nearly destroyed the Goths. In the wake of these defeats, however, tradition holds
that a great king emerged, Ostrogotha, in circa 290, who founded the kingdom of
the Ostrogoths. Although it is unlikely that Ostrogotha existed, it is at that point
that the division of the Goths into two groups occurred.
In the fourth century, the two groups, the Tervingi, or Visigoths, and Greuthingi,
or Ostrogoths, had more or less come to terms with the empire. By the 370s, how-
ever, the relationship between the various Gothic groups and the empire changed as
they faced the threat of the Huns. Prior to the arrival of the Huns, King Ermanaric,
a member of the Amal clan, had created a substantial kingdom in eastern Europe.
He led the struggle against the Huns but was defeated by them, and in 375 he sacri-
ficed himself to the gods in the hopes of saving his people from the Huns. His suc-
cessor and some of the Goths continued the struggle against the Huns for another
year before they were conquered and absorbed by them. From the end of the fourth
to the middle of the fifth century, the Greuthingi/Ostrogoths remained part of the
Hunnish empire and fought in the armies of the greatest Hun, Attila.
After the death of Attila, however, the fortune and composition of the Ostrogoths
underwent a change. Most scholars believe that the Ostrogoths of this period are
unrelated to earlier groups identified as Ostrogoths. Whatever the relationship is,
in the mid-fifth century under the king Valamir, an Amal, the Ostrogoths emerged
from domination by the Huns. Valamir exploited the confused situation in the em-
pire of the Huns after Attila’s death in 453 and the defeat of Attila’s successor at
the Battle of Nedao in 454. Although Valamir and his Goths most likely fought with
438 | Ostrogoths

the Huns against other subject peoples, the Ostrogoths emerged as an independent
people because of the collapse of the Huns not long after the battle. Valamir then
faced other rivals and endured further attacks by the Huns before their ultimate de-
mise; he died in battle against the Gepids in 468/469.
Valamir was succeeded by his brother Thiudimer, who moved his followers into
Roman territory, where they became foederati (federated allies) of the empire and
came into contact with another group led by the Ostrogothic king Theodoric Strabo,
or the Squinter. The two groups struggled against each other for preeminence and
for preference before the emperor. The empire itself, however, underwent impor-
tant changes during this period. In the 470s a new emperor, Zeno, came to power in
Constantinople, and the emperor in Italy was deposed and the imperial line ended
by the barbarian Odovacar in 476. These changes among the Ostrogoths and within
the empire had an important bearing on the future of the Ostrogothic people.
In 473, Thiudimer died and was succeeded by his son Theodoric the Amal, or
later known as the Great, who had been named successor in 471. Prior to his nomi-
nation, Theodoric had spent 10 years in Constantinople as a hostage of the emperor.
During that period Theodoric learned a great deal about the empire and its customs
and culture, even though it appears that he did not learn to write. Upon assuming
power, he found himself in competition with the other Theodoric, whose follow-
ers had revolted against the emperor in 471 and again in 474. The later revolt was
part of a palace coup against the new emperor, Zeno, who turned to the Amal for
support. To ensure that neither group of Ostrogoths or their leaders became too
powerful, Zeno also began to negotiate with Theodoric Strabo and settled a treaty
with him in 478. But Zeno’s duplicity backfired and angered Theodoric the Amal,
who rose against the emperor and settled a treaty with Theodoric Strabo in 479.
The hostilities between the two Theodorics were settled for a time, too, as the two
closed ranks against the emperor. In 481, Strabo attacked Constantinople but failed
to take it or depose the emperor. Shortly thereafter he was killed when his horse
reared and threw him onto a rack of spears. Theodoric the Amal was the beneficiary
of his occasional ally and rival’s death. Although Strabo was succeeded by Rechi-
tach, his followers gradually joined with Theodoric the Amal, who had Rechitach
murdered in 484.
Theodoric the Amal, or the Great, to give him his more familiar name, was able
to create a great Ostrogothic power that quickly threatened the power of Emperor
Zeno. The Ostrogothic king continued the struggle with Zeno, which was resolved
for a time in 483, with the emperor making great concessions to the king. Indeed,
Theodoric was made a Roman citizen, given the title of patrician, and awarded
a consulship for the next year. The Ostrogoths were given a grant of land within
the empire. But it occurred to Zeno that he could not trust the rising power of
Theodoric, and he replaced him as consul, an event followed by renewed hostili-
ties between the Ostrogoths and the empire. Theodoric’s revolt in 485 put further
 Ostrogoths | 439

pressure on Zeno, who responded by offering Theodoric the opportunity to lead the
assault on Odovacar, the barbarian king in Italy since 476. This assignment, which
Theodoric himself had first suggested in 479, was beneficial to both king and em-
peror and one that Theodoric quickly accepted.
In 488–489, Theodoric led his Ostrogoths, probably numbering some 100,000
people, against Odovacar in Italy. The struggle between the two leaders lasted until
493. It was a hard fought war, with Theodoric winning the battles but unable to take
his rival’s capital of Ravenna. Indeed, after losing two battles Odovacar established
himself in the capital, from which he ventured out to meet Theodoric on the field
of battle. Odovacar’s hand was strengthened by one of his generals, who joined
Theodoric but then rejoined Odovacar, slaying the Gothic warriors who were with
him. As a result Odovacar was able to take the offensive, but only for a short while,
until Theodoric was reinforced by a Visigothic army. In the early 490s Theodoric
gradually took control of Italy and forced Odovacar to come to terms. On February
25, 493, the two leaders agreed to terms that were to be celebrated at a great ban-
quet. Theodoric apparently agreed to share power with his rival, but at the banquet
he killed Odovacar, and Theodoric’s followers killed the followers of Odovacar in
a bloody massacre that ended the war and brought control of Italy to Theodoric.
After his victory, Theodoric was hailed king of Italy, but at first he had to refuse
the title in favor of patrician of Italy. The new emperor Anastasius I (r. 491–518)
refused to recognize the title of king, with its implications of Theodoric’s inde-
pendence, reminding him that he held power at the discretion of the emperor. Ul-
timately, however, Theodoric was recognized as king in Constantinople and ruled
Italy until his death in 526. His reign was highly beneficial for Italy, and his rela-
tionship with the native Roman population was generally good, despite his Arian-
ism and the Romans’ Catholicism. He preserved much of the traditional Roman
administration, as had Odovacar, and cooperated with the Senate. He ensured the
food supply to Italy and patronized Boethius and Cassiodorus as part of a cultural
revival. He was also an active builder throughout Italy, erecting public monuments
and churches as well as his famous palace and mausoleum in Ravenna. His activi-
ties were not limited to Italy, but included an ambitious foreign policy that saw him
establish hegemony over the Vandals in Africa and the Visigoths in Spain. In com-
petition with Clovis in northern Europe, Theodosius was able to limit the Merovin-
gian king’s expansion into southern Gaul. Although in name only a king, Theodoric,
as contemporaries admitted, ruled as effectively as any emperor.
Theodoric’s later years and the years following his death were marked by in-
creasing turmoil, leading to the eventual fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom. This situ-
ation was due in part to changes in the Eastern Empire, as well as to mistakes on
his own part. In 518 a new emperor, Justin, assumed the throne and brought an end
to a period of doctrinal uncertainty in the empire. He was a Catholic Christian who
promoted traditional orthodox teaching, and in 523 he prohibited Arianism in the
440 | Ostrogoths

Theodoric’s mausoleum, Ravenna. (Daderot)

empire. The support for orthodox teaching and stability in doctrine restored the
Italian population’s faith in imperial leadership. Moreover, Theodoric was further
challenged in matters of religion by the success of the Catholic Clovis against the
Visigoths. His concerns were heightened by an alleged plot involving a number of
senators, including his advisor Boethius. He ordered Boethius executed and at the
same time imprisoned the pope, who had just returned from an embassy to Con-
stantinople. These actions strained relations with his Roman subjects and darkened
an otherwise enlightened reign.
Theodoric’s situation was worsened by his lack of a male heir, and just prior to his
death he encouraged his followers to accept his widowed daughter, Amalswintha,
as regent for his grandson Athalaric. At first Theodoric’s wishes were accepted, but
gradually the Ostrogothic nobility turned against Amalaswintha. Although she was
praised for her intelligence and courage, the nobility were divided over her guid-
ance of Athalaric and her pro-Roman foreign policy. When Athalaric reached his
majority in 533, a number of nobles sought to persuade him to turn on his mother.
The rebellion was nearly successful. Amalaswintha requested a ship from Emperor
Justinian to take her to Constantinople, but ultimately stayed and triumphed over
her rivals. She married a cousin, Theodohad, in 534 to stabilize the throne, but her
 Ostrogoths | 441

husband failed to remain loyal to her, and Athalaric died that same year. Her arrest
and murder, which was inspired, according to the fifth-century Byzantine historian
Procopius, by Justinian’s wife Theodora out of jealousy, provided the emperor with
the pretext for his invasion of Italy.
Justinian’s invasion of Italy, led at first by Belisarius and later Narses, opened
the final chapter of the history of the Ostrogoths. The Gothic Wars, which lasted
from 534 to 552, were devastating for both Italy and the Ostrogoths. The opening
phase of the war saw rapid victories and much success for the invading armies, in
part because of the weakness of Theodohad. Belisarius reached Rome in 536, and
Theodohad was deposed in favor of Witigis. The rise of Witigis and the arrival of
a second Byzantine general, Narses, slowed imperial progress. When Narses was
recalled, Belisarius went on the offensive again and may have forced Witigis to
take desperate measures, which possibly included Belisarius’s acceptance of the
imperial title. Although this remains uncertain, Belisarius was recalled in 540 and
took the Ostrogothic king with him. In 541, Witigis was replaced as king by Totila.
Under Totila’s leadership, the Ostrogoths fought back successfully and prolonged
the war for another 11 years. Totila was able to win back territory in Italy from
Byzantine armies and forced the return of Belisarius in 544. In 545 Totila began a
siege of Rome; he occupied it in 546, laying waste to the city in the process. Con-
trol of the city swung back and forth between the two sides for the rest of the war,
which Belisarius was unable to conclude, despite putting great pressure on his rival,
because of inadequate supplies and soldiers. Belisarius was recalled in 548, at his
own request, and replaced by Narses two years later. Narses demanded sufficient
resources to bring the war to a swift conclusion and got them. In 552 Narses won
the Battle of Busta Gallorum, at which Totila was killed and organized Gothic resis-
tance was ended. Although Totila had a successor as king and pockets of Ostrogoths
resisted until 562, the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy was crushed by the Byzantine in-
vasion. The Ostrogoths ceased to be an independent people, and the last of the Ostro-
goths were probably absorbed by the Lombards during their invasion of Italy in 568.
See also: Amalaswintha; Arianism; Attila the Hun; Belisarius; Boethius; Clovis; Constanti-
nople; Gothic Wars; Huns; Justinian; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Narses; Odovacar;
Rome; Theodora; Theodoric the Great; Totila; Vandals; Visigoths; Zeno

Bibliography
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas. The Ostrogoths: Kingship and Society. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press, 1980.
Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press,
1984.
442 | Ostrogoths

Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarians and Romans A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommoda-
tion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes. Trans. Charles C. Mierow. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1985.
Moorhead, John. Theodoric in Italy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Procopius. History of the Wars. Trans H. B. Dewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1969–1993.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
P
Paris

A Roman town originally known as Lutece or Lutetia, Paris, which took its name
from a local Celtic tribe, emerged as an important Merovingian site in the late fifth
and sixth centuries. It would remain an important Merovingian city throughout the
dynasty’s reign but would decline as a political capital during the rule of the Caro-
lingians. Despite its political decline, Paris remained an important religious and
commercial center and would become the capital of the Capetian line, which ruled
from 987 to 1328.
With its convenient location on the Seine River, the future city of Paris attracted
settlement by local native tribes before it was taken by the Romans who built baths
and other public structures and made the town known as Lutece an important market
center. In the third century, Christianity was introduced to the region with the arrival
of St. Denis, the apostle to Gaul who was the first bishop of the town. A Christian
community sprung up and by the fourth century a Christian cemetery and church
had been built. It was also in the fourth century that the town came to be known as
Paris, after the local tribe the Parisi.
As Roman rule decline in the west, Paris suffered threats from various barbarian
peoples. According to tradition, the city was defended by St. Genevieve on several
occasions. Arriving in the city she was given permission to found a religious com-
munity and her piety was recognized by the local population. In 451, Genevieve
called on the people of Paris to pray that God would protect them against Attila, who
was preparing to lay siege to the city. Her efforts were successful and the great Hun
turned away to move against Orleans. As the Franks began to move into the region,
Genevieve again offered comfort and support to the people of Paris, arranging the
delivery of food when Childeric moved against Paris.
Despite Genevieve’s efforts, the city would fall to the Franks who would over-
see the cities growth into the eighth century. It was Childeric’s son, Clovis, who
would take control of Paris and make it the capital of the Merovingian kingdom he
would forge beginning in the early 480s. The first Catholic Christian barbarian king,
Clovis oversaw the construction of a church dedicated to the Holy Apostles and
founded a monastery in honor of St. Genevieve. His successors in the sixth century
would continue his political and religious association with Paris. Throughout the
sixth century a series of church councils were held in Paris and a number of impor-
tant monasteries, including St. Germian-de-Pres and St. Victor, were established

443
444 | Paul the Deacon

in the city, and just outside Paris the royal abbey of St. Denis was founded. During
the reign of King Dagobert (628–38/639), St. Denis became a royal necropolis and
both Merovingian and Carolingian kings would find their final resting place in the
crypt of the monastery. Paris was not only the political and religious center of the
Merovingian kingdom but was also a commercial center, especially after Dagobert
instituted a trade fair for the city.
By the eighth century, Paris had grown to a population of between 20,000 and
30,000 people but had begun to lose its place as a political capital. When the new
Carolingian dynasty took control of the Frankish kingdom, the political center
moved to the east even though early members of the family forged close ties to the
monastery of St. Denis—the first Carolingian king, Pippin, was crowned king in
the monastery and all Carolingians except Charlemagne were buried there. Dur-
ing the reign of the Carolingians, the local counts were charged with the defense
and administration of the city, and the bishops came to exercise more and more
authority. The bishops contributed to the reputation of Paris as a center of learning
and oversaw two important councils in the ninth century. Its place along the Seine
contributed to the city’s continued importance as a trade center, but it also led to in-
creasing difficulties for Paris as Viking invaders exploited the waterways of France.
Carolingian kings or their representatives were forced to fight off Viking attacks;
and the defense of the city in 885–885 by Robert the Strong laid the foundation for
his family’s rise to power and eventually usurpation of the throne from the Carolin-
gians in 987. Although effective royal power was much reduced, the new Capetian
dynasty would rule from Paris until their own demise in 1328.
See also: Attila; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Clovis; Dagobert; Denis, St.; Gen-
evieve, St.; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
McNamara, Jo Ann, John E. Holberg, and Gordon Whatley, eds. Sainted Women of the
Dark Ages. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Velay, Phiippe. From Lutetia to Paris: The Island and the Two Banks. Paris: CNRS, 1992.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Paul the Deacon (c. 720–799)

Best known for his important work of history, Historia Langobardorum (The
History of the Lombards), Paul the Deacon was also a teacher and monk who wrote
a life of Pope Gregory the Great, poetry, and works on pedagogy and monastic life.
He was an influential figure at two royal courts, that of his own Lombard people
 Paul the Deacon | 445

and that of the great Carolingian king, Charlemagne. As a Lombard he benefited

from the support of learning and culture initiated by King Liutprand, but also suf-
fered from the collapse of the Lombard kingdom in Italy under the advance of Char-
lemagne. His learning, however, attracted the attention of the great and powerful,
and his history of his people was very popular and influential in the Middle Ages.
It remains the best source for the history of the Lombards from their origins to the
mid-eighth century.
Paul was born at around 720 to a noble Lombard family. His father, Warnefrid,
and mother, Theodolinda, were of sufficient wealth and prominence and were able
to send their son to a fashionable court for his education. It is unclear whether he
was sent to the royal court at Pavia of King Ratchis (r. 744–749), or possibly that
of his famous predecessor Liutprand, or to Cividale, the court of the duke of Friuli.
In any case, he was most likely taught by a leading scholar of his day, one who was
able to teach the young Paul some Greek and Hebrew as well as the curriculum of
traditional Christian and Roman Latin authors. By 770, Paul had come to the atten-
tion of the Lombard King Desiderius and was made the tutor of the king’s daughter,
Adelperga. In 774, when the Lombard kingdom in Italy fell to Charlemagne, Paul
retired to the community of Monte Cassino and, perhaps unwillingly, became a
monk. He remained there until 783, when he journeyed to the court of Charlemagne
to plead for the release of his brother, who had been involved in a conspiracy against
the great Frankish king, and for the return of his property. The mission ultimately
proved successful, and Paul remained at court as an honored guest for the next sev-
eral years, where he joined other leading scholars such as the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin
of York and tutored one of the king’s daughters. He returned to Monte Cassino in
785, perhaps with greater commitment to the monastic life, thanks to his experience
at Charlemagne’s court, and remained there until his death in 799.
Paul wrote a wide variety of works during his career. His earliest composition
may have been a poem composed for Adelperga around 770. He wrote other poems
during his life, although their number was not great. He wrote a poem in praise
of St. Benedict of Nursia and verses in his correspondence with other members of
Charlemagne’s court. His finest poems include one that is a delightful description
of Lake Como and another that is a moving plea to Charlemagne for his brother’s
freedom. He edited a fourth-century history of Rome and continued it down to the
age of Justinian, and wrote a life of Pope Gregory I and a history of the bishops
of Metz. His writings also included more religious works, among them was a col-
lection of homilies that Charlemagne recommended for use by the clergy in his
kingdom and a commentary on the Rule of Benedict that influenced the monastic
reforms of the early ninth century.
His most famous and important work, however, was the Historia Langobardo-
rum, which traces the history of the Lombards from their origins to the death of
King Liutprand in 744. The work exists in over one hundred manuscripts and was
446 | Pavia

imitated and used by writers down to the 15th century. Paul borrowed from earlier
historians, including Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, and Bede, but his most
important sources—the anonymous Origo Gentis Langobardorum (The Origin of
the Lombard People) and the chronicle of Secundus—are now lost. Although rela-
tively weak on exact chronology, the History is a simple but powerful narrative of
the Lombard people. Paul describes the Lombards’ origin and their entry into Italy,
as well as the many invasions the Lombards were forced to fight off. He writes of
the great kings and dukes of the Lombards and tells of the exciting escape of the
young king Grimoald from the Avars. He discusses the affairs of popes, bishops,
and monks, as well as supernatural events and miracles. His work is a source of
great value, and it is regrettable that death kept him from including in his History
the tale of the defeat of his people by Charlemagne, whom he admired.
See also: Alcuin of York; Avars; Bede; Benedict of Nursia, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Caro-
lingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Desiderius; Franks; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Greg-
ory of Tours; Isidore of Seville; Liutprand; Lombards; Pavia; Rome

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 951–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Ed. Edward
Peters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.

Pavia

A northern Italian town on the Ticino River, Pavia was a prominent city under the
Romans, Ostrogoths, Lombards, and Carolingian Franks. Throughout late antiquity
and the early Middle Ages, Pavia was key military and political center as well as an
important center of religion and commerce.
Founded by the Romans in the first-century bc, Pavia, or Ticinum as the Ro-
mans called it, was originally a military encampment and evolved into an important
commercial center. In the fifth century, Pavia suffered from the barbarian invasions
and was sacked by Attila the Hun in 452. In 476, the Roman Empire is said to have
fallen when Orestes was defeated and killed by Odovacar at Pavia. Under the Ost-
rogoths, who established a citadel there, Pavia became a major stronghold as well
 Peasants | 447

as a leading commercial center. Pavia was also a center of Gothic resistance to

Belisarius and the Byzantine army during the Gothic Wars. Although captured by
the Byzantines, along with the rest of Italy, Pavia was taken by the Lombards in 568
as part of their invasion of Italy. Pavia became the capital of the Lombard kingdom
until its fall in 774. Under King Liutprand, Pavia flourished and became a major
religious site when Liutprand had the relics of St. Augustine of Hippo transferred
to the church of San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro, which had been built in the sixth century.
The saint’s relics were laid alongside the important early Christian philosopher,
Boethius, and Liutprand himself would be buried there.
Lombard rule came to an end in 774 when Charlemagne defeated the last Lom-
bard king, Desiderius, and seized control of the kingdom and its capital Pavia.
Carolingian control of Pavia helped establish their legitimacy in Italy and remained
important in the eighth and ninth centuries. In the 10th century, the city was sacked
by the Magyars but was revived under the Ottonian dynasty and remained an im-
portant city throughout the rest of the Middle Ages.
See also: Attila the Hun; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Belisarius; Boethius; Carolingian
Dynasty; Charlemagne; Desiderius; Gothic Wars; Liutprand; Lombards; Odovacar; Orestes;
Ostrogoths

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999.
Hallenback, Jan T. Pavia and Rome: The Lombard Monarchy and the Papacy in the
Eighth Century. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.
La Rocca, Cristina. Italy in the Early Middle Ages: 476–1000. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2002.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Ed. Edward
Peters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975.

Peasants

Throughout late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, society was divided into a
number of legal and social classes. Society was ruled by kings and powerful landed
nobles and was served by slaves; between the ranks of the great free and the unfree
were the peasants. The peasants, descendants of the ancient coloni (plural of colo-
nus, Latin for farmer), remained essentially legally free until after the year 1000 and
were the most important figures in the economic life of the period. The peasants, or
coloni as they are often called in contemporary sources, were also the most numer-
ous members of society. Although they were the largest part of the population, it is
impossible to get a complete picture of the peasants because they figure in so few
448 | Peasants

contemporary documents, and those that do portray them often present a mislead-
ing picture. The most famous of the sources for early medieval peasant life are the
polyptychs of Charlemagne and the Carolingian dynasty.
In all likelihood, the great majority of residents in the countryside of barbarian
Europe were free, landholding peasants, but the terms on which the land was held
and the economic wealth of the peasants varied greatly. Most peasants and their
families lived on small properties, of one mansus, or Anglo-Saxon hide, which were
large enough to support a family. These properties could be freely disposed of by
the peasants, who could buy and sell their lots and pass them along to their children.
Of course, as small proprietors, the peasants were constantly under the pressure of
wealthy and powerful figures who sought to acquire the mansi of the peasants. As
a defense, peasants sometimes made a grant of their holding or part of it to a local
church or monastery, which then allowed the peasant to receive it back and work it
for his family’s benefit. Peasants were also sometimes forced to squeeze several fam-
ilies on a parcel of land designed for one family. Moreover, rural families sometimes
held land in tenancy and were obligated to offer payment or service to the landowner.
Their tenant holdings were part of a large estate and were often not contiguous but
scattered across the estate. The size and number of holdings varied as well, and some
tenants had quite extensive lots to work. Both tenant farmers and small freeholders
often hired themselves out to other landowners to supplement their incomes. Some
peasants, however, were able to acquire several mansi of their own and teams of ani-
mals to work the fields, and thus became relatively comfortable. The owners of four
or more mansi were expected to do service at the lord’s court.
The mansus was made up of a number of parts, and the peasants were members
of a large community, the village. The individual holding, whether free or tenant
in whatever form, included, among other things, a simple hut of stone, wood, or
clay where the peasant family lived. Although some were larger and more elabo-
rate, these homes generally had a single room divided into sections, a dirt floor, a
bed, benches, and tables. Around the hut were fields for farming, forests, meadows,
vineyards, and mills and other buildings necessary for the agricultural economy
of the peasant. The peasants spent most of their lives working the farms, raising
wheat, oats, and other grains, as well as livestock, including chickens, cows, sheep,
and pigs. Beyond the individual landholdings of the peasants was the village. This
larger community provided some relief from the more onerous burdens of peas-
ant life and tenant farming. Members of the village often worked together, and the
more successful free peasants often regulated the daily affairs of the members of
the community and arbitrated their disputes. Decisions affecting the village, such
as when to plant and to harvest or how to manage the wastelands, were made by
the community as a whole.
See also: Agriculture; Anglo-Saxons; Animals; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Slaves
and Slavery
 Penda | 449

Bibliography
Bloch, Marc. French Rural History: An Essay on Its Basic Characteristics. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
Duby, Georges. The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants
from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century. Trans. Howard B. Clarke. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1979.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Penda (d. 654)

Penda was the Mercian king (r. 632/633–654) who transformed his kingdom into
a significant power during his lifetime. Penda was a mighty king, who extended
his overlordship over much of southern England. Although not a Christian himself,
Penda allowed his son, Paeda, to introduce Christianity into the kingdom.
Penda is first mentioned in a passage from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the
year 628 after the Battle of Cirencester. The passage notes that he made an agree-
ment with the West Saxons in which the Mercians annexed territory along the river
Severn. At that time Penda was most likely not yet king but a powerful noble of
royal lineage. He assumed the kingship after the defeat and death of Edwin, king of
Northumbria, in 632. In an alliance with Cadwallon of Gwynedd, a native Briton,
Penda invaded Deira, devastated the countryside, and slew Edwin, who had ex-
tended his authority over Mercia and other regions. Although now king, Penda was
forced to recognize the authority of the new Northumbrian king, Oswald of Berni-
cia, in 633. For the next eight years Penda was not strong enough to challenge Os-
wald, but in 641 he rose up against the Northumbrian king and defeated and killed
him at the Battle of Maserfelth. Oswald himself was almost immediately recog-
nized as a saint and martyr because of his death at the hands of the pagan Penda.
Following the victory over Oswald, Penda was the greatest king of the English,
but he did not attempt to establish himself as overlord of the other kingdoms. He
did, however, drive the West Saxon king into exile in 645, following the Saxon
king’s repudiation of his wife, Penda’s sister. He also subjugated the kingdom of
East Anglia, and made his son subking of Middle Anglia in 653. And he was rec-
ognized as a great power by the other kings, some of whom served in his army. His
sole rival was the king of Northumbria, Oswy, though he respected the power of
Penda. Oswy, despite being deemed a personal enemy by Penda, married one of his
daughters to Penda’s son Paeda and sent a son as a hostage to Penda’s court. Despite
450 | Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen

cordial diplomatic arrangements and the marriage tie, Penda and Oswy did even-
tually go to war. The cause and course of the war remain unclear, but it was likely
the result of border struggles between the two kings. According to Bede, Penda
marched against Oswy with some 30 legions in an effort to destroy him. In the army,
as a testimony of Penda’s power, were soldiers and kings of Mercia’s neighboring
kingdoms. It is likely that Penda enjoyed some success against Oswy, besieging him
in a castle and nearly destroying the king and his army. Penda himself demanded
and received a significant amount of treasure from Oswy. But at the Battle of Win-
waed, near Leeds, on November of 654, Penda was defeated and killed by Oswy,
who, according to Bede, had promised God before the battle that if he were victo-
rious, he would consecrate his daughter to the religious life and build monasteries
on 12 estates. Following Penda’s death, Mercia was subjugated by Oswy, who re-
mained overlord until Penda’s son Wulfhere retook the throne.
Penda’s reign was important in the history of early Anglo-Saxon England. He
established Mercia as a significant power and extended his influence throughout
southern England. Although Mercia succumbed to Northumbria after his death,
Penda’s kingdom remained an important power in the coming generations. Al-
though not a Christian himself, he did allow the introduction of Christianity into
kingdoms under his control.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Bede; Mercia

Bibliography
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of
Europe, A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen (d. 640)

A leading noble in the Merovingian subkingdom of Austrasia, Pippin rose to promi-

nence in the revolt against the queen, Brunhilde, in 613. He was rewarded for his
role with the office of mayor of the palace and exercised great influence on the king-
dom during the reigns of Chlotar II and his son Dagobert. With St. Arnulf of Metz,
with whom he was joined by the marriage of his daughter and Arnulf’s son, Pippin
was one of the founders of the Carolingian dynasty. He built up substantial wealth
and family connections and laid the groundwork for the later success of the family.
Although his efforts were later undermined by the failed coup of his nephew Gri-
moald, Pippin’s achievements did provide the necessary foundation for the family’s
 Pippin I, Called Pippin of Landen | 451

ultimate triumph. His namesakes, Pippin II and III, restored the family to the office
of mayor of the palace, from which they rose to the office of king of the Franks.
Pippin’s rise to power was aided by birth and wise marriage alliances. He was
from an economically prosperous area of Austrasia, the Meuse River basin, where
his family held extensive lands. His position was enhanced by his marriage to Itta,
who was the sister of the future bishop of Trier and, according to a contemporary
text, was celebrated because of her virtues and wealth. The marriage alliance he
forged with Arnulf of Metz, however, proved of even greater value to Pippin and
his family. The marriage of his daughter Begga (d. 693) to Arnulf’s son Ansegisel
(d. 676) drew two powerful families closer together, and the lands of Pippin and
Arnulf provided the territorial and economic foundation for the Carolingian family
whose rise to prominence began with Pippin.
Already a wealthy and influential landowner, Pippin’s status in the kingdom
improved dramatically in 613 when he and Arnulf joined with the Merovingian
king Chlotar II to overthrow Queen Brunhilde, who had been the effective ruler of
Neustria and the bitter rival of Chlotar’s mother Fredegund. Successful in his revolt
and in reuniting the kingdom, Chlotar rewarded his supporters. Arnulf was made
bishop of Metz, and Pippin was made mayor of the palace in Austrasia, where he
became the virtual ruler. Pippin’s appointment came shortly after Chlotar appointed
his young son Dagobert king in Austrasia. Pippin assumed a heavy share of the
burden of government and held an office that enabled him to exercise great power
in the king’s name. Dagobert benefited from the tutelage of Pippin as well. More-
over, Pippin continued to serve the Merovingian dynasty after Chlotar’s death in
629. When Dagobert assumed control of the entire Merovingian kingdom, Pippin
continued in his position as mayor. According to the seventh-century chronicle of
Fredegar, Pippin provided a steadying hand in the early years of Dagobert’s reign.
The new king, who had ruled so well in Austrasia during his father’s lifetime, now
became debauched and greedy. Responding to the complaints of the nobles from
the subkingdom of Neustria, Pippin reprimanded the young king and restored him
to the virtues he exhibited during Chlotar’s life.
Although Fredegar recognized Pippin as a wise counselor who loved justice,
rival nobles in Austrasia were not so enamored of the mayor and sought to create a
break between Pippin and Dagobert. Their efforts were not immediately successful,
but Dagobert did gradually move away from his former mentor, and in 633 removed
him from the position of mayor. Pippin’s loss of office and the efforts to separate
him from Dagobert reveal the nature of Merovingian politics in the seventh cen-
tury. Although still firmly in charge of the kingdom, the Merovingians ruled over a
number of aristocratic families that were involved in frequently shifting alliances.
For much of his life, however, Pippin had been able to manage these alliances, as
his marriage ties suggest, and even after his fall from office he remained a vital
force in Austrasia.
452 | Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal

After the death of Dagobert in 639, Pippin moved quickly to retake his posi-
tion as mayor of the palace. According to Fredegar, he ruled prudently and through
friendly tips with his vassals. He also strove to have the nobility recognize the new
king in Austrasia, Sigebert III, the 10-year-old son of Dagobert. Despite his abil-
ity to restore his authority quickly after the death of Dagobert, Pippin did not rule
long; he died suddenly in 640. Although he did not long survive Dagobert, Pippin
had provided a secure base for his family’s future.
See also: Arnulf of Metz, St.; Austrasia; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Chlotar II;
Dagobert; Fredegar; Fredegund; Grimoald; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin II,
Called Pippin of Herstal; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal (d. 714)

Frankish mayor of the palace and virtual leader of the Merovingian kingdom in the
late seventh and early eighth centuries. His reign as mayor witnessed the further
growth in power of the Carolingian family, and contributed to the ultimate triumph
of the dynasty in the time of his descendants Pippin III the Short and Charlemagne.
His victory at the Battle of Tertry in 687 solidified his hold on power and reunited
the kingdom under the Merovingian king he supported, Theuderic III (d. 691). He
held the office of mayor and remained the main authority in the kingdom until his
death in 714. He was ultimately succeeded by his son Charles Martel.
Although Pippin was noted, according to the annals written circa 800, for “the
strength of his justice, the unconquerable solidity of his bravery and the guidance
of his moderation” (Fouracre 1996, 351), his path to power was not an easy one.
Despite the success of his grandfathers, Pippin I of Landen and Arnulf of Metz,
the second Pippin was faced by powerful opponents and forced to deal with the
failed coup of the family’s previous leader, Grimoald, who had sought to replace
the ruling Merovingian dynasty with a member of his own family. Pippin was
also forced to deal with the murder of his father, Ansegisel, who was killed by a
rival family after emerging as the leader of the family after Grimoald’s failure.
 Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal | 453

Moreover, in his first contests with the Neustrian mayors of the palace, Pippin,
who was an Austrasian noble, was defeated. In 680, he fought a battle against the
Neustrian mayor Ebroin and was decisively defeated. The family suffered more
than military defeat; Ebroin ordered the murder of Pippin’s brother, Martin, who
had sought refuge in Laon. A later battle with Ebroin’s successor Waratto ended
in another defeat for Pippin.
Although he endured some serious defeats early in his career, Pippin ultimately
triumphed over his Neustrian rivals. For one thing, the near tyrannical rule of the
Neustrian mayors alienated a large portion of the nobility, which turned to Pippin
for help. In 687, war again broke out between the Neustrian mayor, now Berchar,
and the Austrasians, led by Pippin. At the request of the Neustrian nobility, Pip-
pin led a campaign against Berchar and his king, Theuderic III, and fought a major
battle at Tertry. Pippin’s victory secured his position, along with that of his family,
in the kingdom. He took control of the king and the royal treasury and reunited the
kingdom under his authority as mayor of the palace. Pippin and his descendants
ruled the Frankish kingdom for the next three centuries, and after 751 they ruled
as kings.
From 687 until his death in 714, Pippin was the real power in the Frankish king-
dom, even though a member of the Merovingian dynasty continued to reside on
the throne. As mayor of the palace, Pippin directed both the internal and external
affairs of the realm. To strengthen his own position after the Battle of Tertry, Pippin
promoted family members and loyal supporters to key positions in the kingdom.
He made one supporter mayor in Neustria, and then later replaced this supporter
with his own son, Grimoald. He placed other allies in places of power in Neustria
and made other sons, including Drogo who was duke of the Burgundians, officials
in other parts of the kingdom. He also arranged marriages between his family and
the families of important nobles throughout the kingdom, the most successful of
the marriages he arranged being his own earlier marriage to Plectrude, who came
from an important family in the area of modern Cologne.
Pippin extended his family’s control of the kingdom, but he did not attempt to
usurp the Merovingian throne as his uncle Grimoald had. Perhaps learning the les-
sons of his uncle’s failed coup, Pippin continued to install Merovingians on the
throne. He ruled first with Theuderic III, and then with Clovis IV (r. 691–695),
Childebert III (r. 695–711), and finally Dagobert III (r. 711–715). Although not the
rois fainéants (do-nothing kings) of popular legend, these kings were clearly the
junior partners in the government of the kingdom. Indeed, as the Annals of Metz
notes, Pippin called the annual meeting of the nobles of the realm and presided over
it, after allowing the kings to ask for peace, call for the protection of widows and
orphans, and the like.
Among Pippin’s many duties was the prosecution of war against external foes
and rebellious elements within the kingdom. Although Pippin led the armies, the
454 | Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal

Annals of Metz report that the king “ordered the army to be ready for departure on
the appointed day” (356), which suggests that the Merovingian kings, with the ex-
ception of the infant Clovis, had greater authority than the pro-Carolingian annals
allow. Whatever the case, Pippin led a campaign into Aquitaine, the first of many
Carolingian forays into that rich region, which had traditionally resisted Frankish
authority. Of greater concern to Pippin, however, were affairs on the northern and
eastern frontiers of the kingdom. He marched against the Frisians to the north, who
had raided Frankish territory and had extensive trade contacts with England. Pip-
pin’s success against the Frisians was followed by the colonization of the region
by Austrasian nobles and by the construction of churches. Pippin also appointed
the Anglo-Saxon missionary Willibrord bishop of the newly conquered region. Al-
though relations between Rome and the Carolingians were formalized only in the
reign of Pippin’s grandson, the connection with Willibrord, who had close ties to
Rome, laid the foundation for the later alliance. Just as his descendants later ex-
panded on ties to Rome, so too they adopted his policy of conquest and conversion
of pagan peoples along their eastern frontier.
Pippin also exploited his relationship with the church in the kingdom. His rela-
tions with the bishops were sometimes difficult, and he exiled bishops and replaced
them with personal allies or family members. Pippin not only appointed bishops to
important sees in the kingdom, but also appointed abbots to prominent monaster-
ies. He also endowed monasteries and churches, and established proprietary family
churches. His ecclesiastical policy mirrored his political one and was intended to
further strengthen his and his family’s hold on power. Appointments to office and
charitable donations to religious communities were designed to bring the support of
the church to Pippin. Toward this end as well, Pippin put churches and monasteries,
and their significant wealth, under the control of close allies, and sometimes took
territories from the churches and granted the land to his supporters.
By the time of his death on December 16, 714, Pippin had successfully estab-
lished himself and, to a lesser degree, his family as the most important power in
the Frankish kingdom. His death, however, led the kingdom into turmoil, as his
wife and children struggled for control of his legacy. Despite the best efforts of his
widow, Plectrude, to promote the interests of her grandson, it was the son of one of
Pippin’s concubines, Charles Martel, who eventually took over his father’s legacy
and continued the growth of the family’s power.
See also: Arnulf of Metz, St.; Austrasia; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Mar-
tel; Grimoald; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria; Pippin of Landen; Pippin III, Called Pippin
the Short; Plectrude; Rois Fainéants; Tertry, Battle of; Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Bibliography
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Ha-
giography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
 Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short | 455

Gerberding, Richard, A. The Rise of the Carolingians and the “Liber Historiae
Francorum.” Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short (d. 768)

Mayor of the palace and founder of the Carolingian royal dynasty, Pippin laid the
foundation for much of Carolingian royal policy and success. Although often over-
shadowed by his more illustrious son, Charlemagne, Pippin was a great military,
political, and religious reformer in his own right. As mayor and king, he imposed his
authority on the kingdom and expanded its boundaries. He formalized the alliance
with the pope in Rome that had first been attempted during the reign of Pippin’s fa-
ther, Charles Martel. In fact, the alliance was essential for Pippin’s elevation to the
kingship, as well as for the long-term growth of the Papal States. Both before and
after his usurpation of the throne, Pippin was actively involved in the reform of the
church. In many ways, Pippin left a lasting and important legacy for Charlemagne
and the Carolingian line.
On the death of his father, Charles Martel, in 741, Pippin and his brother Carlo-
man inherited control of the kingdom. Although officially only mayor of the palace,
Charles Martel divided control of the kingdom between his two sons as any Frank-
ish king would, having ruled without a Merovingian king during the last three years
of his life. Pippin and Carloman inherited the office of mayor and authority over the
entire realm. Their succession to power, however, was not achieved without strife. In
the opening years of their joint reign, Pippin and Carloman faced widespread oppo-
sition, including the revolt of their half brother, Grifo, who had been excluded from
the inheritance. Although Grifo failed to gain power, he remained a problem until his
death in 753. But Grifo was not the only source of trouble for Pippin and Carloman at
the outset of their reign. They faced unrest and rebellion in Aquitaine and Bavaria, as
well as from other Frankish noble families who regarded the Carolingians as equals.
In 743, Pippin and Carloman discovered the heir to the Merovingian throne in a
monastery and restored him, as Childeric III, to his rightful place as king. The res-
toration, possibly initiated by Carloman, may have been done to suppress rebellious
456 | Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

partisans of the Merovingian dynasty or to establish legitimacy for the Carolin-

gians’ position. Whatever the purpose, the restoration of Childeric proved to be only
a short-term solution. In 747, after undertaking military campaigns and religious
reform with his brother, Carloman retired to the monastery of Mount Soracte near
Rome. Pippin moved quickly to restrict Carloman’s sons’ claims to power and to
consolidate his position as mayor. He was now the sole mayor in the kingdom and
king in everything but name.
In 750, Pippin took the first of several steps that brought about a revolution in
the Frankish kingdom. He sent two of his most trusted advisors, Archbishop Bur-
chard of Würzburg and Abbot Fulrad of St. Denis, to Pope Zachary (r. 741–752) in
Rome to ask whether the person with the power or the person with the title should
be king. Zachary answered as Pippin had hoped. By turning to the pope, Pippin
hoped to gain a higher spiritual sanction than that possessed by the Merovingians,
who claimed descent from a sea god. In 751, at an assembly of the leaders of the
realm in Soissons, Childeric was deposed and sent to a monastery. At the same
time, Pippin was elected king by the nobility and crowned and anointed king by
the bishops of the realm, including possibly, Boniface, the papal representative
in the kingdom. The ceremony of anointing, of unction, was borrowed from the
Hebrew Scriptures and was intended to establish the Carolingians as kings of the
new children of Israel.
In 753, Pope Stephen II (r. 752–757) traveled north to meet with Pippin. Fleeing
from the advances of the Lombard king Aistulf, Stephen hoped to secure the aid of
the Frankish king. The two met at the royal residence of Ponthion to discuss the issue
and other things during the winter of 753–754. Stephen received the promise of aid
from Pippin, who also supported the pope’s claims to various estates in central Italy.
The following spring, Pippin met with various nobles to gain support for a campaign
against the Lombards to protect the pope. Because of earlier alliances with the Lom-
bards, many nobles were reluctant to agree to the invasion of Italy, but the appear-
ance of Carloman, who had been sent to argue against the pope’s request by Aistulf,
helped Pippin’s cause. In July 754, Stephen upheld his side of the bargain, crowning
and anointing Pippin king. Stephen not only crowned Pippin but also crowned and
anointed his sons, Charles and Carloman, granted them the imperial title of patrician,
and declared that only descendants of Pippin could legitimately rule the Franks. The
revolution was now complete. The Carolingians had become the kings of the Franks
and, perhaps more importantly, had become close allies of the pope.
Although at first opposed to the invasion of Italy, the nobles agreed at a second
council in 755, after Aistulf had refused Pippin’s request to honor the pope. Pippin
invaded at the head of a large army and defeated the Lombards at Susa before laying
siege to the capital of Pavia. Aistulf relented, gave hostages, and agreed to return
territory to the pope. Once Pippin had withdrawn, however, Aistulf broke the treaty.
In 756, Pippin again invaded, with the enthusiastic support of the nobles, and again
laid siege to Pavia and forced Aistulf to submit. Pippin, determined to enforce the
 Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short | 457

agreement, sent Abbot Fulrad to each of the cities Aistulf was to return to the pope
to collect keys from them. A list was compiled by Fulrad, which has come to be
known as the Donation of Pippin, and deposited on the altar of St. Peter’s in Rome.
Aistulf’s death in 756 and the Lombard political situation thereafter made any re-
turn to Italy on Pippin’s part unnecessary. But his two invasions strengthened the
alliance between Rome and the Carolingians and helped establish the Papal States.
Pippin’s campaigns in Italy were not his only foreign military ventures. In fact,
he learned of Stephen’s journey to the Frankish kingdom in 753 while returning
from a campaign in Saxony. He raided Saxony to enforce a treaty that permitted
the free movement of Christian missionaries in that region. More important than
the Saxon campaign, however, was the reconquest of the duchy of Aquitaine, a re-
gion that had been part of the Frankish kingdom in the seventh century. A region of
great agricultural wealth, Aquitaine was also the center of opposition to Carolingian
power before and after 750. Moreover, Pippin claimed that the duke, Waifar, had
violated the integrity of the church. Defense of ecclesiastical and political interests
led Pippin to invade the duchy numerous times, including annual campaigns from
760 to 768. In 761, Pippin led a major expedition that saw his triumph over the duke
as well as the assassination of Waifar by some of his own men, probably in the pay
of Pippin. Although victorious over Waifar in 761, Pippin’s conquest of Aquitaine
was a painstaking process, in which the king gradually conquered forts and cities
and gradually won over Waifar’s vassals. To secure his hold on the duchy, Pippin
placed his supporters in positions of political power and installed loyal ecclesias-
tics as abbots of the monasteries in the duchy. Although a revolt occurred shortly
after his death, Pippin had restored Frankish control over Aquitaine and was able
to include the duchy in his legacy to his sons.
Along with his usurpation and military campaigns, Pippin carried out a num-
ber of political and religious reforms. One crucial policy was not a reform: Pippin
acquired extensive estates throughout the realm as a means to bolster his power.
In fact, the establishment of landed wealth and power was as important for his
elevation to the kingship as the coronation by the bishops. The accumulation of
land and loyal vassals on that land provided the justification for the usurpation
of the throne. Pippin acquired further power through the establishment of control
over monasteries throughout the realm, which he used to curtail the power of the
aristocratic bishops. One of the most important monasteries of the kingdom and a
former Merovingian royal monastery, St. Denis near Paris, became an important
supporter of Pippin and his new dynasty, and was important in Pippin’s elevation
to the kingship. He also reformed royal administration by increasing the use of
writing in government and by employing churchmen as administrators. Finally, he
commissioned a new edition of the Salic law that exalted the virtues of the Franks
and their new royal dynasty.
Pippin was also an active religious reformer both before and after the retirement
of his brother in 747. In the early years of his rule as mayor, Pippin recognized the
458 | Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

value of reform of the church, which had suffered during the civil wars of the previ-
ous generations. Although not as enthusiastic a supporter of the missionary and re-
form work of Boniface as was his brother Carloman, Pippin nonetheless supported
efforts to reform the church in the Frankish kingdom and certainly recognized the
value of the devotion to Rome that Boniface preached. After the retirement of Car-
loman and death of Boniface in 754, Pippin relied increasingly on Chrodegang,
bishop and then archbishop of Metz. Although the king promoted the role of the
monastery in the Frankish church, especially to limit the power of the bishops, he
found an important ally in Chrodegang, who presided over numerous councils with
the king during Pippin’s reign.
Councils were held at Ver in 755, at Verberie in 756, at Attigny in 760, and at
Gentilly in 767, and were intended to reform religious life and organization in the
kingdom. Chrodegang encouraged a closer alliance with Rome for the church, in-
corporating Roman liturgical traditions in the church, and improved ecclesiastical
discipline among the clergy, who had been derided by Boniface for their ignorance
and immorality. The clergy, according to Boniface, indulged in battle and com-
mitted adultery, and one priest could not offer the blessing properly, blessing “in
the name of the country and of the daughter.” The councils sought to combat these
problems, and passed legislation prohibiting clergy from going to war and demand-
ing that monks and nuns renounce wealth and accept stability. The councils of Pip-
pin also sought to improve church organization by prohibiting the establishment of
monasteries on private land by lay nobles.
By his death in 768, Pippin had taken control of the kingdom of the Franks, and
he was able to pass the kingship on to his two sons, Charles and Carloman. In good
Frankish tradition, Pippin divided the kingdom between his two sons. As a coun-
terbalance to that potentially disruptive tradition, however, Pippin had established
the traditions in government, the church, and military that his son Charles, or Char-
lemagne as he came to be known, exploited to such great end. Although he did not
adopt all the policies of his father, Charles was nonetheless greatly indebted to his
father for the legacy he left behind. Indeed, if Pippin’s achievements had been lim-
ited to the founding of the Carolingian royal dynasty, he would certainly still be
an important figure. But his reform of the Frankish church and government, which
also paved the way for the Carolingian Renaissance emerging under Charlemagne,
were important for the long-term success of his dynasty. His association with the
pope set a precedent for church–state relations that lasted until at least the end of
the Middle Ages, and his conquests created a powerful kingdom that his son was
able to transform into an empire. Truly, Pippin was a great king.
See also: Aistulf; Boniface, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Char-
lemagne; Charles Martel; Childeric III; Chrodegang of Metz; Clovis; Donation of Pippin;
Merovingian Dynasty; Paris; Rome; Salic Law; Saint-Denis, Abbey of
 Plectrude | 459

Bibliography
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Ganshof, François Louis. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas X. F. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Plectrude (d. after 721)

Wife of the Carolingian mayor of the palace Pippin II of Herstal (d. 714) and, after
her husband’s death, rival for control of the Frankish kingdom and the Merovin-
gian king with Charles Martel (d. 741), who was Pippin’s son by another woman.
A member of an important noble family, Plectrude offered Pippin a good marriage
alliance and sought to keep control of her power after her husband’s death and pro-
mote her own heirs to the office of mayor.
Plectrude was from an important noble family that had extensive domains in the
area between the Rhine, Meuse, and Moselle Rivers. Her father, Hugobert, was a
powerful palace official whose connections and wealth made marriage to Plectrude
an attractive proposition. Moreover, she had no brothers, only sisters, and was sure
to inherit many of the vast estates of her family, thus making her an even more cov-
eted bride. In 670, Pippin married Plectrude and increased his own power in the
north and northwest of the Frankish kingdom as a result. She bore him two sons,
Drogo (d. 708) and Grimoald (d. 714), whose marriages further enhanced their fa-
ther’s power. Pippin married the mother of Charles Martel while his first wife still
lived, but Plectrude remained the favored and politically prominent wife. She con-
tinued by Pippin’s side during the rest of his life, signed official documents as his
wife, and supported various monasteries in the kingdom, especially Echternach,
which was associated with her mother.
460 | Procopius

Plectrude remained at her husband’s side during his life, and she attempted to
keep power after his death in 714. Both of her sons had predeceased their father, Gri-
moald having died only a few months before Pippin, and after her husband’s death
she promoted Grimoald’s son Theodoald to the office of mayor of the palace to the
Merovingian king Dagobert III (d. 715). She also took control of Pippin’s treasure
and imprisoned her stepson Charles Martel to secure Theodoald’s position and pre-
vent Charles from seizing power. Her efforts on her grandson’s behalf were met with
hostility by the part of the nobility opposed to Pippin and his family. According to a
contemporary chronicler, Plectrude kept “Charles from the legitimate governance of
his father’s authority and she herself, with the infant, in a womanly plan, presumed
to control the reins of so great a kingdom” (Fouracre 1996, 365). This hostile chroni-
cler continues that because “she had decided to rule with feminine cunning more
cruelly than was necessary, she quickly turned the wrath of the Neustrian Franks to
the destruction of her grandson” (365). She faced a revolt that ended with Theodo-
ald in flight and a new mayor, Ragamfred, elected in his stead. The new mayor later
marched against her in Cologne and seized part of Pippin’s legacy. Not only did she
face opposition from outside the family, but her stepson, Charles, also rose against
her, seized the rest of his father’s wealth, and ultimately took control of the kingdom.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Marriage; Merovingian Dynasty; Neustria;
Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal

Bibliography
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and
Hagiography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Fouracre, Paul. The Age of Charles Martel. New York: Longman, 2000.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500–900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Poitiers, Battle of. See Tours, Battle of

Procopius (c. 490/507–560)

Author of the most important histories of the reign of Justinian and Theodora, Pro-
copius was an eyewitness and participant in the events he describes. Although he
was also the author of official histories of Justinian’s reign, Procopius is known best
 Procopius | 461

for his scandalous and unrelentingly hostile work The Secret History (Anecdota, or
Unpublished Things), which portrayed nearly everyone associated with Justinian
in a most negative light. Indeed, his invective against Theodora was so harsh, and
nearly pornographic, that the great historian Edward Gibbon wrote that “her arts
must be veiled in the obscurity of a learned language,” and J. B. Bury described the
Secret History as an “orgy of hatred.” At the same time, Procopius did write very
important official histories, including History of the Wars (Polemon, or De bellis)
and On Buildings (Peri Ktismaton, or De aedificiis).
Procopius was probably born around 500, as early as 490 and as late as 507, in
Caesarea in ancient Palestine (modern Israel). Little is known of his early life, but
he probably received an education according to ancient traditions and was learned
in the Greek classics. Indeed, as his later works clearly show, he knew the writ-
ings of the great historians Herodotus (c. 484–430/420 bc) and Thucydides (460–
after 404 bc). He later became a rhetor, or attorney, and in 527 joined the staff of
the great general Belisarius as a legal advisor. He remained with Belisarius until
540 and joined him on his campaigns against the Persians (527–531), the Vandals
(533–534), and the Goths (535–540). He may well have lost the general’s favor in
540 and returned to Constantinople after Belisarius captured Ravenna and remained
in the imperial capital until his death, although his exact movements are uncertain.
He did witness the plague in Constantinople in 542, received the title illustris in
560, and may have been prefect of Constantinople in 562–563. Although much re-
mains uncertain about his movements after 542, and even the date of his death is not
definitely known, it was after his return from the Gothic campaign that Procopius
began to write. He published his great official histories in the 550s and 560s; the
Secret History was published after his death. Although much is uncertain concern-
ing his life, his literary record remains a significant and lasting achievement.
Procopius’s works provide important accounts of the political and military af-
fairs of the day as well as bitterly personal insights into the major figures of his day.
Written in Greek, his works draw on Herodotus, Thucydides, and possibly Arrian
(d. 180 ad) and reveal his growing disenchantment with Justinian and the members
of his court, including Belisarius and, especially, Theodora. His first work, History
of the Wars, was published in 551 or 552, with an addition in 554 or 557, and cov-
ers the emperor Justinian’s wars from the 530s to 554. Divided into eight books, the
History addresses the wars with the Persian Empire (Books 1–2); wars against the
Vandals (Books 3–4); and the Gothic Wars (Books 5–7). The eighth book surveys all
theaters of war from 550 to 554. The accounts focus on military and political affairs
and often include speeches from the participants and other digressions from the main
narrative. The work also reveals his belief in Christianity and opposition to doctrinal
disputes and, more importantly, his growing disenchantment with Justinian. Despite
that developing hostility, Procopius did also write a panegyric to Justinian, possibly
commissioned by the emperor, on the emperor’s building program.
462 | Procopius

Published in 560 or 561, although possibly unfinished, On Buildings may have

been written several years earlier, possibly before the collapse of the dome of the
Hagia Sophia in 558. The work describes in important details Justinian’s building
program throughout the empire. Procopius discusses the numerous fortifications
and churches—including the Hagia Sophia, the greatest of all—and supports the
ideology of Byzantine imperialism, stressing that Justinian served and was inspired
by God. In stark contrast to the portrayal of the emperor in Buildings, The Secret
History offers a vicious and vindictive portrait of Justinian and Theodora and oth-
ers. It purports to offer the “true” reasons for the actions of the emperor and em-
press, who were motivated by greed and a desire for evildoing, and describes them
both as demons, a term he meant literally and not as a figure of speech. The Secret
History does offer some substantial criticisms of Justinian’s policies, but it is best
known for its purple prose and scurrilous attacks on the empire’s leaders. Although
written as early as 550, The Secret History was not published until after Procopi-
us’s death and was lost for centuries, being discovered in the Vatican Library and
published in 1632.
See also: Belisarius; Constantinople; Gothic Wars; Justinian; Ostrogoths; Theodora; Vandals

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, A.D. 395–600. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London: Routledge, 1996.
Evans, James A. S., Procopius. New York: Twayne, 1972.
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Modern Li-
brary, 1983.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Trans. H. B. Dewing. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1924.
R
Radagaisus. See Stilicho

Radegund (c. 525–587)

Merovingian queen and abbess, Radegund stands in stark contrast to other famous
sixth-century Merovingian queens such as Brunhilde and Fredegund, who were
known for their bloody quest for power and defense of family interests. Unlike
them, Radegund renounced the worldly life and rejected an earthly family for a
heavenly one. Although married to a Merovingian king, she lived a celibate life and
was eventually allowed to leave her husband and found a convent. Her community,
in which Radegund accepted a lowly position rather than that of abbess, was well
known for its piety, but also for its internal turmoil, brought on by the competition
between noble and non-noble members of the convent. Even though she renounced
the world, Radegund did not remain completely separate from it, corresponding
with bishops, kings, and emperors. She was held in such great esteem by her con-
temporaries that they wrote two biographies of her, and the sixth-century historian
Gregory of Tours included much information about her in his History of the Franks,
as well as the letter of the foundation of her monastery.
Born to the royal family of the barbarian kingdom of Thuringia in about 525,
Radegund was brought into the Merovingian kingdom in 531 when the sons of the
first Merovingian king, Clovis, Theuderic I (r. 511–533) and Chlotar I (r. 511–561),
destroyed her family’s kingdom. Radegund herself described the destruction of
the kingdom in an epic poem she wrote, which reveals her sadness over the king-
dom’s fate and the death of her brother, who was killed by Chlotar sometime after
he captured the brother and sister and took them back to his kingdom. Although he
already had at least one wife and as many as seven, Chlotar married Radegund in
540 to legitimize his authority in Thuringia. According to one of her biographers,
the sixth-century poet Venantius Fortunatus, who was her chaplain, Radegund spent
her youth in preparation for her eventual marriage and was well educated, study-
ing the works of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Jerome, and Pope Gregory the Great,
among others. During her marriage to Chlotar, Radegund remained celibate, much
to her husband’s dismay, but was able to exploit her position for the benefit of oth-
ers nonetheless. She actively sought to free captives, often paying the ransoms for
their release. She also spent lavishly on the poor.

463
464 | Radegund

Radegund and King Chlotar from the Life of Saint Radegund,

10th–11th century manuscript. (De Agostini/Getty Images)

Her marriage to Chlotar, however, was clearly not meant to last, and at around
550 she left him to found the monastery of the Holy Cross in Poitiers. The accounts
of her separation from her husband are contradictory. According to Venantius For-
tunatus, Radegund was allowed to leave her husband because of the murder of her
brother. Chlotar, after killing her brother, not only allowed the separation but sent
her to the bishop of Soissons, who was to consecrate her in the religious life to calm
the situation politically with the bishops of his own kingdom. Her other biographer
and disciple, Baudonivia, writing in the early seventh century, portrayed the whole
affair differently. She wrote that after Radegund had left the king, Chlotar fell into a
fit of despair and desired that his wife return to him. Indeed, he even went to Poitiers
with one of his sons, Sigebert, to take his wife back, but relented in the end and al-
lowed her to take up the religious life. This decision was influenced by Radegund’s
connections with numerous bishops of the kingdom, who helped persuade Chlotar
to allow her to live as a nun. Moreover, not only did Chlotar allow her to take the
veil but he also provided a substantial endowment so that she could establish her
new community in Poitiers.
 Radegund | 465

Although the founder of the new religious community, Radegund was not its ab-
bess. As noted in the letter of foundation, preserved by Gregory of Tours, Radegund
appointed Lady Agnes as mother superior. Radegund writes, “I submitted myself to
her in regular obedience to her authority, after God” (535). Indeed, despite her royal
standing, Radegund lived her life at the monastery of the Holy Cross as a regular
nun and set the example in pious living for the other nuns in the community to fol-
low. Baudonivia wrote in her biography that Radegund “did not impose a chore un-
less she had performed it first herself” (Thiébaux 1994, 113). She was also zealous
in the performance of her religious duties and was frequently at prayer. Even while
resting, Radegund had someone read passages from the Scriptures to her. She also
performed acts of extreme self-mortification, and, according to Venantius Fortuna-
tus, sealed herself up in a wall in her monastery near the end of her life and lived
there as a hermit until her death.
Radegund lived her life as a simple nun in her community, but she was still roy-
alty. She continued to participate in the life of the kingdom and used her status for
the benefit of the community she established. In her foundation letter, she secured
the protection of her monastery from the leading bishops of the realm as well as
from various Merovingian kings. She also cultivated her relationship with the bish-
ops of the realm, including her biographer, Venantius Fortunatus, and Gregory of
Tours, after the initial contacts at the foundation. Her royal status enabled her to
acquire a piece of the True Cross (believed to be the cross on which Christ was cru-
cified) from the emperor in Constantinople. This act, which benefited her commu-
nity, may also have had political overtones. Her correspondence with the emperor
and his delivery of the holy relic may have been intended to improve diplomatic
ties between the Merovingian dynasty and Byzantine emperors. She also prayed
for the various Merovingian kings and often sent them letters of advice, partly in
an effort to preserve the peace within the Merovingian kingdom. She also prohib-
ited the marriage of a Merovingian princess, a nun at the convent in Poitiers, to the
Visigothic prince Reccared. Indeed, even though she lived the life of a simple nun,
Radegund played an important role in the kingdom because of her status as a for-
mer Merovingian queen.
See also: Augustine of Hippo, St.; Brunhilde; Fredegund; Gregory of Tours; Gregory I, the
Great, Pope; Merovingian Dynasty; Monasticism; Reccared I; Visigoths; Women

Bibliography
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of Their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, ca.
500–1100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Thiébaux, Marcelle, trans. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology. New York:
Garland, 1994.
466 | Ravenna

Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500–900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Ravenna

A wealthy city along the Adriatic coast, Ravenna assumed increasing prominence
in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. It was recognized as the imperial capi-
tal of the Western Empire in the fifth century and was later the residence of the
Ostrogothic ruler of Italy, Theodoric. Following the reconquest of Italy by Justinian,
Ravenna became the outpost of Byzantine power in Italy and retained that position
into the eighth century. Although its importance declined after that, it remained the
home of some of the greatest monuments of late antique and early medieval art and
architecture.
Ravenna may have existed first as an Etruscan settlement and was made a Roman
city in 49 bc. It grew in importance in the early empire as a result of the con-
struction of the canal connecting the Po River and the city’s port of Classis. The
city prospered as a result of trade but only later emerged as a major political center.
In 402, the emperor Honorius, moving from Milan, made Ravenna the seat of his
government, and it remained the capital of the Western Empire throughout the fifth
century. Honorius’s sister, Galla Placidia, resided there for a time and made the city,
which had become a bishopric in the second century, a center of Christian art and
culture. Her mausoleum is one of the monuments of early Christian architecture;
it is a dome structure that is decorated with yellow marble and covered throughout
with mosaics.
Following the fall of the Western Empire in 476, Ravenna retained its position as
a working capital and was the seat of the barbarian kings Odovacar and Theodoric.
It was at Ravenna that Odovacar made his last stand in his struggle with Theodoric
and endured a three year siege before coming to terms with and being murdered by
Theodoric. As ruler in Italy, Theodoric made Ravenna the seat of his government
and undertook, in traditional Roman fashion, a major building program in the city.
An Arian Christian, Theodoric was eager to establish religious structures for his
faith even though he was careful not to offend the Catholic population that lived
in Ravenna and throughout Italy. Along with a number of secular buildings, a new
Arian baptistery was built by Theodoric that was octagonal in design with a dome
on top and mosaics throughout. He also built a magnificent two-storey mausoleum
that borrowed very little from Byzantine or late Roman traditions and established
an independent Gothic style.
In the year 540, Ravenna was recovered by Justinian and his general Belisarius
during the emperor’s reconquest of Italy. As a result the city’s prosperity and
 Reccared I | 467

importance continued to increase. In the 580s, Ravenna was established as an ex-

archate, the administrative center of Byzantine political and military power in Italy.
In the later sixth and seventh centuries, the emperors in Constantinople sought
to direct affairs in Italy and exercise control over the pope through the exarch in
Ravenna. The city also served in the empire’s struggle with the Lombards, who
had invaded Italy in 568. Elevated in political power, Ravenna also benefited from
the building programs undertaken by Justinian and his successors. A number of
churches begun by Theodoric were completed by Justinian and include dazzling
mosaics. The most famous of these churches is San Vitale, which contains a mosaic
depiction of Justinian and his wife Theodora and their entourages.
Ravenna’s prosperity and importance as a Byzantine provincial capital was
threatened by the Lombards who sought to control all of Italy. Lombard kings laid
siege to Ravenna, and the city finally fell to the Lombard king Aistulf, whose efforts
may have been aided by growing resentment in Italy toward Constantinople be-
cause of the emperor’s iconoclastic policies. As a result of the conquest of Ravenna,
the exarchate was abolished and Byzantine power was restricted to southern Italy.
Ravenna’s fortunes faded after the conquest, and the pope in Rome sought to es-
tablish his authority over the city. Under the Carolingians, the city was freed from
the Lombards but granted to the papacy. Although enjoying increased authority in
his diocese in the eighth century, the archbishop served as a representative of the
pope. Ravenna’s influence and independence were further eroded as a result of the
deterioration of the port of Classis and the rise of Venice. The history of the arch-
bishops was composed by Agnellus of Ravenna in the ninth century.
See also: Belisarius; Gothic Wars; Honorius; Justinian; Odovacar; Ostorogoths; Theodora;
Theodoric

Bibliography
Agnellus of Ravenna. The Book of the Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna. Trans. Deborah
M. Deliyannis. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004.
Deliyannis, Deborah M. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
Simson, Otto von. Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Reccared I (d. 601)

Son of the last Visigothic Arian king of Spain, Leovigild, and brother of the re-
bellious Hermenegild, Reccared was the first Catholic Christian king of Spain
(r. 573/586–601). Although he broke from his father’s religion, Reccared built upon
468 | Reccared I

Leovigild’s efforts to unify the kingdom under one religious faith. He held an im-
portant church council to confirm the place of the new faith in the kingdom and
promoted the ideal of sanctified kingship, with the support of the church. He also
took great strides to enforce his authority over the Visigothic nobility in Spain and
to extend the power of the Visigothic kingdom in Europe through marriage alli-
ances and warfare.
During the reign of Leovigild, both Reccared and his brother Hermenegild
played important roles at court. Their father was a successful king who enjoyed
victories over other peoples in Spain, including the Byzantines. He also cultivated
an almost imperial ideal of kingship in Spain, a legacy Reccared later enjoyed. Rec-
cared and his brother were made coregents with Leovigild in 573, a step designed
to strengthen Leovigild’s hold in the kingdom and to establish a royal dynasty in
Spain. In 578, Leovigild, in imitation of the Roman emperors, founded a new city,
now Toledo, which he named Reccopolis after his younger son. Perhaps because of
the favoritism shown him by his father, Reccared remained loyal to Leovigild and
did not join the rebellion of Hermenegild in 579. Under the influence of his Catholic
Merovingian wife, Ingunde, and Leander of Seville, archbishop and older brother
of Isidore, Hermenegild converted to Catholic Christianity. Conflict between fa-
ther and son continued until 584, when the dispute was resolved. The murder of
Hermenegild in 585 paved the way for the eventual succession of Reccared to the
throne on his father’s death in 586.
As king in his own name, Reccared built on the legacy of his father. Even in terms
of religion, Reccared can be seen to have continued his father’s policies, with the ex-
ception that the unifying religion in Visigothic Spain was Catholic Christianity, not
Arian Christianity as his father had hoped. In 587 Reccared converted to Catholic
Christianity, which brought him and the kingdom in line with the Hispano-Roman
population as well as with his sometime rival the Franks. His conversion also found
support from the established Catholic church and the pope, Gregory the Great, with
whom Reccared began to correspond. Although generally accepted in Spain, Rec-
cared’s conversion did meet some opposition from the Arian bishops, who were
supported by the king’s stepmother, Gosvintha. This opposition notwithstanding,
Reccared converted the Visigoths to Catholic Christianity, and to celebrate and
confirm his conversion Reccared held a great church council, the Third Council of
Toledo, in 589. The council was attended by the five archbishops of Spain, some
50 Catholic bishops, eight former Arian bishops, and many Arian priests and secu-
lar nobles. All participants at the council confessed the Nicene Creed, confirming
their acceptance of Catholic Christianity, and the council passed a series of laws
for the church in Spain. The former Arian bishops were welcomed into the Catholic
church and confirmed in their sees. Reccared had successfully unified the kingdom
under the banner of religion and was recognized by contemporaries for his great
accomplishment.
 Reccared I | 469

Reccared’s successes were not limited to the sphere of religion. He built on

his father’s policy of bringing the nobility to heel and asserting royal authority
over them. At one point, he uncovered a conspiracy against him led by a leading
noble. The rebel was captured and forced to endure the decalvatio (which was ei-
ther the shaving of his head or scalping; the meaning is uncertain), had his right
hand chopped off, and was led through Toledo on a donkey to send a warning to
other possible rebels. The king also maintained good relations with the papacy and
generally prospered in the international arena, especially in his dealings with the
Merovingian Franks. His father had arranged a marriage for him with Rigund, the
daughter of Chilperic I. But Chilperic’s death ended the possibility of the marriage,
and the revolt and death of Hermenegild further complicated relationships with the
Merovingians. Despite concerns over the fate of Hermenegild’s wife and the enmity
of Guntram, the most important Merovingian king of the day, Reccared arranged to
marry a Merovingian princess. The marriage in fact failed to take place, and Rec-
cared married a Visigothic woman, Baddo. Nevertheless, his ability to arrange the
marriage in the first place demonstrates his stature in Merovingian eyes. Moreover,
although Guntram approved the marriage, he later attacked Visigothic territory but
was easily defeated by Reccared.
Reccared also furthered his father’s policy of enhancing the stature of Visigothic
kingship, elevating it to almost imperial rank. Indeed, he clearly ruled as an emperor
in his kingdom, as had Leovigild. Reccared also organized larger administrative
units in the kingdom as subdivisions of an empire. His relationship with the church
in Spain also resembled that of a Roman emperor with the church in the empire.
Building upon the precedents of his father, Reccared left an important legacy to
the Visigothic kingdom in Spain, a legacy that survived the murder of his son and
successor, Liuva II, and the end of the dynasty in 603.
See also: Arianism; Chilperic I; Franks; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Guntram; Hermenegild;
Isidore of Seville; Leovigild; Merovingian Dynasty; Toledo; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. London: Longman, 1983.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2nd rev.
ed. Trans. Guido Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Thompson, E. A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
470 | Ricimer

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Reihengräber. See Row-Grave Cemeteries

Religion, Germanic. See Germanic Religion

Ricimer (d. 472)

Roman military leader of Germanic descent, Ricimer (in full, Flavius Ricimer) was
the power behind the throne in the Western Empire from 456 until his death in 472.
Although an Arian Christian and a barbarian and therefore constitutionally unable
to hold imperial office, Ricimer, like Stilicho before him, was the real ruler in the
Western Empire. He appointed and deposed emperors and struggled against various
rivals and usurpers. He also kept Italy safe from attacks by Alans, Ostrogoths, and
Vandals. Indeed, his success in the defense of Italy is best illustrated by its fall to
the Germanic general Odovacar only four years after Ricimer’s death.
The son of parents of royal Suevi and Visigothic descent, Ricimer rose to promi-
nence, as did many Germans of his day, through military service to Rome. Early
on in his military career, while in the service of Aëtius, he befriended the future
emperor Marjorian. He became a great hero to the Romans in 456, when he suc-
cessfully defended Italy from a Vandal attack off Sicily and Corsica. His exploits
earned him promotion to the office of master of the soldiers. In the same year,
Ricimer joined with his friend Marjorian to depose the reigning emperor in the
west, Avitus. Marjorian demonstrated the potential to be an effective emperor and
suppressed a near revolt in southern Gaul shortly after his ascension. He also en-
joyed a victory over the Visigoths in Gaul in 460, but suffered a disastrous defeat
at the hands of Gaiseric and the Vandals. Unfortunately, his early display of ability
and initiative inspired the enmity of his friend Ricimer. Upon Marjorian’s return to
Italy from Gaul after his defeat at the hands of the Vandals, Ricimer captured him
and executed him in August 461.
Ricimer then became the undisputed master of Italy and parts of the Western
Empire. He then promoted a puppet emperor, whom he dominated until 465. The
greatest threat to his power came from a general in Gaul, Aegidius, who refused
to recognize Ricimer’s authority. To counter Aegidius, Ricimer denounced him as
a usurper and used barbarian kings in the north against him; his death by poison-
ing in 464 strengthened Ricimer’s hand. The next great threat to his power came in
467 with the arrival of a new emperor, Anthemius, who had been appointed by the
Eastern emperor, Leo I. But any possibility of competition was eliminated by the
 Roderic | 471

marriage of Ricimer to Anthemius’s daughter. The good relations, however, did not
last; and the two became rivals fairly quickly, and civil war broke out in 472 after
Anthemius’s failure in a campaign against Vandal Africa. Ricimer appointed Oly-
brius emperor and defeated his rival in battle on July 11, 472. Ricimer, however,
did not long survive his rival and died on August 18, 472. His death paved the way
for further unrest and the establishment of a Germanic kingdom in Italy, but his
virtual reign preserved the integrity of imperial Italy from the attacks of Vandals,
Visigoths, and other barbarians.
See also: Aëtius; Alans; Arianism; Gundobad; Odovacar; Ostrogoths; Stilicho, Flavius;
Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Dill, Samuel. Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age. 1926. Reprint, London:
Allen and Unwin, 1966.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Roderic (d. 711/712)

Generally identified as the last of the Gothic kings of Spain, the Visigoth Roderic
was defeated by Tariq ibn Ziyad and his Muslim army from North Africa in 711.
Little is known of Roderic’s early life, and his reign as king was short lived as a
result of the weaknesses of the Visigoth kingdom and the Muslim invasion of 711.
In 710, the ruling king Witiza (r. 702–710) died and was to be succeeded by his
son Akhila, but a revolt led by the nobles disrupted the succession. Roderic was
then offered the throne by the nobles or seized the opportunity and defeated Akhila
and his brothers in battle. Although the circumstances are unclear, Roderic became
king in either 710 or 711 and faced the challenge of securing his control of Spain.
He was faced with challenges in the northeast of Spain from rivals for power and
from the Basques who had long opposed Visigothic rule. It was while he was busy
in the northeast that Roderic faced an even greater threat, Tariq’s invasion from
North Africa.
According to legend, Witiza’s sons invited Tariq to Spain to defeat Roderic so
that they could reclaim the throne. Although unlikely, the legend does reflect that
political turmoil in Spain, and it was most likely that Tariq took the opportunity
to invade at the worst possible time for Roderic who hurried south to meet the in-
vader. Contemporary accounts note that Roderic led an army of between 50,000
and 100,000, which is clearly an exaggeration, but the armies on both sides were
472 | Rois Fainéants (Do-Nothing Kings)

surely substantial. The two armies met in July 711 (or perhaps 712) in the Trans-
ductine Promontories, and Roderic was defeated and killed. The Gothic capital,
Toledo, fell not long after and by the end of the decade most of Visigothic Spain
had fallen to the Muslims.
See also: Toledo; Visigoths

Bibliography
Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain 409–711. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus.
London: Longman, 1996.

Rois Fainéants (Do-Nothing Kings)

Rois Fainéants is the name traditionally applied to the last of the kings of the
Merovingian dynasty. The so-called rois fainéants, or do-nothing kings, held the
throne from the death of Dagobert in 638 to the deposition of the final Merovingian
king, Childeric III, in 751 by Pippin III the Short. Although a fairly common desig-
nation, it is a misleading one. The decline of the Merovingian dynasty was neither
as dramatic nor as rapid as the name implies. In fact, the Merovingians remained
important figures in the Frankish kingdoms until the time of Charles Martel in the
early eighth century.
The impression of sudden and extreme Merovingian weakness is primarily the
result of the eighth and ninth century sources that tell the tale of the last century
of Merovingian rule. Most of these sources were written by those who supported
the Carolingian dynasty that replaced the Merovingians in 751. These sources por-
trayed the Carolingian kings in the most favorable light and the last of the descen-
dants of the first great Frankish king, Clovis (r. 481–511), in the worst light. The
most important of these sources is the Life of Charlemagne written by Einhard, a
member of Charlemagne’s court. According to Einhard the last Merovingian king,
Childeric, was a pathetic figure indeed. Childeric possessed little but the title of
king, according to Einhard, and sat on the throne playing the role of king with his
long hair and flowing beard. He had little wealth, only the income of a small estate
and whatever the Carolingian mayors of the palace provided to support him. He
would ride in an oxcart to attend the general assembly of the kingdom, at which
whatever answers he gave to questions of state or to visiting ambassadors were ini-
tiated by the mayor of the palace. Although the real power of Childeric was quite
limited, this portrayal clearly exaggerates the relative power of the Merovingian and
Carolingian families, and it has cast an inaccurate shadow over the Merovingian
kings of the previous century. Einhard and other pro-Carolingian writers developed
this image to buttress the claims to the throne of a dynasty that only a generation
or so before usurped royal power.
 Rome | 473

Although the Carolingians exploited their power as mayors of the palace dur-
ing the late seventh and early eighth centuries, they were not the sole aristocratic
family seeking power, and the Merovingian dynasty remained an important part of
the power structure in the Frankish kingdoms. The continued strength of the de-
scendants of Clovis is demonstrated by a number of things. The failure of the coup
of Grimoald, a Carolingian mayor, in the 650s shows that the Franks were not yet
ready for a new royal dynasty. The various aristocratic factions in the three Frankish
kingdoms—Austrasia, Burgundy, and Neustria—competed for control of the king-
doms and for access to the kings. The murders of the Merovingian kings Childeric II
and Dagobert II in the 670s were due not to their weakness but rather due to their
strength and the opposition to their policies. As late as the 720s Merovingian kings
issued charters and other royal enactments for the kingdoms that were effectively
implemented. In fact, in the early eighth century, when the Carolingians were
clearly in the ascendancy, Merovingian kings competed for the support of impor-
tant monasteries. Perhaps the best example of the lingering prestige of the dynasty
as late as the 740s is the appointment by Pippin and Carloman of Childeric III as
king. Thus, although the later Merovingian kings were not the equals of Clovis, the
founder of the dynasty, they were not the weak and ineffective kings of tradition.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Childeric III; Clovis;
Dagobert; Einhard; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.

Rome

The original capital and main center of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome de-
clined in political importance during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.
Suffering during the barbarian invasions and enduring a decline in population and
economic importance, Rome emerged as the most important religious center of
early medieval Europe and the residence of the pope. The popes were essential
in the rebuilding of the city and the construction of important churches and other
structures, and the actions of a number of popes throughout the early Middle Ages
enhanced the spiritual power and prestige of Rome.
Although Rome would gradually cede its position of preeminence in the West-
ern Empire to Milan and later Ravenna, it was still the great capital of empire at
the opening of the fourth century. In the great struggle for authority in the Western
Empire, Constantine won control of the west in his victory at the Milvian Bridge
in 312. He would, however, move his capital to Constantinople, thus beginning the
decline of Rome’s imperial authority, but before doing so Constantine contributed
474 | Rome

to new construction in the city, including the Arch of Constantine, and the transfer
or construction of new Christian churches. The basilica of Constantine (later called
St. John of the Lateran), was built and bestowed on the pope and construction was
begun on Saint Peter’s Basilica, replacing the former structure built over what were
held to be the relics of St. Peter. He also began work on the funerary monument that
would emerge in the 360s as the mausoleum of Santa Constanza, and the mosaics
of the mausoleum established important models for Christian art. Leaving Rome
for Constantinople, Constantine nonetheless left an important legacy to the city and
aided in its conversion to a Christian capital.
Rome’s fates declined during the later fourth and fifth centuries as the empire
faced the challenge of the barbarian invasions. In the late fourth century, Milan
became the main imperial capital of the Western Empire because it held a more
geographically desirable location to monitor the frontiers and movements of bar-
barian peoples. In 410, the Visigoths led by their king Alaric sacked the city, caus-
ing profound shock throughout the empire even though Rome was no longer a
capital. The Goths did serious damage to many of the buildings of Rome but left
most of the churches unharmed, and the churches and that suffered were rebuilt
or repaired by the popes who also built lavish new churches. An even more seri-
ous assault on the city occurred in 455, when Gaiseric and the Vandals subjected
to the city to a sacking lasting some 14 days, the ferocity of which far exceeded
the destruction wrought by the Goths. As one consequence of the human disasters
inflicted on Rome and is loss of prestige as the capital, the population dropped by
the mid-fifth century to some 250,000 from its height of one million two centuries
earlier. In the face of this decline, however, Rome’s future as the religious capital of
the west was beginning to be established. Pope Leo I the Great undertook renova-
tion of the various churches in the city and saved it from destruction at the hands of
Attila in 453. His defense of orthodoxy further enhanced the position of Rome as
the Christian capital, a position confirmed, with some qualification, at the council
of Chalcedon in 451.
During the sixth century Rome’s glory faded even further as the population
declined to a mere 50,000 as Italy once again became a great battleground. The
Gothic Wars launched by the emperor Justinian sought to restore imperial control
over Italy, which it did at great cost. Rome itself suffered greatly during the con-
flict between the Byzantines and Ostrogoths, who had come to control Italy in the
late fifth century. The city faced three separate sieges during the conflict and much
of its infrastructure, especially the aqueducts that brought water into Rome, were
devastated. The Byzantine victory brought Rome back under imperial control and
placed it under the exarch in Ravenna who supervised dukes who administered the
city. The pope himself recognized imperial authority and sought to cooperate with
the emperor and his representative and to ensure the protection of the city. A chal-
lenge made all the greater with the arrival of the Lombards in 568 who proceeded
 Rome | 475

to take control of much of the Italian peninsula in the late sixth century. Indeed,
throughout the seventh and eighth centuries, Lombard kings threatened the inde-
pendence of Rome and forced the popes to find a reliable protector.
The character of Rome underwent further changes during the seventh and eighth
centuries. The city itself became more clearly defined as a Christian city as the last
vestiges of pagan Rome disappeared or were Christianized: the famous temple the
Pantheon and the old Roman Senate building were converted into churches. As the
city of Saints Peter and Paul and numerous martyrs, Rome developed into an im-
portant pilgrimage site as well during this period. It was also during this time that
Rome began to emerge as the administrative center of what would become the Papal
States. The failure of the emperor to protect the city and the pressure of the Lom-
bards forced the popes to take direct control of the defense and administration of
Rome and its environs. A mixed bureaucracy that was both secular and ecclesiasti-
cal was developed and, and the local nobility entered more fully into papal service.
The involvement of the local nobility would have negative consequences for Rome
on occasion as rival aristocratic factions competed for control of the papacy and for
access to important patronage positions.
Rome’s ability to assume local control in Italy was aided by the pope’s alliance
with the Carolingian dynasty. The Carolingians benefited from this alliance be-
cause it was the pope who essentially approved of Pippin the Short’s usurpation
of the Frankish throne and because the pope would crown Pippin king and later
Carolingians as emperor. The Carolingians provided aid against the Lombards, who
were defeated and incorporated into the Carolingian empire by Charlemagne in
774. Pippin confirmed Rome’s territorial claims in the Donation of Pippin, which
granted papal authority over much of central Italy. The Donation was confirmed
by Charlemagne, and Carolingian rulers in the ninth century provided further legal
definition of papal authority in Italy and the relationship between Rome and the
Carolingians. Papal Rome’s territorial claims were given further support by the Do-
nation of Constantine, a forgery of the mid-eighth century that asserts that Constan-
tine gave Pope Sylvester I temporal and territorial authority of the Western Roman
Empire. Along with its growing role as the capital of the Papal State, or more for-
mally the Repbulic of St. Peter, Rome experience a phase of new construction as
a series of popes erected new churches and expanded the walls and fortifications
surrounding the city.
During the ninth and tenth centuries, Rome’s fortunes again suffered a setback.
The city, along with much of southern Italy, also was forced to endure a new wave
of invasions emanating from North Africa. Divisions within the Carolingian empire
limited the ability of the Carolingians to protect Rome, and once again local fami-
lies jockeyed for control of the city and its territories and institutions. The popes
of the 10th century are often held to have been among the worst to hold the papal
throne and are thought to have been more interested in the pursuit of pleasure and
476 | Romulus Augustulus

family interests than in the well being of the church. Despite these negative develop-
ments, Rome remained the city of Peter and the destination of increasing numbers
of pilgrims. From the depths of the 10th century, Rome would emerge in the 11th
century to assume once again its leadership of western Europe.
See also: Attila the Hun; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Constantine; Donation of
Constantine; Donation of Pippin; Gaiseric; Gothic Wars; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Huns;
Justinian; Leo I, the Great, Pope; Lombards; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Vandals

Bibliography
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety
Roman Bishops to AD 715. Raymond Davis, trans. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University
Press, 1989.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
La Rocca, Cristina. Italy in the Early Middle Ages: 476–1000. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2002.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

Romulus Augustulus (fifth century)

Last of the Roman emperors of the western part of the empire, Romulus Augustu-
lus, or in full Flavius Momyllus Romulus Augustus, assumed the imperial throne
while still a boy and reigned from October 31, 475, until August 28, 476. He was
placed on the throne by his father, Orestes, the master of soldiers, who ruled in his
name. His reign was cut short by the Germanic warrior, Odovacar. His deposition
traditionally has marked the “fall of the Roman Empire”; no emperor reigned over
the Western Empire after his fall.
Romulus Augustus, known as Augustulus (little Augustus) because of his youth,
was placed on the throne by his father, the powerful and ambitious general Orestes,
after Orestes rebelled against the reigning emperor in Italy, Julius Nepos (d. 480).
Orestes ruled for nearly a year in the name of his son, but the emperor in Constan-
tinople, Zeno, refused to recognize Romulus as the legitimate emperor in the west.
An even more serious problem for Orestes and Romulus arose among the Germanic
soldiers who made up such a large part of the Roman army. They demanded equal
status with Roman soldiers, which Orestes refused to grant. Odovacar, a leading
Germanic prince, did agree to raise the barbarian soldiers’ status should he gain
power, and a rebellion then broke out against Orestes. He was quickly overpow-
ered and executed at Odovacar’s order on August 28, 476. Romulus, however, was
spared. A contemporary chronicler noted that Odovacar spared him because of his
 Roncesvalles, Battle of | 477

youth and fair looks and sent him to live out his days in Campania. And it was with
his relatives that Romulus Augustulus lived out his life in anonymity.
After deposing Romulus Augustulus, Odovacar returned the imperial seal and
other trappings of the imperial office to the emperor Zeno and did not appoint an
emperor to rule in the west. The year 476, therefore, has traditionally been seen
as the “end” of the Roman Empire. Of course, this view fails to consider several
things about the empire. It continued until 1453 in the east with its capital Con-
stantinople. Moreover, although the line of Western Roman emperors came to an
end in 476, a number of other Roman traditions continued for some time to come.
The language of the former Western Empire, Latin, continued to be the language of
learning and government until the end of the Middle Ages. Christianity remained
the predominant religion of the west and was gradually made the official religion
of the Germanic rulers who rose to power in the old empire. The majority of the
population were Roman or descended from Roman citizens, and many vestiges of
the old Roman administration were preserved by the barbarian successors of the
emperors. Although the deposition of Romulus Augustulus brought an end to the
line of emperors in the west, it did not “end” the empire or its influence.
See also: Odovacar; Orestes; Rome; Zeno

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of
Europe, A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas Dun-
lap. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

Roncesvalles, Battle of (778)

Although arguably of limited military importance, the battle of Roncesvalles (Renc-

esvalles or Roncesvaux) is one of the most celebrated conflicts of the early Middle
Ages. The episode would contribute to the evolving legend of Charlemagne as the
greatest ruler of Christendom and would evolve from a minor skirmish between
Charlemagne’s rear guard and indigenous mountain people to a titanic struggle be-
tween the forces of Islam and Christianity. The battle also provided the framework
for one of the greatest of medieval epics, The Song of Roland, which took final form
in the late 11th century.
The battle of Roncesvalles was fought on August 15, 778, following an unsuc-
cessful invasion of Islamic Spain. Charlemagne had been invited to Spain by the
governor of Barcelona, Suleiman ibn al-Arabi, to assist the governor in his struggles
478 | Rothari

with the emir Abd al-Rahman. The campaign was a mixed success; the king took
Pamplona, subjugated Navarre, and laid siege to Saragossa, but was more than a
little dissatisfied with the support he received from his erstwhile ally, al-Arabi.
While besieging Saragossa, Charlemagne was forced to withdraw, having received
news of a major Saxon revolt. While crossing the Pyrenees on return to his king-
dom, Charlemagne suffered the defeat at Roncesvalles. As both the Royal Frankish
Annals and Einhard report, the rearguard of Charlemagne’s army was ambushed
along a narrow mountain pass by the native Basque people. Basque treachery, as
Einhard noted, played a role in their success, and both sources noted that the diffi-
culty of the terrain played a role in the defeat of the Franks as did their own heavy
armor and the lightness of the Basques’s arms. Knowledge of the land enabled the
Basques to escape after plundering the baggage train and killing all the soldiers in
the rearguard. Einhard lists some of the important figures killed in the attack, in-
cluding Eggihard, the king’s chamberlain, Anslem, count of the palace, and, most
notably, Roland, count of the Breton Marches.
Despite this setback, the battle of Roncesvalles did not put an end to Char-
lemagne’s interests along his southern frontier. In later years, he would return in
force to preserve his authority over Aquitaine and the south, extend the boundaries
of his empire across the Pyrenees, and create the Spanish March. He would enjoy
even greater success in literary form. Although still suffering the defeat of his rear-
guard and the death of his now beloved Roland, according to The Song of Roland,
Charlemagne would return to defeat his enemies and even take control of much of
Spain. The battle itself became the centerpiece of the great conflict between Mus-
lims and Christians in the Middle Ages in which Christians, as God’s elect, would
triumph. The Song of Roland was an important component of the emerging de-
piction of Muslims in western Christian literature and served to inspire Christian
knights of the late 11th century.
See also: Charlemagne; Einhard; Saxons; Widukind

Bibliography
Burgess, Glyn, trans. The Song of Roland. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. David Ganz.
London: Penguin Books, 2008.
Scholz, Bernard Walter. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s
History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Rothari (d. 652)

A Lombard king (r. 636–652) and lawgiver, Rothari was a successful warrior and
the last of the Arian Lombard kings. His reign continued the anti-Catholic reaction
 Rothari | 479

begun by his predecessor, Ariold (626–636), but was noted most for Rothari’s codi-
fication of the Lombard laws. His reforms of the law reveal the sometimes ambiva-
lent attitude of the Lombards toward the Romans. The law code he created used
Roman models, even as Rothari made major assaults on the last section of imperial
Italy governed by the Byzantine Empire.
Rothari, according to the Lombard historian Paul the Deacon, was “brave and
strong, and followed the path of justice; he did not however, hold the right line of
Christian belief, but was stained by the infidelity of the Arian heresy” (193–194).
Indeed, like his predecessor, Ariold, Rothari restored the traditional Lombard sup-
port for Arianism and continued the reaction against the pro-Catholic policy of
Theudelinda. His support for Arian Christianity was intended, as it had been for
Ariold, as a means to preserve the identity of the Lombards and distinguish them
from the native population of Italy, which was Catholic. The Lombards had long
been kept apart from the Italo-Roman population and often took a hard line against
the empire. And on these matters Rothari was a traditional Lombard.
The new king followed the model of Ariold in one other significant way, if we
are to trust the Frankish historian Fredegar. According to Fredegar, on the death of
Ariold, his widow, Gundeberga, was invited by the Lombard nobility to choose a
new king and husband, just as her mother, Theudelinda, had done at the death of
her first husband, Authari (r. 584–590). Gundeberga asked Rothari to put away his
wife and to become her husband and king of the Lombards. Fredegar notes that Ro-
thari married Gundeberga, but kept her locked away in a little room and lived with
concubines for several years, until he restored her to her place at the suggestion
of the Merovingian king Clovis II (r. 639–657). The similarity with Paul the Dea-
con’s tale of Theudelinda renders this tale suspect, but Rothari did, in fact, marry
Gundeberga, probably to preserve the continuity of the monarchy and the stability
of the kingdom.
As king, Rothari made two major contributions to the history of the Lombard
kingdom. He launched a highly successful assault against imperial Italy in 643, un-
dertaken in concert with attacks on imperial territory by the independent Lombard
duke of Beneventum. He conquered parts of the Italian coast as well as the Italian
imperial capital of Ravenna in 643, a conquest that seriously hindered Constantino-
ple’s ability to influence Italian affairs and, in the long run, forced the papacy to find
another protector. Rothari’s success against the empire also led to a treaty between
the two in 652. The king’s second great accomplishment also occurred in 643, when
he codified the laws of the Lombards. Known as Rothari’s Edict (Edictus Rothari),
the code of Lombard laws and customs was arranged in 388 chapters and, like the
other barbarian law codes of the time, was written in Latin. Among other things, the
Edict emphasized the cooperation between the king and the people, as represented
in the army and council of nobles. Rothari dealt with manumission of slaves, inheri-
tance, division of property, marriage customs, and the place of women in society in
480 | Row-Grave Cemeteries

the code. He also sought to eliminate or at least reduce the practice of the vendetta in
Lombard society and thereby guarantee peace. Indeed, preservation of the peace was
an important goal of the Edict, which legislated on manslaughter and personal in-
jury. Rothari, therefore, was a great king, conqueror, and lawgiver of the Lombards.
See also: Arianism; Franks; Fredegar; Law and Law Codes; Merovingian Dynasty; Paul
the Deacon; Theudelinda

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Lombard Laws. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1973.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Row-Grave Cemeteries

A traditional Germanic burial practice, the row-grave cemeteries (Reihengräber)

are important archeological finds because of the wealth of material found in them.
There are numerous sites in the Rhine River area and northern France from the mi-
gration period and in north central Spain dating from the arrival of the Visigoths.
The appearance of these cemeteries in Spain is particularly important; they were
once thought to provide evidence of settlement patterns for the Spanish Visigoths.
Although no longer thought to reveal such patterns, the row-grave cemeteries are
important nonetheless, in part because they are not found in Visigothic France or
even Ostrogothic Italy.
Numerous row-grave cemeteries have been found in Spain, and they contain
important evidence of Visigothic material culture. Roughly 70 of these cemeteries
have been found in Spain, including a very large one of 666 burials with about 1,000
bodies in Duraton. Of particular importance are the burials of women, roughly one
fifth of whom were buried in traditional Gothic dress. Another important site, at
El Carpio de Tajo, has some 285 graves that stretch over several generations for
a village of about 50 or 60 people, and about 90 of the sites contain grave goods.
 Royal Frankish Annals | 481

The evidence from these sites presents an uncertain picture about burial practices
in the fifth and sixth centuries. It has been suggested that either the graves repre-
sent the native Hispano-Roman population emulating the conquerors and includ-
ing the types of burial goods the Goths would or that the graves containing grave
goods are those of the Visigothic lords, who buried their dead with their wealth as
a sign of status.
The graves contain important examples of Visigothic dress in the fifth and
sixth centuries. The finds at Duraton contain traditional female clothing, which
included a cloak attached at the shoulder with a brooch as well as a belt with a
large buckle around the waist. The brooches were of fine quality. An especially
important pattern was the eagle brooch found in various graves. The eagle may
have become popular as a symbol of power that the Visigoths adopted from
the Huns and Romans. Although the source of this style for a brooch is un-
clear, it became popular, and brooches following it were fashioned out of gold
and inlaid with precious stones. Also, combs were frequently included among
the grave goods and seem to have been an important manufacture among the
Goths.
See also: Huns; Ostrogoths; Visigoths

Bibliography
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
St. Martin’s, 1995.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Thompson, E. A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.

Royal Frankish Annals

One of a number of chronicles of the Carolingian period that describe events in the
kingdom or in a particular monastery or bishopric, the Royal Frankish Annals (in
Latin, Annales regni Francorum, as they have been called since the 19th century)
are the most important record of events in the early generations of the Carolingian
dynasty. The Royal Frankish Annals are an official, or at least semiofficial, account
of the major political, military, and religious events of Carolingian history from 741
to 829. The Royal Frankish Annals thus cover events during the reigns of Pippin the
Short, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious, the later part of whose reign is surveyed
also in the history of Nithard. The chronicle includes the official Carolingian ver-
sion of such significant moments as the replacement of the Merovingian line by
482 | Royal Frankish Annals

Pippin and his coronation in 751, the wars and imperial coronation of Charlemagne,
and the early and successful years in the reign of Louis the Pious. The Royal Frank-
ish Annals were divided after 829 and continued in the Annals of St. Bertin, which
surveyed events in the Western Frankish kingdom until 882 and were written in
part by Hincmar of Rheims, and the Annals of Fulda, which covered the Eastern
Frankish kingdom until 887.
The Royal Frankish Annals were most likely composed by a number of different
authors over a prolonged period. First written in 787 or 788 as part of the general
revival of letters, especially history, under Charlemagne, the Royal Frankish An-
nals were written by several distinct hands and can be divided into three or four
sections. Like the minor annals of the period, the Royal Frankish Annals were di-
vided into year-by-year entries, with short discussions of the major events of each
year. The first section of the work, from 787/788 to 793, begins with an entry on
the year 741, noting the death of Charles Martel and the elevation of his sons Pip-
pin and Carloman. The entries for the year 741–787/788 were drawn largely from
the continuation of the chronicle of Fredegar and the minor annals composed in the
various monasteries of the empire, but from 788 on the authors were contemporary
with the events they described. The next section covers the period from 793 to 809,
and again its author or authors recorded events that they lived through. The final
section before the division into two main annals covers the period from 809 to 829;
it can be subdivided even further, with a break at 820.
The style of the final section seems to have improved over the earlier sections,
and it has been suggested that the author of part of it was the archchaplain of Louis
the Pious. But the identity of any of the annalists remains uncertain, although it is
likely that the archchaplain of the royal palace had a hand in the composition of
the Royal Frankish Annals and equally as likely that Einhard did not. Although he
is no longer held to be responsible, Einhard was traditionally associated with the
revision of the Royal Frankish Annals ordered by Louis the Pious. The entries for
the years 741–812 were revised to improve the style and were expanded with in-
formation from other sources, with the entries for several years being completely
or almost completely rewritten. Although written from the Carolingian perspective,
the Royal Frankish Annals remain one of the most important sources for the events
of the Carolingian period.
See also: Carloman, Mayor of the Palace; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles
Martel; Einhard; Fredegar; Hincmar of Rheims; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Pippin III, Called
Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In Carolingian
Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
 Royal Frankish Annals | 483

Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman 1983.
Nelson, Janet, trans. The Annals of St. Bertin: Ninth Century Histories. Manchester, UK:
University of Manchester Press, 1991.
Reuter, Timothy, trans. The Annals of Fulda: Ninth Century Histories. Manchester, UK:
University of Manchester Press, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
S
Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Although perhaps best known for its contributions to the development of the Gothic
style under the abbot Suger in the 12th century, the monastery of Saint-Denis was
an important religious and political center well before that time. Both the Merovin-
gian and Carolingian dynasties forged close associations with the community and
members of both dynasties were buried at the monastery.
Established in honor of the martyr and first bishop of Paris, St. Denis (d. 270),
the abbey was built over the existing chapel that had been the focus of an intense
pilgrimage. The earlier church was replaced by the Merovingian king, Dagobert,
who established a Benedictine monastery in 630 on the site of the old structure. Ac-
cording to legend, Dagobert had sought refuge in the church dedicated to Denis and
was protected from the wrath of Dagobert’s father by the saint. The abbey became
one of the most important institutions in Merovingian Gaul and was closely associ-
ated with the dynasty. St. Denis, himself, became the patron saint of Gaul, and the
community dedicated in his honor became the final resting place of Dagobert, his
successors, and many of his predecessors, including Clovis. The abbey grew under
the Merovingians, and the dynasty made numerous grants of land and privilege,
including exemption from episcopal jurisdiction in 653, to the community through-
out the seventh century. The community boasted a great abbatial church, auxiliary
churches as well as buildings necessary for the maintenance of the community of
monks such as a dormitory, cloister, a refectory as well as workshops and ware-
houses for storing the produce of the lands owned by St. Denis. Merchants were
attracted by the wealth and resources of St. Denis; and each year on October 9 a
great trade fair was held at the abbey, whose power and influence grew as a result of
the tolls and taxes the monks collected from the trade fair. There was also a library
and scriptorium, and the community is sometimes described as being the chancery
of the Merovingian kings.
The importance of St. Denis was recognized in turn by the Carolingians who
would replace the Merovingian kings in the eighth century. Charles Martel forged
contacts with the community during his tenure as mayor of the palace, confirming
their close connection by granting property to St. Denis and being buried there.
Ties between St. Denis and the Carolingians were strengthened by Martel’s son,
Pippin, who continued the practice of making grants to the community. In 750, the
abbot of St. Denis, Fulrad, was one of the representatives that Pippin sent to the

485
486 | Saint-Denis, Abbey of

Construction of the Abbey of Saint-Denis, overseen

by the Merovingian king Dagobert I, from Les Chroniques
des France, 14th century. (The British Library Board)

pope to justify his deposition of the last Merovinginan king, and in 754, Pippin was
crowned by the pope, Stephen II, as king of the Franks. Under Pippin, royal patron-
age of the abbey continued and important new building projects were undertaken. In
750, Fulrad began construction of a new church, which was completed and conse-
crated in 775. The church was expanded in the early ninth century during the abbacy
of Hilduin. In exchange for royal patronage, the monks of St. Denis offered prayers,
hymns of praise, and propaganda in support of the Carolingian dynasty. And, as the
Merovingians had done, many Carolingian kings were buried at St. Denis.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Clovis; Dagobert; Merovingian Dynasty; Monasticism;
Pippin III, called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Crosby, Sumner McKnight. The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis from Its Beginnings to the
Death of Abbot Suger, 475–1151. Ed. Pamela Z. Blum. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1987.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
 Salic Law | 487

Salic Law

Legal code traditionally thought to have been compiled under the great Merovin-
gian king Clovis (r. 481–511), the Salic law (Lex Salica) is one of the most impor-
tant of early medieval legal compilations. The importance of the code is the result,
in part, of the preeminence of the Franks in the post-Roman world. It remained an
important legal source throughout the Merovingian period and was compiled again
by the Carolingians. Sections of the law dealing with the right to succession were
of great importance in the 14th and 15th centuries. The code in its earliest version
contains 65 titles that address a wide variety of legal and social matters, making it
a valuable source for early Merovingian history.
The code was, according to the prologue of a later version, originally compiled
during the reign of the first Merovingian king. Known as the Pactus Lex Salicae
to distinguish it from the many later revisions, it is traditionally thought to have
been compiled late in the reign of Clovis, possibly between 507 and 511. Although
attribution to Clovis comes from a later version, it is likely that the law appeared
early in Merovingian history, surely before the death of Clovis, and it was probably
commissioned by him. It is a collection of the laws of the Salian Franks, although it
does not include all the laws of the Franks. The Pactus is the written version of the
traditional customs of the Franks, and the codification of these laws in Latin reflects
the growing sophistication and stability of the Franks under Clovis and important
Frankish contacts with late Roman culture and government. Indeed, this collection
of custom and royal edict was most likely codified by a team of Frankish officials
and Roman lawyers. Originally compiled before 511, the Salic law was revised and
expanded by later Merovingian kings in the later sixth and seventh centuries, and
a prologue and epilogue were added in later versions. It was also revised by the
Carolingians and was much studied in the eighth and ninth centuries.
The Salic law is not an orderly codification of the law, but a collection of im-
portant laws and customs that provide important insights into Merovingian society.
One of the most important concerns of the Salic law is the preservation of peace in
the Merovingian kingdom, and a number of chapters address social relations. One
section addresses the inheritance of private property, and an earlier section specifies
the fines to be paid for the theft of a bull. Penalties are imposed for wrongly calling
a woman a “harlot” and for calling someone a “hare” or “fox.” Another important
section concerns the payment of the wergeld (payment made in compensation for
taking a life) to the family of deceased. Other parts of the code deal with lesser of-
fences and injuries and routinely impose a fine for these crimes. The penalties are
often quite specific, such as a fine of 2500 denars for attempting to poison some-
one with an arrow, or 1200 denars for striking someone so hard on the head that
the brain appears. Rape, murder of women and children, assault and robbery, and
housebreaking are other crimes regulated in the Salic law. The law also concerns
488 | Saxon Capitularies

royal rights and prerogatives and imposes higher fines for crimes against the king,
his property, and his agents.
The Salic law also provides insight into the social structures of Merovingian
society. One of the most notable things revealed in the code is the social stratifi-
cation of Frankish society in the sixth and seventh centuries. The penalties vary
according to the social rank of the perpetrator and victim, with harsher fines im-
posed on the lower orders. The code reveals the continued practice of slavery, and
a class of freemen and peasants, as well as one of nobles and kings. Moreover,
although designed to cover all those living in the Merovingian kingdom, the Salic
law originally observed the principle of personality, according to which each per-
son was bound by the laws of his own group. Thus, it imposed different penalties
for crimes by Franks and crimes by Romans and provided a legal distinction be-
tween Romans and barbarians. Under the Carolingians the law came to apply to
all the people of the realm equally, bearing witness to the integration of Franks
and Romans into one society.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Clovis; Franks; Law and Law Codes; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Rivers, Theodore John, trans. The Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks. New York:
AMS, 1986.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
Wormald, Patrick. “Lex Scripta and Verbum Regis: Legislation and Early Germanic
Kingship from Euric to Cnut.” In Early Medieval Kingship. Ed. Peter H. Sawyer and Ian N.
Wood. Leeds, UK: School of History, University of Leeds, 1977, pp. 105–38.

Saxon Capitularies

Two laws issued by Charlemagne during his prolonged conquest of Saxony, 772–
804, the Saxon Capitularies were intended to promote the conversion of the Saxons
to Christianity, which was an essential component of Charlemagne’s conquest. The
two capitularies, issued about 12 years apart, reveal two different approaches to
conversion of the Saxons, approaches determined, in part, by the progress of the
conquest of Saxony.
The first capitulary, the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae (Capitulary concerning
the parts of Saxony), was issued by Charlemagne at an assembly at the palace at
Paderborn in 785. It was issued shortly after the suppression of the revolt of the Saxon
leader Widukind, during a period in which extreme acts of violence and brutality
were committed by both sides. Beyond the revolt against Carolingian authority, the
 Saxon Capitularies | 489

Saxons attacked and destroyed churches and harmed and killed priests and monks
who had been engaged in missionary activity. In his turn, Charlemagne not only
put down the revolt but also massacred some 4,500 Saxons at Verdun and forcibly
moved a large number of Saxons into Frankish territory. Consequently, the Saxon
capitulary of 785 was a draconian law that sought to impose Christianity on the
Saxons by the same force that Charlemagne applied in imposing Carolingian politi-
cal authority. The various decrees in the first Saxon capitulary included penalties
of death for forced entry into a church, stealing from a church, eating meat during
Lent, killing a priest or bishop, and refusing baptism. Death was also imposed on
those who follow pagan burial rites, perform human sacrifice, or burn anyone be-
lieved to be a witch. Charlemagne also enacted a number of heavy fines in the ca-
pitulary, including fines for contracting an unlawful marriage, refusing to baptize an
infant, and praying in groves of trees or at springs. The capitulary further demanded
payment of the tithe to the church and forbade meetings other than church services
on Sundays. Finally, the capitulary of 785 included a number of chapters establish-
ing Carolingian government and administration.
The second capitulary, the Capitulare Saxonicum (Capitulary concerning the
Saxons), was issued at the new imperial capital of Aachen in 797. This capitulary
was also conditioned by events in the conquest of Saxony and also followed a revolt
of the Saxons that was mercilessly suppressed by the great king. But the revolt and
enactment of the capitulary followed a long missionary and military campaign in
Saxony. Indeed, following the first publication of the first Saxon capitulary, Char-
lemagne continued to engage in the process of evangelization in Saxony that fol-
lowed the harsh conditions set out in the ruling of 785. His treatment of the Saxons
was so harsh that his closest advisor, Alcuin, complained to the king about it. By
797, Charlemagne contended that the conversion of Saxony had been completed,
even though the military campaigns continued for several more years. The Capitu-
lare Saxonicum, therefore, was shaped to fit the new conditions and was, therefore,
a much less harsh law. It offered the milk and honey of the faith rather than the iron
of the sword. Although there is no indication that the earlier capitulary was no lon-
ger in effect, the capitulary of 797 abandoned the rigid regime of death sentences
and instead proposed various fines for any failure to live as a good Christian. Char-
lemagne’s efforts ultimately bore fruit; the region eventually accepted Carolingian
rule and the Christian faith, and in the 10th century Saxony was one of the great
centers of medieval Christianity as well as of a resurgence of Carolingian politi-
cal ideas.
See also: Alcuin of York; Capitularies; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Franks;
Widukind

Bibliography
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
490 | Seville

Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
Loyn, Henry R. and John Percival, trans. The Reign of Charlemagne. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1975.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
“Paderborn, 785 (Capitulary concerning the parts of Saxony)” and “Concerning the
Saxons, 797.” In Readings in Medieval History. Ed. Patrick J. Geary. Peterborough, ON:
Broadview, 1989, pp. 316–20.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Seville

Located on the Gaudalquivir River in southern Spain, Seville was one of the major
centers of the Visigothic kingdom of the early Middle Ages. According to legend,
the city was founded by Hercules and archeological evidence established settlement
in the region by the ninth-century bce. In 206 bc, the Romans took the city,
which they came to call Hispalis, and it became the administrative and economic
center of the Roman province of Baetica. In 428, as Roman power waned in Spain
and elsewhere in the west, Seville was taken by the Vandals, who controlled the city
until they were displaced by the Visigoths in 461.
The city flourished under Visigothic rule, especially during the sixth century
when the bishops Leander and Isidore reigned. It was an important administrative
center for the Visigothic kings and the center of revolt led by the Catholic prince
Hermenegild against his father the Arian king Leovigild. The city was also declared
a metropolitan bishopric. The greatest of the bishops, Isidore of Seville, was one of
the leading early medieval scholars and author of the influential Etymologies who
established Seville’s reputation as an intellectual center. In 712, the city was taken
by Muslim invaders and renamed Ishbiliya and would be one of the great cultural
and political centers of Islamic Spain.
See also: Arianism; Hermenegild; Isidore of Seville; Leovigild; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain 409–711. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
King, P. D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1972.
 Sigismund, St. | 491

Sigebert. See Brunhilde

Sigismund, St. (d. 524)

Sigismund was a Burgundian king (r. 516–523) and saint, whose reign was marked
by the introduction of important legal codes and strained relations with the Franks
and Ostrogoths. The son of Gundobad and son-in-law of Theodoric the Great,
Sigismund was nonetheless a convert from Arian to Catholic Christianity, like his
cousin, Clotilda, the wife of the Merovingian king Clovis. Despite his conversion,
Sigismund, according to the sixth-century historian of the Franks Gregory of Tours,
was the victim of Clotilda’s vengeance because Gundobad had allegedly killed
Chilperic, her father and Gundobad’s brother. Although that remains uncertain,
Sigismund was clearly caught between aggressive Frankish and Ostrogothic pow-
ers and struggled to preserve his kingdom, in part by styling himself a traditional
ally of the Roman Empire and seeking an alliance with the Eastern Empire. He was
eventually overthrown and killed.
Although he became king in his own name in 516, Sigismund was an im-
portant figure in the kingdom even before that time. He was made coregent by
his father Gundobad in 501 and ruled with him until Gundobad’s death in 516.
Sigismund also played an important role in his father’s diplomacy when he mar-
ried the daughter of the great Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric. His signifi-
cance extended to religious affairs as well; he converted to Catholic Christianity,
from Arian Christianity, by the year 515. His conversion, like that of Clovis not
long before, allowed him to cultivate better relations with the Roman people
in the kingdom, especially with the bishops. Indeed, Sigismund had very good
relations with the Catholic hierarchy in his kingdom, especially with the pow-
erful and influential bishop Avitus, who wrote a number of letters for the king.
Sigismund further improved his relationship with the Catholic hierarchy in 515
by his foundation of the monastery of St. Maurice at Agaune, which became
one of the more important communities in the Middle Ages. The monks at the
house participated in the laus perennis (perpetual prayer) so that God would
be praised unceasingly.
As king, Sigismund’s greatest achievement was the codification and publica-
tion of Burgundian and Roman law in 517. Following the traditions of the barbar-
ian successors to the Roman Empire, the Burgundian kingdom followed the legal
principle of personality, according to which each person was bound by the laws of
his own group. Like the Visigoths before him, Sigismund issued two separate legal
codes, one that applied to his people and another that applied to his Roman sub-
jects. The Lex Gundobad (Law of Gundobad), or Liber Constitutionem (Book of
492 | Sigismund, St.

Constitutions), was issued in its final form, although it was most likely originally
prepared during the reign of Sigismund’s father. This was a very important legal
code, whose influence would last for several centuries. The king also issued the Lex
Romana Burgundionum (Roman Law of the Burgundians), which was the personal
law of his Roman subjects. Although a significant legal code, Sigismund’s Roman
law did not survive the fall of the kingdom; it was replaced once the kingdom fell
to the Merovingian Franks.
Although Sigismund introduced a number of major reforms in the kingdom, he
was less successful in international relations. Upon succeeding his father in 516,
Sigismund was faced with the challenge posed by the Franks and Ostrogoths. He
was fortunate that his marriage to Theodoric’s daughter enabled him to at least
keep Theodoric from advancing against him. Even though Theodoric was surely
displeased by Sigismund’s conversion to Christianity, he maintained good relations
with the Burgundian king and allowed him to make a pilgrimage to Rome. To im-
prove his situation, though, Sigismund cultivated relations with the Byzantine Em-
pire as a balance to potential threats from the Franks and, especially, the Ostrogoths,
whose relations with Constantinople were strained. When he succeeded to the
throne, Sigismund also inherited the Roman title of patrician, which his father had
held. But good ties with Constantinople were insufficient to save Sigismund from
his closer neighbors.
In 522, Theodoric’s daughter died, which removed any impediment to Theodor-
ic’s invasion of the kingdom. Moreover, relations with the Franks were long dif-
ficult, even though his relative, Clotilda, had married Clovis and, according to
tradition, converted him to Christianity. Indeed, according to Gregory of Tours,
Clotilda encouraged her sons to invade the Burgundian kingdom to avenge the
murder of her father by Gundobad. In 522 or 523, Sigismund faced an invasion of
both Franks and Ostrogoths, which he could not stop. He was defeated in battle
and handed over to the Franks by his own people, who had abandoned him. In 524,
he was murdered by the Frankish king, who ordered that Sigismund be thrown in
a well. The kingdom preserved its independence for another 10 years before it was
finally absorbed by the Franks in 534.
See also: Aryanism; Clotilda, St.; Clovis; Franks; Gregory of Tours; Gundobad; Law and
Law Codes; Merovingian Dynasty; Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Burgundian Code: The Book of Constitutions or Law
of Gundobad and Additional Enactments. 1972.
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.
 Slaves and Slavery | 493

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Slaves and Slavery

One of the most pernicious and persistent practices throughout human history,
slavery was found everywhere in the ancient Mediterranean and continued in some
form into the Middle Ages. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the continu-
ance of the practice of slavery and holding of slaves—known as servi (servants),
ancillae (maidservants) or mancipia (things sold)—was an essential part of ancient
society and that only when slavery was ended, and ultimately transformed into serf-
dom, did the ancient world truly end. Although slavery persisted into late antiquity
and the early Middle Ages, it differed from the traditional Roman practice of hold-
ing large gangs of agricultural slave laborers. Still, slaves were found performing
agricultural labor in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages in significant num-
bers, even if they were sometimes hard to distinguish from the local free peasants;
they were also found at a number of other tasks, including military. Slavery existed
among all the peoples that created kingdoms in the former Western Roman Empire,
including Franks, Goths, Lombards, and Vandals.
Slavery had been a fundamental component of economy of the Mediterranean
in the classical age; in late antiquity, its practice continued to be supported as a
natural part of life and was accepted as part of the divinely established order by
the church. Indeed, many Christian writers found justification for slavery in the
Scriptures, and the great church father, St. Augustine of Hippo, accepted slav-
ery practice in the fifth century by noting that it was the consequence of sin. The
church did, however, forbid the enslavement of people who had been baptized,
and some deeply pious Christians freed their slaves—for example, the sixth-
century pope Gregory the Great who, according to the seventh-century Anglo-
Saxon historian Bede, purchased a number of Anglo-Saxon slaves to free them
and join them to the church—but there was no great push by the church for the
manumission of slaves. Augustine also provides evidence for its ubiquity in the
late fourth and fifth centuries, observing that nearly every household possessed
slaves. Indeed, the household slave remained an important functionary, and each
soldier generally had at least one or two slaves at his service. In the Roman Empire
of the fourth and fifth centuries, slaves continued to be used in a number of other
places, including mines, quarries, foundries, and weaving factories. They were,
of course, also used as laborers on the farms of the empire, but not in great gangs
housed in barracks, as they had been during the early days of the empire. They
were often given small plots of land to work to encourage their productivity and
494 | Slaves and Slavery

also to preserve the land as taxable property. In fact, it was forbidden by law to sell
a slave without his property. As a result of this, the slave and free peasant became
increasingly difficult to distinguish, with the slave better off in some ways than the
peasant. In one of his letters, Augustine voiced the concern that the peasant would
abandon his place and join the ranks of the slaves.
Despite their many uses, slaves amounted to no more than 10 or 12 percent of
the population. Nevertheless, there still existed a lucrative slave trade, which in-
volved commerce in slaves gathered mainly from the frontier areas of the empire
in modern western Hungary and Morocco. Slaves were obtained through inheri-
tance, but more by conquest or trade. Indeed, as the various barbarian peoples en-
tered the empire they sold their compatriots or, more often, the people they had
conquered. The invasions themselves led to the continued slave trade, as many
Roman citizens fell into slavery. Alaric, during the Visigothic invasion of Italy and
sack of Rome, captured many slaves. The invasion of Attila and the Huns also led
to the capture of many slaves, as did the invasions of the Vandals, Odovacar, and
Theodoric the Great.
In the immediate post-Roman world, slavery existed in the various successor
kingdoms established by the Germanic peoples who had moved into the empire
and its practice was regulated in the law codes issued of these peoples. In their
legal code, for example, the Visigoths imposed slavery on those who could not
pay fines for crimes they committed, and in Anglo-Saxon England free persons
who had sexual relations with slaves were fined by the king. In daily life, slaves
were found working the royal estates in Visigothic Spain and as skilled labor-
ers in the household. Slaves also served in the Visigothic army, although their
rank and treatment was little improved by their military service. A noblewoman
would be flogged and burned alive for having sexual relations with a slave. The
same fate awaited the slave, but a free nobleman could father as many slave chil-
dren as he wished. In the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy a slave’s life was a harsh
one, and slavery was primarily rural. Slaves were chattel with very few rights
or privileges, who could be killed by their owners or burned alive for having
sexual relations with a widow or causing a fire. Slaves could not legally marry
and could be transferred at will from one estate to another. They could even be
assigned to a peasant, whose treatment could be worse in practice than that of
some distant owner.
The practice of slavery continued in Italy after its conquest by the Lombards in
the sixth century, and their invasion of the peninsula brought them many slaves,
which provided them a larger slave workforce than that of the Goths or Romans
before them. Testimony to the size of the slave population in the Lombard kingdom
is found in the numerous references to them in Lombard law. A seventh-century
law code, the Leges Rothari (Laws of King Rothari) identifies the existence of
slaves of Germanic and Roman descent. The Roman slaves were often skilled and
 Slaves and Slavery | 495

so valued more highly than their Germanic counterparts, who generally worked the
fields as agricultural labor, though both Roman and Germanic slaves did serve as
farmhands. Slaves were used for household and agricultural labor, and there was
a monastery that owned a large number of female slaves who wove cloth. The life
of the slave improved by the time of King Liutprand, in part because of the influ-
ence of the church after the conversion of the Lombards to Catholic Christianity.
The marriage of slaves was now recognized as legitimate, and slave owners were
forbidden from breaking up marriages by selling one of the partners. Other im-
provements in the treatment of slaves included the practices of giving part of the
fine for killing a slave to the slave’s family and allowing slaves to be freed so that
they could join the clergy.
In the Frankish kingdoms slavery in some form or other existed into the ninth
and tenth centuries, but the distinction between a slave and serf became increasingly
blurred. There is evidence that slavery existed from the earliest days of the Merovin-
gian dynasty. The Salic law describes certain legal processes involving slaves, and
the sixth-century Frankish historian Gregory of Tours tells of the brutal treatment
of slaves, including the burying of two alive by the Frankish noble Rauching. Of
course, Gregory held Rauching up as an example of the worst treatment of slaves,
and not all slaves endured such debased conditions. Indeed, the sixth-century queen
Fredegund may have been a slave, or at least a servant at the royal court, and the
seventh-century queen (and later saint) Balthild was a slave, even though of royal
birth. The extent of slavery during the Merovingian period remains uncertain, how-
ever, because of uncertainties in the sources themselves and vagueness in terminol-
ogy. It is likely, though, that slavery was not that extensive under the Merovingian
dynasty, as records from the early days and as well as the later period of the dynasty
indicate. The records of bishops at either end of Merovingian history reveal a small
percentage of slaves on episcopal estates. Slavery was most likely hereditary or the
result of financial difficulties and the need to buy food during famines. Aside from
Gregory’s tale of Rauching, the evidence suggests that slaves were frequently re-
leased from their bondage and that slaves were not poorly treated, in part because of
a labor shortage the kingdom suffered, so that both the free peasantry in the coun-
tryside and the slaves were most likely well treated.
Slavery surely continued under the Carolingian dynasty, though in a much
changed form from classical slavery. There is evidence revealing the transforma-
tion of slaves into serfs. The morality of slavery was much discussed by Carolin-
gian scholars, who often borrowed from Augustine and the other church fathers.
The most important of the Carolingian scholars, the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin of York,
justified slavery in the very terms used by St. Augustine, and others recognized it
as a natural part of the divine order of things. There is also much evidence of an
active slave trade in the Carolingian Empire, and the trade was carried on by both
Jewish and Christian merchants. Slaves came from the border regions of the empire,
496 | Slaves and Slavery

including Saxony and the Slavic lands, but it was not uncommon for an unfortunate
to be captured while traveling the highways and sold into slavery. The conquests of
Charlemagne and other Carolingian rulers were another source of slaves, as cap-
tives of war who were not ransomed were kept as slaves. The number of slaves was
most likely not that great, seldom more than 10 percent on records from the great
estates, but there were concentrations of slaves on the estates employed in a variety
of occupations. Alcuin, for example, appears to have had large numbers of slaves
at work on the monasteries under his control, and records from a number of other
great estates indicate that about 10 percent of the workforce was made up of slaves.
Carolingian slaves served as traders and bodyguards, but their most important duty
was as agricultural laborers. In their role as farmers, the slaves of the Carolingian
era show signs of becoming the serfs of the later Middle Ages.
See also: Alaric; Alcuin of York; Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Balthild, St.;
Carolingian Dynasty; Franks; Fredegund; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory of Tours;
Liutprand; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Odovacar; Ostrogoths; Salic Law; Theodoric
the Great; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Bloch, Marc. French Rural History: An Essay on Its Basic Characteristics. Trans. Janet
Sondheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
Bloch, Marc. Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages. Trans. William R. Beer. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1975.
Bonnassie, Pierre. From Slavery to Feudalism in South-Western Europe. Trans. Jean
Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, A.D. 395–600. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Dockès, Pierre. Medieval Slavery and Liberation. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Duby, Georges. The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants
from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century. Trans. Howard B. Clarke. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1974.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper and Row,
1962.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
 Stilicho, Flavius | 497

Solidus. See Coins and Coinage

Stilicho, Flavius (c. 360–408)

Roman military commander and regent whose career stood in the tradition of Arbo-
gast, the fourth century German soldier who was the power behind the throne, and in
contrast to that of the Gothic king Alaric. The son of a Vandal cavalry officer in the
service of Rome and a Roman noblewoman, Stilicho fully embraced the empire and
its customs, including Catholic Christianity. He had a successful career and was a
loyal follower of the emperor Theodosius the Great. As regent for Theodosius’s son
Honorius, Stilicho faced the increasing pressure of the barbarians on the empire and
invasions by Goths led by Alaric and Radagaisus. Although not wholly successful
against either king, Stilicho struggled valiantly to preserve the integrity of the West-
ern Empire, even at the cost of nearly losing Britain. His talent for managing his rivals
is perhaps best illustrated in the failure of Honorius to prevent the successful inva-
sion of Italy and sack of Rome by Alaric in the years following Stilicho’s execution.
The son of a Vandal father and Roman mother, whose marriage required im-
perial dispensation, Stilicho was marked early on for advancement in the service
of the empire. His parents placed him on the roster of the guards of the court as a
small boy, where he may have made contact with the future emperor Theodosius.
In 383, Stilicho served on an imperial delegation to the Persian king Shapur III
(r. 383–388). Upon his return from the embassy to Shapur, Stilicho married Theo-
dosius’s favorite niece, Serena, and was raised to the office of master of the stable.
By 385, he was made a general and given promotion to the rank of chief of the
guard. In 391, the year he first faced Alaric, Stilicho was promoted to a high-ranking
post in the Eastern Empire, and in 393 he was made master of both services, the
commander-in-chief of the army.
Stilicho’s rapid rise, together with the clear favor of the emperor, brought him to
the top of the Roman military hierarchy before the death of his patron. His debt to the
emperor did not, however, go unpaid; although little is known of his early military
career, it is certain that Stilicho played an important, if not decisive, role in the vic-
tory over the pretender to the Western Empire Eugenius and his military commander
Arbogast in 394. Indeed, Stilicho probably led the attack on the second day of the
battle that turned the tide and brought about the defeat of Eugenius and his general.
Stilicho was of such importance to the emperor that he set off for the Eastern Empire
before Theodosius, who died suddenly on January 17, 395, while on his way there.
Stilicho was favored by the emperor one last time when Theodosius on his deathbed
entrusted his sons, Honorius and Arcadius, to the care of the Vandal general.
498 | Stilicho, Flavius

The death of Theodosius left Stilicho the most powerful figure in the empire,
even though he was not without rivals and subject to Theodosius’s heirs, Honorius
in the Western Empire and Arcadius in the Eastern Empire. Indeed, his greatest
rival, and personal enemy of long standing, Rufinus, was the commander in chief
for Arcadius. And, under Rufinus’s direction, Arcadius restricted Stilicho’s field of
action and ordered that Stilicho, who preparing to challenge Alaric in part of the
Eastern Empire, send some of his troops to defend Constantinople against their
mutual enemy Alaric and his followers. Ever loyal to the house of Theodosius and
the empire, Stilicho yielded to Arcadius’s demands, but the troops he sent murdered
Rufinus, perhaps at their general’s initiative. Stilicho next faced Eutropius, who
assumed the position of chief advisor to Arcadius until late 399. The two negoti-
ated control of important border regions between the two halves of the empire and
struggled to contain Alaric. At the same time, of course, they struggled for power
in the empire, which Eutropius lost in a plot that included an ally of Stilicho in the
Eastern Empire.
As the leading military commander in the empire, Stilicho took on the respon-
sibility of protecting it from various barbarian groups and spent much of his ca-
reer in a complex game of cat and mouse with Alaric. They had served together
when Theodosius crushed the usurpation of Eugenius, but they had become rivals
as Alaric’s demands went unmet by the imperial governments. In 397, Stilicho had
the opportunity to destroy Alaric and his army but negotiated a settlement with him,
which allowed the Gothic king to trouble the Eastern Empire and Stilicho’s rival
at the time, Eutropius. Although Alaric abandoned his claims to western territory
over the next four years—during which time Stilicho reached the pinnacle of power,
assumed the office of consul, and married his daughter, Maria, to Honorius—
he invaded Italy in late 401 while Stilicho was engaged with other barbarians.
Quickly turning his attention to Alaric by early 402, Stilicho called for reinforce-
ments from Britain and the Rhine frontier to protect Italy. He also gave command
to a pagan Alan, who attacked while Alaric and the Goths were celebrating Easter,
thus inflicting a severe defeat on him. This was followed by an even more crush-
ing defeat by Stilicho by late summer 402, but Stilicho once again allowed Alaric
to survive and receive a military commission from Arcadius. Alaric launched one
more assault on the Western Empire in 407, again at a time of crisis for Stilicho,
who sought to reach an agreement with his long-term enemy; the attempt failed
because of Stilicho’s fall.
Stilicho faced other challenges during his career leading the Roman military.
In 397–398, he faced the revolt of the Roman count of Africa, which cut off the
grain supply to Italy. Stilicho overcame this challenge by importing grain from
elsewhere and by sending a powerful army to suppress the unruly governor. The
victorious general of that army mysteriously died not long after his victory, and
many blamed Stilicho for the death. He made new treaties with the Alemanni and
 Strasbourg, Oath of | 499

the Franks, and deposed a Frankish king he disliked. More serious than his diffi-
culties in Africa or Gaul was the invasion by the barbarian Radagaisus and a large
band of Ostrogoths in 405. This serious breach of the Rhine frontier, perhaps the
result of Stilicho’s efforts to protect Italy at the expense of the rest of the empire,
would lead to Stilicho’s downfall. Although he imposed a punishing defeat on
Radagaisus near Florence in the summer of 406, Stilicho could not decisively de-
feat him. Radagaisus remained a threat to Italy for the next several years, to the
dismay of Honorius and Stilicho.
The return of Alaric and death of Arcadius further complicated matters for Stili-
cho. Indeed, competition over the succession to the throne of Arcadius between
Stilicho and Honorius, as well as the death of Maria and Stilicho’s loss of impor-
tant imperial territory and failure to inflict final defeats on Alaric and Radagaisus
led to his downfall. No longer confident in his general, Honorius ordered the arrest
and execution of Stilicho on August 22, 408. Two years later, Alaric sacked the
city of Rome.
See also: Alaric; Arbogast; Honorius; Ostrogoths; Theodosius the Great; Vandals; Visigoths

Bibliography
Burns, Thomas S. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Pol-
icy and the Barbarians, ca. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1994.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Claudian. Claudian’s Fourth Panegyric on the fourth consulate of Honorius. Ed. and
trans. William Barr. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1981.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Zosimus. New History. Trans. Ronald T. Ridley. Canberra: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.

Strasbourg, Oath of (842)

An agreement between Charles the Bald and Louis the German, the Oath of Stras-
bourg solidified an alliance between the two kings during the civil wars following
the death of Louis the Pious. Subscribed to by the two kings and their followers, the
oath marked an important turning point in the struggles with the emperor Lothar.
The oath, preserved by the historian Nithard, is also an important linguistic mile-
stone because it was pronounced and recorded in early versions of the Romance
and Germanic languages.
500 | Sutton Hoo

Following their victory over their brother Lothar at the Battle of Fontenoy in
841, Charles the Bald and Louis the German met to forge a pact confirming their
continued cooperation because Lothar refused to accept peace after his defeat.
They met at the city of Strasbourg on February 12, 842, to exchange oaths of
loyalty and mutual assistance, declaring also that if they should violate the oath,
their followers were released from their oaths to the kings. Louis, as the elder
brother, spoke first in Romance, the language of Charles’s followers, and swore
to aid his brother and treat him as one should his brother on the condition that
Charles treat him in the same way. Charles in turn, speaking in the Germanic
language (lingua teudisca) of his brother’s soldiers, made the same oath, and
each brother swore not to enter into any agreement with Lothar that might harm
the other’s interests. The followers of the two kings then swore in their own lan-
guages that they would not give any aid to their king if the king violated the oath.
The Oath of Strasbourg thus confirmed the pact of friendship and cooperation
between Charles and Louis and enabled them to bring Lothar to a settlement in
the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles the Bald; Fontenoy, Battle of; Lothar; Louis the
German; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Verdun, Treaty of

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul Edward. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broad-
view, 1993.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Sutton Hoo

Site (in England’s Somerset region) of one of the most important archeological
discoveries for the history of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In 1939 a burial mound
was discovered at Sutton Hoo by Basil Brown that revolutionized modern under-
standing of pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon civilization. The discovery of a burial ship
and its possessions from the first quarter or first half of the seventh century trans-
formed the prevalent perception of early East Anglian courts, and Anglo-Saxon
royal courts in general, as impoverished and backward centers with few contacts
outside England; it revealed a dynamic court life with wide-ranging contacts with
the European continent.
 Sutton Hoo | 501

Golden buckle from Sutton Hoo, the Anglo-Saxon

burial site from the first quarter or first half of the
seventh century, British Museum. (De Agostini/Getty
Images)

The burial site, noted for its extraordinary richness, is without human remains
and may have been a site intended as a memorial rather than a place of interment.
Whatever the case, the question of whose burial mound it was remains unanswered.
Its close proximity to Rendlesham, the residence of the kings of East Anglia, and
its contents have led to the theory that it was a royal burial site. Among those con-
sidered to have been buried in the 90-foot open rowing boat at Sutton Hoo are the
seventh-century East Anglian kings Raedwald, Earpwald, and Sigeberht.
The mound is remarkable for the number and variety of domestic and imported
goods found inside. Among its numerous and luxurious possessions are the tra-
ditional burial goods of pre-Christian warriors, including spearheads, a wooden
shield covered in leather, two large drinking horns, and a helmet. A sword decorated
502 | Synod of Whitby

with gold and garnets is noteworthy for the skilled craftsmanship used in its cre-
ation. There is also an extensive cache of jewelry of great quality. Some of the
jewelry is also decorated with gold and garnets, thus linking it with workshops in
Kent and on the Continent. A gold buckle with interlacing snakes and small ani-
mals is both exquisite in design and typical of contemporary Germanic art. The
mound also contains a huge whetstone, wooden buckets with silver mounts, a five-
stringed musical instrument, fragments of chain mail and textiles of great quality,
and an iron battle standard with bulls’ heads. Products of foreign provenance in
the find include a purse with 37 gold coins from the Continent, a Byzantine salver
with four stamps of the emperor Anastasius I (441–518), and a bronze bowl from
the eastern Mediterranean.
Although the original find was spectacular, it was not the end of the excava-
tions at Sutton Hoo. Subsequent work has uncovered another 20 burial mounds
and 44 burial sites without mounds. The burial sites without mounds reveal that
both inhumation and cremation were practiced, and they also contain possible evi-
dence for the practice of human sacrifice. Whatever else is discovered at Sutton
Hoo, the original find has contributed greatly to our understanding of this period
and demonstrated the extensive contacts that England had with both the Frankish
and Byzantine worlds, although more with the former than latter. Sutton Hoo also
revealed the wealth and quality craftsmanship of this period of early medieval
English history.
See also: Anglo-Saxons

Bibliography
Bruce-Mitford, Rupert L. S. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. 3 Vols. London: British
Museum, 1975–1983.
Carver, Martin. The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1992.
Carver, Martin. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1998.
Evans, Angela Care. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. London: British Museum, 1986.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Synod of Whitby (664)

One of the most important church councils of early English history, the synod held
at Streanaeschalch, or Bay of the Beacon (identified with Whitby since the 11th
century), determined the shape of Christianity in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The
council, held by Oswy, king of Northumbria (r. 655–670), met in 664 (although
some prefer the year 663) to resolve the debate over the calculation of Easter
 Synod of Whitby | 503

initiated by the contact between missionaries from the Celtic church of Ireland and
those from the Roman church of southern England.
After the restoration of Roman Catholic Christianity to England by St. Augustine
of Canterbury, conflict occurred between the advocates of the Roman faith and
those of the Celtic Christian faith. Missionaries of both churches were especially
active in the kingdom of Northumbria, whose king, Oswy, accepted the Celtic tra-
dition, whereas his wife, Eanfled, a princess from Kent, was raised in the Roman
tradition. Among the various differences between the practices of the two churches
was a difference in the method of calculating the date of Easter, with the Celtic
church celebrating the feast a week earlier than the Roman church. As a result,
Eanfled would continue fasting while her husband was feasting and celebrating
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The divergence in practice in the royal household,
which paralleled the divergence in the kingdom, inspired Oswy to hold a council at
Streanaeschalch, the monastery of his cousin Abbess Hilda, to resolve the debate.
The council’s main focus was to determine the proper means to calculate the
date of Easter, but it also was to decide issues concerning liturgy, organization, the
tonsure, and other matters of church discipline. Oswy opened the council by ob-
serving that all believers in one God should follow one rule and should celebrate
the sacraments of heaven in the same way. The spokesman for the Celtic church,
St. Colman (c. 605–676), began the debate by arguing that the saintly and pious fa-
thers of his church, including the widely respected St. Columba (c. 521–597), had
long determined the date of Easter in the Celtic way, and that these same fathers

Streanaeschalch (Whitby) Abbey in North Yorkshire, England. The abbey was founded in
657 by Hilda, who presided there as abbess until her death in 680. (Dave Bolton)
504 | Synod of Whitby

had learned their method of calculation from John the Apostle. Although the visit-
ing bishop of the West Saxons, Agilbert, had been appointed to defend the Roman
cause, he yielded to Wilfrid (634–709), the abbot of Ripon, who spoke the Anglo-
Saxon language better. Wilfrid argued that his church’s custom came from Rome,
the city of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. He said also that these customs
are followed in Italy, Gaul, Africa, Asia, and Greece—everywhere but Ireland and
Scotland. Colman responded by defending the many Irish saints who had followed
the Celtic practice, but Wilfrid argued that no matter how saintly the Celtic fathers
were they could not take precedence over St. Peter, who had been given the keys to
the kingdom of heaven. Hearing this Oswy asked Colman if this were true and if he
could make an equal boast about Columba. Learning that Colman could not, Oswy
declared, “Then, I tell you, Peter is guardian of the gates of heaven, and I shall not
contradict him” (Bede 1981, 192). The king thus accepted the Roman tradition and
ensured the ultimate triumph of Roman Catholic Christianity in England.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.; Bede; Columba, St.

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Uni-
versity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
T
Tassilo (742–794)

The last semi-independent duke of Bavaria (r. 749–788), Tassilo was a member of
the powerful Agilolfing family, which had once been rivals of the Carolingian fam-
ily for control in the Frankish kingdoms. He claimed a long tradition of success-
ful rule in Bavaria, and he and his family had established good relations with the
church in the duchy and endowed numerous monasteries. He had also established
important alliances with other peoples, including the Lombards. His downfall came
at the hands of his relative Charlemagne, whose expansionistic policies led him to
absorb the Bavarian duchy and force Tassilo into retirement at a monastery.
The son of Odilo, duke of Bavaria, Tassilo enjoyed an important political and re-
ligious inheritance. The family had long supported the church in Bavaria and could
claim the support of the monasteries they had so richly endowed. Tassilo was also
the daughter of Chiltrude (d. 754), Charles Martel’s daughter and sister of Pippin;
even though his mother married Tassilo’s father against her brother’s wishes,
through her Tassilo had some claim to the Carolingian legacy. On his father’s death,
however, the duchy was seized by Grifo, one of Charles Martel’s sons, who raised
an unsuccessful rebellion against Martel’s heirs, Pippin and Carloman. On the sup-
pression of the revolt, Pippin installed his young Tassilo on the ducal throne of
Bavaria, which he held until 788.
As duke, Tassilo maintained an uneasy relationship with Pippin and strove to
preserve as much of Bavarian independence as possible in his relations with his
powerful uncle. Tassilo actively promoted the church in his duchy and welcomed
the advice of the ecclesiastical nobles of the Bavarian church. He also lavished the
church with numerous donations and was especially generous to the monasteries
of his duchy, including the monasteries of Kremsmünster and Mondsee. His sup-
port of the church also included the promotion of missionary activity in neighbor-
ing Carinthia, and the successful conversion of the region led to increased political
influence for Tassilo in Carinthia. Tassilo also pursued a foreign policy calculated
to strengthen his position in relation to the Carolingians. To that end, he formed
a marriage alliance with the Lombard king Desiderius. Despite his best efforts at
independent action, however, Tassilo remained tied to Pippin. He accompanied the
Carolingian king on one of his trips to Italy in support of the pope, and in 757 he
swore an oath of allegiance to Pippin and became his vassal.

505
506 | Tertry, Battle of

After the death of Pippin, Tassilo faced the new challenge of dealing with the new
Carolingian ruler, Charlemagne. Although Charlemagne’s accession was troubled,
he quickly took control of the kingdom. Like Tassilo, Charlemagne first married
a daughter of Desiderius, but the arrangement fell apart shortly after the death of
Charlemagne’s brother Carloman. Tassilo wisely chose not to involve himself in
the struggle between Charlemagne and Desiderius, but this did little to ease the
Carolingian’s concerns about the duke of Bavaria. In 781, Charlemagne forced Tas-
silo to renew the pledge of vassalage he had sworn to Pippin in 757. In 787, con-
cerned at the state of affairs, Tassilo sought the aid of the pope, Hadrian I, who had
previously been favorable to the Bavarian duke. But at this point, the pope sided
with the king of the Franks rather than the duke of the Bavarians. Failing to gain the
support of the pope, Tassilo was forced to renew his oath of allegiance in 787, but,
possibly at the urgings of his wife, he continued to intrigue against Charlemagne
and began negotiations with the Avars. Informed of this by loyal Bavarian nobles,
Charlemagne summoned the duke to the royal court, where Tassilo admitted to acts
of treason. He was condemned to death, but in 788 his sentence was commuted to
a life of penance in the monastery of Jumièges. With the fall of Tassilo, the duchy
of Bavaria was absorbed into the empire of the Franks, becoming a stepping-stone
for the Carolingian advance against the Avars in the 790s.
See also: Avars; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles Martel; Desiderius; Hadrian I,
Pope; Lombards; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Odegaard, Charles E. Vassi et Fideles in the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1945.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Tertry, Battle of (687)

Important battle in the rise of the Carolingian dynasty that helped secure the
place of the Carolingians in Austrasia and the Frankish kingdom as a whole.
 Tertry, Battle of | 507

Although a decisive victory for Pippin II of Herstal, it was not the decisive turning
point in Carolingian history that it is often made out to be. The battle did strengthen
Pippin’s position as mayor of the palace, but it was two generations before another
Carolingian, Pippin III the Short, claimed the kingship of the Franks.
During the seventh century, as the fortunes of the Merovingian dynasty de-
clined and the kingdom was once again divided among the later descendants of
the first great Merovingian king, Clovis (r. 481–511), into the regions of Austrasia,
Neustria, and Burgundy, rival aristocratic factions competed for power against each
other and against the Merovingian do-nothing kings (rois fainéants), as they have
traditionally been called. In the region of Austrasia the descendants of Arnulf of
Metz, the sainted bishop and ancestor of the family, had once again taken control of
the office of mayor of the palace. In Neustria, the Arnulfing Pippin faced the pow-
erful Ebroin and the Merovingian king Theuderic III. Pippin had been defeated by
Ebroin in 680, but he survived his rival, who was assassinated and whose murderers
gained asylum at Pippin’s court. Ebroin’s successor made peace with Pippin but was
deposed by his own son, Ghislemar. Both Ghislemar and his successor, Berchar,
remained on bad terms with Pippin, and war once again broke out between the
mayors of Austrasia and Neustria.
The war broke out as a result of the long-standing hostility between the Austra-
sian and Neustrian leaders and the civil strife in Neustria. Berchar had alienated
many Neustrian nobles, who joined Pippin and invited him to become involved in
the struggle in Neustria. According to one near-contemporary, pro-Carolingian ac-
count, Pippin asked his followers to join him in war against the Neustrians. Pippin
sought war, according to this account, because Theuderic and Berchar rejected his
appeals on behalf of the clergy, the Neustrian nobility asked for aid, and he desired
to punish the proud king and his mayor. Pippin’s followers agreed to join in the war,
and after marshalling his troops, Pippin moved along the Meuse River to meet his
rival. Theuderic, learning of the advance of Pippin, levied his own troops, and he
rejected, on Berchar’s advice, any offers of a peaceful settlement from Pippin. Hav-
ing been rebuffed, Pippin prepared for battle and at dawn on the day of battle at Ter-
try quietly moved his troops across the river. Theuderic and Berchar, learning that
Pippin’s camp was empty, moved in to plunder it and were ambushed by Pippin’s
army. The king and his mayor fled while their troops were massacred. Berchar too
was killed while wandering, and Pippin captured Theuderic, along with the royal
treasury. The victor at Tertry, Pippin took control of the king and his wealth and
united the three kingdoms of Austrasia, Burgundy, and Neustria under his author-
ity. The Battle of Tertry was a significant victory for Pippin and his descendants,
but it was only under his son, Charles Martel, and grandson, Pippin the Short, that
power was consolidated in Carolingian hands.
See also: Arnulf of Metz, St.; Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel; Clovis; Merovingian
Dynasty; Pippin II, Called Pippin of Herstal; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short
508 | Thegn

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Thane. See Thegn

Thegn

Anglo-Saxon term that evolved from the verb thegnian, to serve, thegn acquired a
more precise definition from the age of Alfred the Great in the ninth century to the
end of Anglo-Saxon history in England with the Battle of Hastings in 1066. A thegn
was primarily one of the king’s retainers, but the term was also used for a servant
of the more powerful counts of Anglo-Saxon England, who at times caused diffi-
culties of the Anglo-Saxon kings. In either case, service was rewarded with higher
status and territory for the thegn.
Although the term thegn appeared only once in Anglo-Saxon laws before the
10th century, it appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Beowulf and replaced
the early Anglo-Saxon term gesith (noble) at some point during the early Middle
Ages. And whatever term was used, the function of royal servant was one of honor
and prestige and was a duty that eventually became hereditary. Indeed, in exchange
for service the kings began to grant thegns hereditary rights to lands that had been
granted as reward for the services rendered. In this way, the thegns were trans-
formed into a landed nobility, even though the king retained rights over the thegn
and his land. Moreover, proximity to the king and the special relationship between
the two brought the thegn greater prestige in society. This heightened status was
recognized as early as the sixth century by the higher wergeld given the thegn,
which was six times or more than that of an ordinary peasant. Thegns were rela-
tively numerous and could be wealthy in their own right or dependent on mainte-
nance from the king.
The basic duty of the thegn was that of service. One of the primary duties, of
course, was military service. The thegn was personally called to serve in the king’s
host as mounted infantry, and refusal to do so could lead to the loss of the thegn’s
lands. The thegn’s other military duties included bringing a certain number of his
own men into military service to the king, and building and repairing roads and
fortifications. They also had civil obligations, such as standing as witness to the
 Theoda | 509

king’s charters. Thegns also oversaw administration of the kingdom at the local
level and were the king’s representatives in the shires, keeping him in touch with
local affairs. As the king’s men, the thegns also played a role in royal justice on a
panel that was a sort of precursor to the modern grand jury.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Anglo-Saxons; Beowulf; Witenagemot

Bibliography
Loyn, Henry R. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. 2nd ed. London:
Longman, 1991.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London and New
York: Routledge, 1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Theoda (fl. 847/848)

Religious prophetess who appeared in the Carolingian Empire from the country
of the Alemanni in the mid-ninth century, Theoda (also spelled Theuda or Thiota)
preached the coming of the end of the world. She attracted a large following, which
was quickly suppressed by the bishop of Mainz. Her appearance, however, chal-
lenged Carolingian ideas about the nature of the ministry in the church.
In the year 847 or 848, according to a contemporary chronicler, Theoda ap-
peared in the city of Mainz, arriving from somewhere in Germany. According to
the chronicler, Theoda claimed to know many divine mysteries. She preached the
coming of the end of the world and declared that it would arrive on the last day of
the year. Apparently she was a skilled preacher, because many men and women
began to follow her. They offered her gifts and asked her to pray for them. She also
inspired many priests, according to the chronicler, to give up their vows and fol-
low her as though she had been sent from heaven. She was quickly brought before
a council of bishops of Mainz, who interrogated her about her teachings. When
asked about them she admitted that she learned those things from a certain priest
and then began to teach them herself. The council denounced her teachings and
had her publicly flogged. She accepted the verdict of the council, admitted that she
had “irrationally seized” upon the right of preaching, and gave up her ministry in
shame. After the council, Theoda disappeared from all records, and her ultimate
end is unknown.
See also: Alemanni; Carolingian Dynasty; Franks

Bibliography
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
510 | Theodora

Russell, Jeffery Burton. Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1965.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500–900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Theodora (d. 548)

Wife and inspiration of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (r. 527–565), who shared
his rule and was an important source of strength for him until her death in 548. Al-
though her background was not the usual one for an empress, Theodora rose from
humble circumstances to play a critical role in Justinian’s reign. She helped him
survive the most difficult moment in his reign and played an important role in his
religious and military programs. Her death from cancer on June 28, 548, was a ter-
rible blow to the emperor, who was never the same after the loss of his beloved.
Theodora is not only an important figure but, at least in her own time, also a con-
troversial one. She was from most humble beginnings. Her father was the animal
trainer for the imperial arena, and she herself performed on the stage. In the late
Roman and early Byzantine world, acting on the stage was deemed a most inglori-
ous profession and a bar from marriage to a person of senatorial rank. Moreover,
she was forced into prostitution on occasion to support her family, and, according to
the sixth-century Byzantine historian and general Procopius, she was an excellent
and insatiable prostitute. He notes in his Secret History that Theodora, while still
a young and underdeveloped girl, acted as a sort of male prostitute and resided in
a brothel. When she was older she continued life as a courtesan and would exhibit
herself publicly. Procopius says that she would attend parties with 10 men and lie
with them in turn, then proceed to lie with the other partygoers, and then lie with
their servants. Not only, Procopius tells us, was she incredibly promiscuous but she
was also without shame. She would perform a special act in the theater where she
would lie almost completely naked, have servants sprinkle barley grains over her
private parts, and have geese come along and pick the grains up with their bills.
Procopius’s account clearly is an exaggeration and was included in a work not
intended for public consumption. Although The Secret History offers a gross cari-
cature of the empress, it does contain a kernel of truth—Theodora was an actor
and, probably, a prostitute. Her family history was an unfortunate one. Her father,
Akakios, the bear keeper for the Green faction—one of two factions in Constan-
tinople that provided charioteers and other performers for the games in the arena
and that had extensive support networks throughout the city—died while Theodora
was still a girl. Her mother remarried in the hopes that her new husband would be
awarded the position. Unfortunately for Theodora, her two sisters, and her mother
this did not happen, and only after public pleading by her mother or Theodora and
 Theodora | 511

her sisters did their stepfather receive the position. But the award was made by the
Blues, the rival faction to the Greens, an action that Theodora never forgot. Life,
however, remained difficult, and Theodora performed on the stage, where her sharp
wit and talent won her popularity.
Unwilling to settle for the difficult life of the stage, Theodora aimed higher and
became the mistress of Hecebolus, a high government minister and governor of a
minor province in Africa. Her relationship with Hecebolus brought great changes
to her life. She accompanied him to Africa, but their relationship soon soured, as
Theodora’s biting wit proved too much for the older and duller Hecebolus to endure.
She was sent away after a terrible fight and left to her own resources. Procopius says
that she turned to prostitution, but again caution should be exercised in accepting
his bitter commentary. It is certain that Theodora spent time in Alexandria, where
she met a number of leading Monophysite clergy. At this point, under the influ-
ence of the pious Monophysites, Theodora underwent a religious conversion and
renounced her former way of life. She managed to find her way back to Constanti-
nople, where she established herself in a small house, practicing the honorable and
very traditional profession of sewing.
It was at this point that she met Justinian, nephew of the emperor Justin and heir
apparent. Despite her rather checkered past, Theodora possessed a number of quali-
ties that attracted Justinian. Not the least of these qualities was her physical beauty.
Contemporary accounts comment on her attractiveness, and mosaics and sculpture
confirms this. She was petite and had an oval face with large black eyes—features
that served her on the stage and before the emperor. But her qualities went far be-
yond physical beauty; it was her personal qualities that inspired such great love and
devotion from Justinian. Even her harshest critic, Procopius, noted that she was very
clever and had a biting wit. Indeed, in his History of the Wars Procopius presents
a most favorable portrait of Theodora that is in stark contrast to the portrait in The
Secret History. And another contemporary, John Lydus, noted that she was more
intelligent than anyone in the world. She also possessed some learning and culture
that enabled her to fit in Justinian’s world. But more than learning and intelligence,
Theodora possessed great self-confidence and nerves of steel. Justinian himself was
a man capable of prodigious amounts of work, but he sometimes lacked resolve,
and it was Theodora who provided that strength of will.
Justinian, 15 years her senior, was deeply smitten by Theodora and made her his
mistress and shortly thereafter planned to marry her. There were several obstacles
to the marriage: Theodora’s humble birth, the legal barrier against an actor marry-
ing a senator, and the reigning empress, Euphemia, who absolutely forbade the re-
lationship. Theodora was elevated to the patriciate by Justin, Justinian’s uncle and
the emperor. Euphemia’s death in 524 eliminated another of the obstacles to mar-
riage. Justin, lastly, issued a law allowing actors who had renounced their previous
lifestyle, had lived honorably, and had received high dignity to marry members of
512 | Theodora

the senatorial aristocracy. In 525 Justinian and Theodora married, and in 527, at the
death of Justin, they ascended to the imperial dignity.
In many ways Theodora exercised great influence over her husband and his
reign. Her most important moment, however, came during the Nika Revolt in 532,
which nearly toppled Justinian’s government. The revolt broke out in January on
the heels of yet another riot between the Greens and Blues. Violence between the
two factions was not uncommon in Constantinople, but this riot took on more seri-
ous implications because leaders of the two factions were arrested and condemned
to death. The factions were united by the desire to save their leaders and also by
dissatisfaction with taxes, bread distribution, and government agents. The govern-
ment’s failure to respond effectively to the demands of the Blues and Greens and
unwillingness to release the leaders led to great violence. The factions stormed the
City Prefect’s palace, killing police and releasing prisoners as they went. Shout-
ing “Nika the Blues! Nika the Greens!” (Nika meaning win or conquer), the rioters
destroyed much of the city. The revolt was so serious that the crowds, directed in
part by ambitious senators who sought to exploit the situation, proclaimed a rival
emperor, the senator Hypatius.
Justinian’s efforts to suppress the revolt were half-hearted and ineffective, but
more deliberate attempts depended upon palace guards whose loyalty was uncer-
tain. Justinian’s personal appearance before the crowd did little but alienate them
further. At that crucial moment Justinian seems to have lost his nerve and ordered
flight. Theodora stood before her husband’s council and made, according to Pro-
copius, the following speech:
Whether or not a woman should give an example of courage to men, is neither
here nor there. At a moment of desperate danger one must do what one can.
I think that flight, even if it brings us to safety, is not in our interest. Every
man born to see the light of day must die. But that one who has been emperor
should become an exile I cannot bear. May I never be without the purple
I wear, nor live to see the day when men do not call me “Your Majesty.” If you
wish safety, my Lord, that is an easy matter. We are rich, and there is the sea,
and yonder our ships. But consider whether if you reach safety you may not
desire to exchange that safety for death. As for me, I like the old saying, that
the purple is the nobles shroud. (Procopius, History of the Wars I.24.33–37,
cited in Robert Browning, Justinian and Theodora, p. 72)
Theodora’s strength gave Justinian the resolve he needed, and a plan was hatched
by Justinian and his loyal generals. Using German mercenaries, the generals infil-
trated the crowd of rebels in the Hippodrome and successfully massacred 30,000
people. The revolt was suppressed. The rival emperor was captured and brought
before Justinian, who was about to commute the death sentence of his old friend
to permanent exile when Theodora convinced her husband to execute his rival.
 Theodora | 513

The revolt had ended, and Justinian survived, thanks to his loyal generals and, most
especially, Theodora.
Theodora’s most dramatic impact on Justinian’s reign occurred during the Nika
Revolt, but she influenced Justinian’s domestic and foreign policy throughout their
lives together. She clearly had her favorites among Justinian’s civil and military
staff, and those whom she disliked suffered. She orchestrated the fall of two of
his ministers whom she despised. Priscus, an imperial secretary who had enriched
himself at public expense, was tonsured and packed away to a monastery by the
empress. John of Cappadocia, an imperial financial minister who had risen from
humble beginnings, was another victim. Although he was an honorable minister, his
methods were brutal, and his deposition was demanded during the Nika Revolt. He
was implicated in a plot against Justinian and accused of the murder of a bishop.
His methods and possible betrayal of the emperor made him an enemy of Theodora,
who forced Justinian to believe the worst about John. Although Theodora struck
out ruthlessly against those she thought unfaithful to Justinian and those who, like
Hypatius, openly opposed him, Theodora was also an important benefactor. She
was a staunch ally of the general Narses, who earned her favor by his defense of
Justinian in 532. She protected him and promoted his cause during the wars in Italy.
Theodora not only influenced personnel decisions but also presented a more human
face to the imperial dignity by her largesse. With Justinian she indulged in acts of
charity that were functions of both imperial responsibility and Christian duty. On
numerous occasions, Theodora, with and without her husband, made lavish chari-
table donations. Following the devastating earthquake in Antioch in 528, Justinian
and Theodora, all contemporary records attest, sent great amounts of money to help
rebuild the city. On a trip to northwestern Asia Minor, Theodora offered large dona-
tions to churches along her route. She also took special care of poor young women
who had been sold into a life of prostitution. On one occasion she called the owners
of the brothels to the court, reprimanded them for their activities, and purchased the
girls from them out of her own purse. She returned them to their parents and also
established a convent where they could retire.
The empress also played a critical role in religious affairs in the empire. It was her
favorite Vigilius who succeeded to the papal throne in 537, although not simply be-
cause he was her favorite. She conspired in the elevation of Vigilius to the office of the
papacy above all because she thought he would be a more pliable pope on religious
matters important to her and the emperor. But more than that she offered protection
to an important religious minority in the empire. As the emperor, Justinian was the
protector of the faith and defender of orthodoxy. Consequently, he enforced orthodox
Christian belief and ordered the persecution of heretics, including the execution of
many Manichaeans of high social rank. The empire, however, faced a serious divi-
sion over the nature of Jesus Christ that threatened imperial unity and relations with
Rome. The largest minority sect in the empire was that of the Monophysites, who
514 | Theodora

were particularly numerous in the wealthy and populous region of Syria. Theodora,
a devout Monophysite Christian, defended and protected her coreligionists. She en-
couraged the promotion of Monophysites or their sympathizers to positions of eccle-
siastical importance and protected Monophysites in her private chapel. She also may
have influenced Justinian’s publication of a profession of faith that sought a common
ground between orthodox Catholic doctrine and Monophysite doctrine.
Theodora’s impact may also have been felt on Justinian’s foreign policy. One
of the emperor’s great dreams was to restore Italy to imperial control, and the
situation on the peninsula after the death of the great Gothic king Theodoric in
526 afforded him an opportunity. Theodoric was succeeded by his eight-year-old
grandson, Athalaric, under the regency of his mother and Theodoric’s daughter,
Amalaswintha. The regent was a cultured, educated, and ambitious woman who
found herself at odds with much of the Gothic nobility. Facing conspiracy from the
nobility, especially after the death of her son, Amalaswintha found an ally in Jus-
tinian, whom she nearly visited in Constantinople in 532. For the emperor, a close
alliance with Amalaswintha provided an entry into Italian affairs and the possible
extension of imperial control. Her talent and royal blood made her an attractive
marriage candidate, a fact not lost on anyone in the imperial capital—especially
Theodora. The Gothic queen, however, never made the trip east and was eventu-
ally imprisoned by her rivals in Italy. It is at this point that the possible influence
of Theodora can be seen.

Mosaic of Theodora from the Church of San Vitale, Ravenna, sixth century. (Neil Harrison/
[Link])
 Theodoric the Great | 515

Justinian sent an envoy to protest the imprisonment, threatening war if anything

should happen to the queen. According to Procopius, the envoy received a second
message from Theodora, instructing him to inform the Gothic king, Theodohad,
that Justinian would do nothing should anything happen to Amalaswintha. And not
long after Amalaswintha was murdered. Justinian had his pretext to invade Italy.
Theodora provided this pretext, Procopius tells us, out of jealousy, but it is likely
that Justinian was aware of the second letter and approved of it. Whether he did or
not is conjecture, but clearly he benefited from the letter, just as he benefited from
Theodora’s inner strength and good political sense throughout their lives together.
See also: Amalaswintha; Belisarius; Gothic Wars; Justinian; Procopius; Theodoric

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. Vol. 2. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993.
Obolensky, Dmitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1453. New
York: Praeger, 1971.

Theodoric the Great (c. 451 or 453/454–526)

One of the greatest of the barbarian kings and the greatest of the Gothic kings,
Theodoric the Great, or the Amal as he was originally known, reigned over the
Ostrogoths from 471 to 526 and ruled an independent Gothic kingdom in Italy
from 493 to 526. He assumed power in Italy by defeating a rival barbarian king,
Odovacar, and Theodoric’s reign was generally recognized for its effectiveness
and tolerance. He skillfully managed the relations between his people and the na-
tive Roman population and also maintained good relations with the emperors in
Constantinople. Theodoric was able to keep the peace in Italy between Ostrogoths
and Romans despite important differences in religion—Theodoric and his people
were Arian Christians and the native Italians were Catholic Christians. He pre-
served the best aspects of the administrations of Odovacar and the Romans and
worked well with the Senate and Roman nobles. He was an active builder, promoted
culture, and patronized the great scholars Boethius and Cassiodorus. His reign,
however, was marred in its later years by increasing tension between Goths and
Romans, as Catholic Christianity found important new leaders. The situation was
worsened by Theodoric’s execution of Boethius and his father-in-law, Symmachus,
leading Roman senators. Despite the difficulties of his later years, complicated fur-
ther by the lack of a male heir, Theodoric was one of the greatest kings to rule in
the years after the fall of the Western Empire.
516 | Theodoric the Great

The early life of Theodoric is important for his later years, though modern
knowledge of it is marked with confusion. One particularly vexing problem about
his early years is the date of his birth, which is traditionally given as 456. Accord-
ing to the tradition, Theodoric was born on the day that his family learned the news
that his uncle Valamir had been attacked by and had defeated a large band of Huns.
But this date is unlikely because it would make Theodoric quite young—indeed,
perhaps too young—when he was sent to Constantinople as a hostage and still quite
young when he later took control of the kingdom. More recent scholarship has sug-
gested dates of birth as early as 451, which would correspond to the victory of the
Ostrogoths and their Roman allies over the Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian
Plains, a date that would make Theodoric a more mature, and politically useful,
boy when he was sent to Constantinople. Whatever his exact date of birth, he was
born to the royal Amal family and was sent as a hostage in 459/460 as surety for
a treaty between the Ostrogoths and Eastern Empire. While at the imperial court,
Theodoric learned a great deal and had experiences that shaped his later life. He
became aware of rivalries among the Gothic people, and most likely came to fear
and hate rival Ostrogothic families who gained preferment at the imperial court. He
also witnessed the sophisticated governmental practices of the empire, which he
used when he became king of the Ostrogoths and then later ruler in Italy. He also
gained a solid, if unspectacular, education, most likely learning to do arithmetic
and to read and write.
Theodoric was released from his service as a hostage in the late 460s, after
which, at about 469, he returned to his homeland, received control of a subkingdom,
and began his ascent to power among the Ostrogoths. Already in 470 he launched
campaigns, sometimes in the name of the empire, against his political rivals or to
expand his territory. His success in 470 revealed his ambition; the campaign prob-
ably took place without his father’s permission, and marked, for Theodoric, the start
of his independent authority. In the 470s he became an increasingly powerful and
important figure in the military and political life of the Eastern Empire. His main
Gothic rival, Theodoric Strabo, or the Squinter, rose in the imperial ranks in the
470s and took a prominent part in a revolt against Emperor Zeno. Having fled from
the capital in 475, Zeno was able to return thanks to the support from Theodoric of
the Amal clan and strike against Strabo, who quickly fell from grace, though he re-
mained a powerful rival to both Theodoric and Zeno. Theodoric the Amal received
numerous honors from Zeno and was made commander of East Roman troops.
Theodoric’s people were made foederati (federated allies) of the empire and were
given an annual subsidy from the emperor. Despite these achievements, Theodoric
still faced a challenge from Strabo, who sometimes was supported by Zeno for fear
of an over mighty Theodoric the Amal. Strabo’s sudden death in 481 freed his ri-
val’s hand. Theodoric was now sole king of the Ostrogoths and a dangerous friend
of the empire.
 Theodoric the Great | 517

The 470s and early 480s saw important changes in the life of Theodoric and the
Roman Empire. Theodoric had become one of the most powerful figures in the
Eastern Empire. In 482–483 Theodoric waged a terrible offensive in the empire to
force Zeno to come to terms, which the emperor did. Theodoric was rewarded with
a consulship for 484, but his term in office was cut short by Zeno’s fears that the
Ostrogoth had turned against him. Despite his own strength, Theodoric knew that
he was no match for the full power of the empire, and events in the Western Empire
offered both Theodoric and Zeno a solution to their problematic relationship. In
476 the last of the Western Roman emperors, Romulus Augustulus, and his general,
Orestes, were defeated by the German general Odovacar. After defeating his rivals,
Odovacar executed Orestes and deposed Romulus and sent him into internal exile.
Odovacar also declared the end of the imperial line in Italy and, although recog-
nizing the sovereignty of the emperor in Constantinople, ruled as an independent
king in Italy. In 488, following another revolt by Theodoric, Zeno requested that
the Ostrogoth invade Italy and restore it to imperial control.
Theodoric’s march to Italy was not unimpeded, as other barbarian peoples strug-
gled against him, but he reached Italy by the summer of 489. His rival Odovacar was
waiting for him with his army. Theodoric won two victories against Odovacar in
August and September of 489. He also welcomed Tufa, one of Odovacar’s leading
generals, and it seemed that Theodoric would quickly triumph over his enemy. But
Odovacar was able to secure himself behind the walls and swamps of Ravenna, and
Tufa rejoined Odovacar shortly after leaving, taking with him the Ostrogothic sol-
diers he commanded on the way to Ravenna. Odovacar then took the offensive and
forced Theodoric to withdraw to the city of Pavia. Theodoric, however, managed to
break the siege and defeat Odovacar once again, on August 11, 490, with the aid of
a large number of Visigoths. Odovacar returned to Ravenna, where Theodoric be-
sieged him. But Ravenna could not be taken, and Theodoric was forced to negotiate
with Odovacar. Agreement was reached on February, 493, and Theodoric entered
Ravenna on March 5. Apparently he had agreed to share power with Odovacar.
On March 15, he welcomed Odovacar at a great banquet, at which Theodoric him-
self killed Odovacar. The murder of Odovacar was followed by the massacre of his
family and supporters. Theodoric had eliminated his rival and then proceeded to
take control of Italy.
Theodoric’s position remained uncertain for some time, in part because of his
desire to be recognized as the ruler in Italy by the emperor in Constantinople. He
was anxious to be recognized in the capital of the empire because he portrayed his
kingdom as the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire in Italy. He did this for
a number of reasons. He certainly had some sentimental attachment to all things
Roman as a result of his time as a hostage in Constantinople. He also recognized
the importance of being “Roman.” That identity meant civilization and defined re-
lations with the nobility in Italy, as well as with the church, a very powerful force.
518 | Theodoric the Great

It was also a means to secure support for his kingdom from the population of Italy,
the birthplace of the Roman Empire. He could also use it in his relations with
Constantinople, as an instrument to remind the emperor that any violation of the
peace between them was a violation of the empire and an offense against God.
Theodoric’s status was resolved gradually over the first two decades of his rule
in Italy, and in two stages, in 497/498 and in 508, the Ostrogoth gained recognition
from the emperor for his independent status as king in Italy. His rule in Italy, from
497 until his death in 526, was a time of peace and prosperity for the peninsula.
Moreover, his kingdom became the center of the greatest power in western Europe,
as Theodoric established his authority not only over Italy but also over other parts
of the old Western Empire. Although his closest rival, the Merovingian king Clovis,
managed some success against Theodoric in southwestern France, the Frankish
king never really attempted to unseat Theodoric, to whom he was related by mar-
riage. (His sister, Audofleda, married Theodoric and bore the daughter Amalas-
wintha.) Indeed, marriage alliances constituted one of the tools Theodoric used to
enhance his power in the old Western Empire—his sister married the Vandal king in
North Africa, and his daughters married a Visigothic king and a Burgundian king.
Another instrument in the extension of his power, of course, was his great ability
as a general. His defense of the Visigothic kingdom in Spain and subsequent ac-
quisition of the kingdom in 511 revealed his talents as a military leader, as did his
campaigns for and against the emperor and against Odovacar.
Although king of Visigothic Spain, Theodoric is best known for his rule of Italy.
As the independent ruler of Italy, Theodoric presided over a cultural and economic
revival in the peninsula, and his royal court in Ravenna was a great center of in-
tellectual and cultural life. He worked effectively with the Roman nobility, who
enjoyed the peace brought by Theodoric and managed to revive the productivity
of their estates. Theodoric’s equitable distribution of land, which did not overly
burden the Roman population of Italy, also stimulated an economic revival. He
not only worked well with the nobles but respected and honored the Senate, and in
many ways preserved Roman imperial governmental practices. Despite his Arian-
ism, Theodoric remained on good terms with the pope and Catholic church in Italy.
Indeed, at one point he was invited to resolve a disputed papal election, and his
good relations with the church were critical to his acceptance as the ruler in Italy.
He also supported the traditions of Roman law and education in his kingdom. He
helped maintain the infrastructure in Italy, restoring many roads and public build-
ings, and he was also a great builder in his own right. He built a great palace, an
octagonal baptistery decorated with brilliant mosaics (including a mosaic of the
Trinity which was not common in Arian church decoration), and, most notably, the
magnificent mausoleum that still stands in Ravenna today. Finally, Theodoric was a
patron of arts and letters. His personal secretary was the prominent Christian writer
Cassiodorus, and Theodoric also had close relations with the great intellectual and
author, Boethius.
 Theodoric the Great | 519

Despite his long and prosperous reign, Theodoric’s end was not a happy one, and
his great kingdom did not long survive his death. Several events conspired to bring
Theodoric’s reign to an unfortunate end. His failure to have a male heir made the es-
tablishment of a dynasty difficult and caused tensions among the Ostrogoths, which
worsened other internal problems. It also undermined his foreign policy and the
extension of his power over Spain. Furthermore, his good relations with the church
came to an end for two reasons. The election of a new pope, John I (523–526), ended
Theodoric’s good relations with the papacy, in part because of John’s hostility to-
ward Arianism. His relations with the church also worsened because the tensions
that existed within the church, between its eastern and western halves, were eased,
as the new emperor, Justin (518–527), outlawed Arianism and supported Catholic
orthodoxy. Theodoric’s Arianism was made to appear even more at odds with the
Catholic population by the conversion of Clovis and the Merovingian dynasty to
Catholic Christianity. Finally, his good relations with the Senate and Roman nobil-
ity were poisoned by an alleged conspiracy of senators in 522. Boethius’s defense
of his fellow senators implicated him in the plot in the eyes of Theodoric, and as a
result, Boethius fell from favor and was executed in 524.

Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic king, wrongly iden-

tified as Justinian. ([Link])
520 | Theodosian Code

Theodoric died in August 526. According to the sixth-century Byzantine histo-

rian Procopius, Theodoric died of typhoid brought on by remorse for the deaths of
Boethius and his father-in-law, Symmachus, who was also implicated in the plot
against Theodoric. Procopius notes that Theodoric was served fish for dinner one
evening and saw in it the face of Symmachus. Theodoric fled to his room frightened
by the vision, and then called for a doctor, to whom he disclosed his great dismay
over the execution of Symmachus and Boethius.
Theodoric was succeeded by his grandson, Athalaric, whose mother, Amalaswin-
tha, served as a regent during the first part of her son’s reign. The problems of The-
odoric’s last years continued to plague his successor and Amalaswintha. Dissension
among the Goths led to her death and the eventual invasion and destruction of the
Gothic kingdom by Justinian. A brilliant, tolerant, and effective ruler in many ways,
Theodoric could not provide for a lasting settlement in the kingdom he created.
See also: Amalaswintha; Arianism; Boethius; Catalaunian Plains, Battle of the; Clovis;
Huns; Justinian; Merovingian Dynasty; Odovacar; Orestes; Ostrogoths; Romulus
Augustulus; Visigoths; Zeno

Bibliography
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1984.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S.J.B. Barnish.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Hodgkin, Thomas. Theodoric the Goth: the Barbarian Champion of Civilization. New
York: G. P. Putnam, 1983.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes. Trans. Charles C. Mierow. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1985.
Moorhead, John. Theodoric in Italy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Procopius. Procopius, with an English Translation by H. B. Dewing. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1962.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J. Dun-
lap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Theodosian Code

An official compilation of the laws of the Christian emperors of Rome, the Theo-
dosian Code (Codex Theodosianus) was an important and influential legal work.
 Theodosius the Great | 521

Binding throughout the empire from its publication in the early fifth century, the
code would have a direct impact on early Germanic legal codes such as the Vi-
sigothic Breviary of Alaric which contains whole selections of the code. The code
also enforced the position of Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the
empire and imposed harsh restrictions on heretics and Jews living in the empire.
The emperor Theodosius II (401–450) established a commission in 429 to codify
imperial legislation that had been issued since the time of the emperor Constantine.
Over the next six years, the commission collected a large number of imperial edicts
and general laws that would serve as the main body of the code. In 435 Theodosius
issued further instructions, ordering the commission to prepare an index to identify
the specific legal point at issue. The completed work was divided into 16 books and
included more than 2,500 constitutions issued between 312 and 437. Theodosius
published his code in Constantinople in 437, declaring that no law issued by the
emperors from the time of Constantine and himself would have legal force if it were
not in the code. In 438, the code was officially published in Rome.
See also: Breviary of Alaric; Constantine; Visigoths

Bibliography
Harries, Jill and Ian Wood, eds. The Theodosian code: Studies in the Imperial Law of
Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth Publishers, 2010.
Matthews, John. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
Pharr, Clyde, Theresa Sherrer Davidson, and Mary Brown Pharr, eds. The Theodosian
Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1952.

Theodosius the Great (347–395)

The last emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire, Theodosius (r. 378–95)
was one of the last great Roman emperors. He had success against the Visigoths,
whose marauding across the empire following the Battle of Hadrianople in 378 was
stopped by the emperor. A staunch Catholic Christian, Theodosius had mix rela-
tions with the church. One of its most ardent defenders, Theodosius also came into
conflict with the great bishop of Milan, Ambrose.
Born in Spain to the powerful and important general, Theodosius, and his wife,
Thermantia, both of whom were Catholic at a time when Arianism was in the as-
cendancy, Theodosius would follow his father into a military career, joining the
senior Theodosius on campaign and becoming a commander in his own right. In
374, however, Theodosius retired from public life, possibly as a result of his father’s
disgrace and execution. Four years later, Theodosius was recalled from retirement
by the emperor Gratian, whose uncle and emperor in the east Valens was killed after
522 | Theodosius the Great

the disastrous Battle of Hadrianople. Given command of the army, Theodosius

was formally made emperor in the east in 379 and took steps to rebuild the army
destroyed at Hadrianople. He enjoyed several victories over the Goths but was un-
able to destroy them. In 382, following the precedent set by Gratian in 380, The-
odoric came to terms with the Goths and settled them as foederati (federated allies)
along the Danube in Thrace. In this way, the emperors made enemies of the empire
into its defenders, and the Goths were obliged by the treaty to serve alongside the
Roman military.
Along with his struggles against the Goths, Theodosius was involved with inter-
nal conflict over control of the empire itself. Following the death of Gratian in 383,
the western half of the empire endured serious unrest from the pretender Magnus
Maximus who challenged Gratian’s coemperor Valentinian II. In 387, Maximus,
having established himself north of Italy invaded the peninsula, forcing Theodo-
sius to act. In 388, the two met at the battle of Poetovio and Maximus was defeated
and then executed. Trouble arose again in 392 when Valentinian was found dead in
his palace, and the general Arbogast, accused of murdering Valentinian, propped
Eugenius up as emperor. In contrast to Theodosius, Arbogast and Eugenius restored
the Altar of Victory in Rome and advocated traditional Roman pagan religion. Al-
though they sought recognition for Eugenius from Theodosius, the emperor in the
east refused and made his son, Honorius, emperor. In 394, Theodosius defeated
and killed Arbogast and Eugenius and unified the empire under his authority. And
in 395, Theodosius’s sons, Arcadius and Honorius, would succeed to a divided
empire.
Theodosius left an important legacy on the history of the church as well as on
the empire. His relations with the church were not always smooth, however, and
on two occasions he ran into trouble with Ambrose of Milan. In 388, a group of
Christians, spurred on by their bishop, destroyed a synagogue in Mesopotamia.
The emperor sought to punish the bishop and force him to pay restitution to the
members of the synagogue, but the bishop of Milan threatened spiritual penalties
is Theodosius imposed the fines. The emperor yielded to the bishop. In a more
famous and important incident, Theodosius ordered the massacre of some 7,000
people in Thessalonica in 390 after a riot that threatened imperial authority broke
out in the city. Ambrose placed Theodosius under the ban of excommunication
and forced the emperor to do penance. Theodosius submitted and provided a
precedent for later churchmen who sought to assert the spiritual over the secular
power. Despite these conflicts, the relations between Ambrose and Theodosius
as well as those between the church and the emperor were generally good. It
was Theodosius who helped to finally resolve the dispute that had raged within
the church since the time of Constantine over the nature of the godhead. A de-
vout follower of Nicene Christianity, Theodosius supported Catholic over Arian
teachings. In 381, he called the first Council of Constantinople, which affirmed
 Theodulf of Orléans | 523

Nicene orthodoxy and declared Arianism a heresy. Confirming Catholic teach-

ings as orthodox for the church, Theodosius declared Catholic Christianity the
official religion of the empire in 391. Although he did not force pagans to con-
vert to Christianity, Theodosius abolished pagan priesthoods, forbade pagan rites,
closed temples, confiscated their land and transformed the temples into Christian
churches.
See also: Ambrose of Milan; Arbogast; Arianism; Constantine; Galla Placidia; Hadrianople,
Battle of; Honorius; Visigoths

Bibliography
Freeman, Charles. A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State.
New York: Overlook Press, 2009.
Friell, Gerar, and Stephen Williams. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. New York:
Routledge, 1998.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Theodulf of Orléans (c. 760–820/821)

Court scholar, abbot, and bishop, Theodulf of Orléans was a leading figure in the
Carolingian Renaissance during the reign of Charlemagne. Theodulf was perhaps
the finest poet and most gifted theologian among Charlemagne’s court scholars.
He was also the primary author of the Libri Carolini (Caroline Books), a missus
dominicus (emissary) for the king, and a dedicated preacher. During his term in
office as bishop of Orléans, he sought to implement the reforms spelled out in
Charlemagne’s Admonitio Generalis.
Theodulf was born in Spain to Visigothic parents in circa 760 and entered Char-
lemagne’s service after the great ruler’s extension of his territory into Spain. He
became a devoted supporter of the king and his religious and educational reforms.
He benefited from his service, being made abbot of two important monasteries and,
some time before 798, bishop of Orléans by Charlemagne. Theodulf partook fully
in the reform program of Charlemagne, both as bishop and royal agent.
As missus dominicus to southern France in 798, Theodulf performed in exem-
plary fashion, judging cases of law and executing the royal will. He also learned
firsthand of the corruption that such officials perpetrated when he was offered gifts
by the litigants whose cases he was to arbitrate. Although he did not accept these
gifts, Theodulf recognized that others did and worked to eliminate such abuses of
power. In similar fashion, as bishop of Orléans he sought to reform ecclesiastical
life and discipline, issuing a number of edicts designed to improve religious life in
his diocese. He also established schools to educate young boys in his diocese. In the
524 | Theodulf of Orléans

790s he was called on to write the Carolingian response to the Second Council of
Nicaea (787), at which the veneration of icons forbidden under the iconoclastic
emperors was restored, and he accordingly prepared the Libri Carolini, which con-
tained the Carolingian denunciation of the veneration of icons and a sophisticated
philosophy of art. Although authorship was traditionally given to Alcuin, it is now
recognized that Theodulf was the author, but with some role held by Alcuin in the
production. Theodulf was also probably present at Charlemagne’s coronation as
emperor on Christmas Day, 800. His service to the Carolingian dynasty continued
during the reign of Charlemagne’s successor, Louis the Pious. But in 817 Theodulf
was implicated in a rebellion against the emperor, although there is little evidence
to confirm or deny any role. Louis deposed Theodulf from his office of bishop and
exiled him to Angers, where he died in 820 or 821.
Theodulf was, above all, a theologian and poet of great skill. Along with the
Libri Carolini Theodulf produced treatises, at Charlemagne’s invitation, on bap-
tism and the Holy Spirit. He also produced a new edition of the Bible. Even
more celebrated than his theological works is his poetry. Theodulf was the fin-
est and most original poet of all the court scholars of Charlemagne’s age. His
poetry was characterized by elegant Latin and abundant references to classical
literature, especially Ovid (43 bc–ad 17), and his poem Ad Carolum regem (To
Charles the King) is a charming and often satirical portrait of Charlemagne and
his scholars. His religious poetry was often pessimistic, however, reflecting on
the poor mores of those around him. He revealed his deep appreciation of art in
his poetry, an appreciation that is also reflected in the manuscripts illuminated at
his scriptorium and in the beautiful mosaics decorating the church he had built
at St. Germigny-des-Prés.
See also: Admonitio Generalis; Alcuin of York; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne;
Louis the Pious; Missi Dominici; Visigoths

Bibliography
Dutton, Paul Edward, ed. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON: Broad-
view, 1993.
Freeman, Ann. “Theodulf of Orléans and the Libri Carolini.” Speculum 32 (1957):
664–705.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Theodulf of Orleans. The Poetry of Theodulf of Orleans: A Translation and Critical
Study. Ed. and trans. Nikolai A. Alexandro. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1970.
 Theudelinda | 525

Theudelinda (d. 628)

Bavarian princess, Theudelinda (also spelled Theodelinde) was the wife of two
Lombard kings, Authari (r. 584–590) and Agilulf (r. 590–616), and the mother of a
third, Adaloald (r. 616–626). A powerful figure in the Lombard kingdom, Theude-
linda exercised her influence in the realm for nearly 30 years. She effectively chose
the successor to her first husband, Authari, and acted as regent for her son, Adaloald.
In frequent correspondence with Pope Gregory the Great, some of which is found
in the history of the eighth-century historian Paul the Deacon, she sought to con-
vert the Lombards from Arian Christianity to Catholic Christianity and welcomed
Catholic missionaries into the kingdom. Although ultimately the Lombards did
adopt Catholic Christianity, her efforts inspired an Arian reaction during the reigns
of Ariold (r. 626–636) and Rothari (r. 626–652).
Paul the Deacon recorded a romantic tale of the courtship of Theudelinda
by Authari, which involved Authari’s anonymous visit to the Bavarian court.
The marriage having been arranged between the Lombard and Bavarian kings,
Theudelinda was sent to the Lombard kingdom. She wed King Authari at Verona
on May 15, 589. Although Authari was a committed Arian, and welcomed few
non-Arians to his court, he chose to marry the Catholic Theudelinda. He did so
because of long-standing ties between the Lombards and the Bavarians and be-
cause of their mutual hostility toward the Franks, who had the Bavarians on the
defensive at that time. Theudelinda was also of the ancient Lombard royal line
and thus a suitable match for the Lombard king and former duke. Indeed, the mar-
riage benefited both sides, strengthening the Lombard–Bavarian alliance, which
successfully halted a Frankish advance in 590 and established a lasting peace
with the Franks in 591.
During her marriage to Authari, Theudelinda established herself as a major fig-
ure in the kingdom, and she remained so until her death in 628. According to Paul
the Deacon, Theudelinda was so highly esteemed by the Lombards that at the death
of Authari they allowed her to remain queen and asked her to choose the successor
to Authari as her husband and king. In consultation with the Lombard leaders, she
chose Agilulf, duke of Turin. During his reign, Theudelinda continued to exercise
her influence and corresponded with Pope Gregory. Under her guidance, Agilulf
forged a treaty with the pope, one of the greatest landowners in Italy as well as the
spiritual leader of Catholic Christians. She also supported the activity of the Irish
missionary St. Columban, which not only improved the religious life of the king-
dom but also established a connection with lands to the north of Italy. At her hus-
band’s death in 616, she was made regent for their son Adaloald, and she remained
his coruler even when he reached his majority. His reign and life, however, ended
abruptly in 626 amid allegations that he had gone mad. Theudelinda’s support for
526 | Tolbiac, Battle of

Catholicism may have been the real reason for the sudden end of Adaloald’s reign,
but even though an Arian reaction set in after 626, her influence continued with the
marriage of her daughter to the new king, Ariold.
Theudelinda was a major political force throughout her life in the Lombard king-
dom, but is perhaps best known for her missionary efforts in support of Catholic
Christianity. Although somewhat independent minded in her faith and support for
the northern Italian bishops against the pope in a doctrinal dispute, Theudelinda
was on good terms with the pope. She actively supported the religious life in her
kingdom and built a church dedicated to St. John the Baptist at Monza, near Milan,
which she richly endowed. She also received lavish gifts from Pope Gregory to
be bestowed on the new church. Her support for new religious foundations did
not end with Monza, but included the establishment of monasteries at Bobbio and
elsewhere. The foundation at Bobbio, one of the most important and influential
monasteries of the early Middle Ages, came as the result of her support for the
Irish missionary St. Columban. Although in the short run her support for Catholic
Christianity failed to counter Lombard Arianism, Theudelinda’s efforts in support
of the Catholic church were vindicated when the Lombards converted to Catholic
Christianity later in the seventh century.
See also: Arianism; Columban, St.; Franks; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Merovingian
Dynasty; Paul the Deacon; Rothari

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper and Row,
1962.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Three-Field System. See Agriculture

Tolbiac, Battle of (496)

Battle fought between the Merovingian king of the Franks, Clovis, and the Alemanni
about the year 496. According to the sixth-century Frankish historian Gregory of
Tours, the battle was the turning point in the reign of Clovis, who converted to
 Tolbiac, Battle of | 527

Catholic Christianity following the victory. The traditional chronology of the con-
version, however, is now questioned, and it is considered most likely that Clovis did
not convert directly to Catholic Christianity from paganism. Although the battle may
not have occurred as Gregory described it and may have become confused with the
battle at Zülpich some 10 years later, it may still be recognized as an example of the
broader policy of conquest and expansion pursued by the greatest Merovingian king.
As recorded in the history of Gregory of Tours, the Battle of Tolbiac involved
the Franks and Alemanni; it has generally been dated to around 496. The battle
was critical in the religious formation of Clovis and the Merovingian kingdom.
As Gregory reported, Clothild, Clovis’s Catholic wife, had pleaded with him
for several years to accept her faith. She even baptized their first two sons in
the Catholic faith, the first dying shortly after baptism and the second surviv-
ing only as a result of Clothild’s prayers. Despite his wife’s missionary efforts,
Clovis was not persuaded and preferred to follow the traditional gods of the
Franks, who had served him so well until that point. During the Battle of Tol-
biac, however, Gregory wrote that Clovis experienced a change of heart. His
army was on the point of annihilation when he appealed to his wife’s God and
swore that if God gave him victory over his enemies he would convert. The tide
of battle suddenly turned, and Clovis emerged victorious. Not long after, ac-
cording to Gregory, Clovis accepted baptism at the hands of St. Remigius, the
archbishop of Rheims.
The exact chronology of Clovis’s reign and the date of the battle remain un-
certain, although the events of his reign most likely did not follow the pattern set
by Gregory of Tours. Nevertheless, Gregory’s image is still important, because it
remained the predominant view of this great king until recent times. Gregory’s
depiction of the Battle of Tolbiac portrays Clovis as a Christian king, whose con-
version in battle resembles the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in
the fourth century, as recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea. Clovis was, therefore,
first and foremost a Christian king whose conversion was effected by the power
of God. Although it is likely that the events of Clovis’s life did not unfold the way
Gregory described them, the description of the Battle of Tolbiac and the broader
image established by Gregory provided later kings and ecclesiastics an important
precedent to follow.
See also: Alemanni; Clovis; Constantine; Franks; Gregory of Tours; Merovingian Dynasty

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Daly, William M. “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?” Speculum 69 (1994): 619–64.
Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
528 | Toledo

Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press,
1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Toledo

Located on the Tagus River in central Iberia, Toledo was the capital and cultural
and religious center of Visigothic Spain until it was conquered by the Muslims in
the early eighth century. Its natural protections—the city rests atop a bluff and is
surrounded by the Tagus River—attracted settlement, and in 193 bc the Romans
made it the capital of the province of Carpentia. After the fall of the Roman Empire,
the city came under the control of the Visigoths and rose to a position of promi-
nence. Although seized from the Romans by the Alans in the early fifth century,
Toledo was taken shortly after and became part of a growing Gothic realm that in-
cluded parts of Gaul. Expelled from Gaul by Clovis in the early sixth century, the
Goths came to focus their power in Spain. Under Leovigild (r. 568/569–586), the
kingdom coalesced and Toledo became its capital. Leovigild established his court
at Toledo and attempted to impose Arian Christianity on his kingdom at a council
held in the city. Although Leovigild’s religious policy would fail, the connection of
church and kingdom in Toledo would be continued by his son and successor Rec-
cared (r. 586–601).
In 587, Reccared converted to Catholic Christianity and presided over one of a
series of 18 councils in Toledo that would be held in the sixth and seventh centu-
ries. The councils demonstrated the close cooperation of the king and the bishops
of Spain and legislated on a wide variety of topics including eradicating heresy
and paganism, reforming the liturgy, regulating clerical behavior, organizing the
ecclesiastical and political hierarchy, and regulating relations between Christians
and Jews. Under Reccared, Toledo also became the cultural center of the Visigothic
kingdom. The construction of a cathedral was undertaken by the king, and the bish-
ops of the city produced important works of history, law, and theology. The bishops
also reformed the liturgy and established the Toledan liturgy as the liturgy of the
church in Spain. Toledo grew in importance during the sixth and seventh centuries,
and the bishop of Toledo came to be recognized by his fellow bishops as the leader
of the church in Spain. After the defeat of the last Gothic king of Spain, Roderic,
in 711 by the Muslim invader Tarik ibn Ziyad, Toledo fell to Muslim control and
emerged as an important city during the era of Muslim control of Spain and the
residence of a large Mozarabic Christian community. Toledo was also known for
the production of steel, particularly swords, throughout the Middle Ages.
See also: Alans; Ariansim; Leovigild; Reccared I; Roderic; Visigoths
 Totila | 529

Bibliography
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain 409–711. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
Kennedya, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus.
London: Longman, 1996.

Totila (d. 552)

Eventual successor of Witigis as king of the Ostrogoths in Italy and the greatest
Gothic military commander since Theodoric the Great, Totila (r. 541–552) led his
people for 11 years and mounted a major challenge to Justinian’s efforts to conquer
Italy and restore it to imperial control. His early and dramatic military victories re-
stored Gothic confidence and rallied them against the Byzantine general Belisarius.
Although unable to inflict a total defeat on the Byzantines, Totila effectively wore
down imperial resistance until his defeat by Narses and death in battle. His strategy
to make the conquest of Italy so bloody and difficult that Justinian would abandon
his effort nearly succeeded, but at great cost to the people, cities, and countryside
of Italy. Totila’s successor, Teja, did not survive long after Totila’s death, and the
Goths themselves fell to the armies of Justinian in 555.
After the failure of Witigis against the Byzantine armies in Italy, along with the
failure of the Goths’ efforts to promote Belisarius, the commander of the Byzantine
troops in Italy, to the office of western emperor, the Goths fell into a short period of
political turmoil, as two Gothic leaders rose to prominence only to fall to political
murders. Totila was the nephew of one of these murdered leaders; he was elected
king in the fall of 541 with the duty of restoring Gothic authority in Italy. Totila was
a skilled commander who was also blessed with some good fortune, which aided him
throughout the 540s. The efforts that the Goths had made to promote Belisarius to
the imperial dignity made him suspect in Constantinople, and Persian efforts on the
empire’s eastern frontier limited the number of troops and resources that could be
committed to the war in Italy. Moreover, in the spring of 542 Totila won a major battle
at Faenza, rallying the Goths to his side. He once again raised a rebellion against the
invaders, and imperial armies moved north to contain him and lay siege to Verona.
With some 5,000 troops, Totila moved against an imperial force of some 12,000
troops, and in a brilliant tactical move defeated them. His smaller force managed to
catch its rival in a pincer movement, and a reserve of 300 Gothic lancers fell on the
imperial army’s rear at a crucial moment. His ranks swelling to some 20,000 troops,
Totila followed this victory with another major success over the imperial army near
Florence and a rapid move to southern Italy to lay claim to the entire peninsula.
Totila’s fortunes improved even more in 543 as he moved into the south. He
managed to enter Naples and treated both the civilian population and the imperial
530 | Totila

garrison leniently—a clever strategy that gained the support and respect of many
in Italy. He repeated this policy of leniency when he took the city of Rome after a
siege that lasted from late 545 until December 546. Even the return of Belisarius,
who had been recalled to Constantinople after the defeat of Witigis, could not stop
the advance of Totila, who hoped that his military victories would force the emperor
to negotiate. Although Justinian was unwilling to come to the table, Totila was not
without diplomatic successes; he managed to remove the Frankish threat by ced-
ing part of northern Italy to the Merovingian king Theudebert. Totila’s next move,
however, was not as successful. He led his army north in the spring of 547 against
Ravenna, an imperial stronghold, and lost Rome to Belisarius, a loss that under-
mined confidence in Totila. His failure to retake the city diminished his prestige
even more and led to a breakdown in marriage negotiations with the Merovingian
Franks. He did, however, manage to retake the city in 549, seize a number of for-
tresses in 549 and 550, and take the offensive in Dalmatia and Sicily.
Although enjoying a measure of success and forcing the recall of the great
Belisarius, Totila was not able to overcome the Byzantine advantage in wealth and
soldiers. Justinian refused to negotiate with the Gothic king and would not even
meet with the envoys Totila sent to Constantinople. Instead, Justinian responded to
Totila’s efforts with total war in Italy, and the emperor sent the great general Narses
to prosecute the war with renewed vigor. After a successful march into Italy, Narses
secured Ravenna and proceeded on to Rome. In July 552, the armies of Totila and
Narses clashed at Busta Gallorum, the decisive battle of the war. Although outnum-
bered, Totila decided to accept battle, hoping that late reinforcements or an unex-
pected attack would bring him victory. A cavalry charge at the center of the larger
imperial force was the main act of the battle. The Gothic cavalry was broken in the
assault, the Gothic armies fled from the field, and some 6,000 Gothic soldiers were
killed in the rout. Totila died in battle, as did the hopes of any success for the Goths.
Although Totila’s nephew continued the struggle, the Goths were essentially broken
on the field of Busta Gallorum, and the Gothic people disappeared from history by
555, the date of the final Byzantine victory.
See also: Belisarius; Franks; Justinian; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Narses;
Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great; Witigis

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1984.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S. J. B. Barnish.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
 Tournai | 531

Procopius. History of the Wars. Trans. H. B. Dewing. 1962.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Tournai

Important early burial site that, like the site at Sutton Hoo for the Anglo-Saxons,
offers important evidence for the early Frankish dynasty of the Merovingians. The
tomb is that of the second king of the dynasty, Childeric (d. 481), the father of the
dynasty’s greatest king, Clovis (r. 481–511).
The tomb was discovered in 1653 and given complete and careful descriptions
and illustrations by Jean-Jacques Chifflet, an Antwerp doctor. It is most fortunate
that Chifflet took such great care to document the artifacts of this discovery; most
of them were stolen from the Cabinet des Medailles in Paris in 1831. A few pieces
remain but the astonishing collection can only be appreciated by the account by
Chifflet. The tomb contained a wide range of burial goods and was clearly identified
as Childeric’s by a gold signet ring bearing the king’s name and his image showing
him wearing his hair long (a tradition of the dynasty to come). The find also con-
tained war goods including a spear, his horse’s head with its harness, a battleaxe,
and two swords exquisitely inlaid with gold and garnets. There was also a hoard of
100 gold coins and 200 silver coins. The burial site contained numerous other items
such as a crystal globe, gold buckles, gold belt mounts, and a magnificent cloak
embroidered with 300 bees or cicadas of gold and garnet.
Chifflet’s discovery is important because of the light it throws on the first Merovin-
gian kings; it suggests something of the contacts and wealth they had. The use of
garnets, for example, suggests Gothic influence; it became traditional in Frankish
metalwork. The coin hoard and various decorative ornaments suggest contacts with
Constantinople and the Eastern Empire. The coins also demonstrate the growing
wealth of the emerging dynasty. The grave goods, furthermore, reveal something of
the character of Childeric’s court. Burial of the horse’s head along with certain other
goods clearly reveals the pagan character of the king and his court. But he was no
wandering Germanic king searching for a livelihood. Instead, he was most likely a
settled warrior king who had become an ally of the late Roman Empire. As recent
archeological work around the area has shown, the grave at Tournai was close to a
Roman cemetery and a Roman road, which suggests the influence of late Roman
culture on this early Frankish king.
See also: Anglo-Saxons; Clovis; Merovingian Dynasty; Sutton Hoo
532 | Tours

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings and Other Studies in Frankish History.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Tours

The most important city of the Touraine in west central France, Tours is some 140
miles southwest of Paris and is located on the Loire River. Tours was a major reli-
gious and pilgrimage center during the Middle Ages as well as a leading intellectual
center. It was the site of a bishopric and one of the more important monasteries of
medieval France. It was the home of St. Martin, one of its first bishops, and Gregory,
the historian of the Franks and bishop.
The region around what would become Tours was settled by the Gauls before its
incorporation into the Roman Empire as Caesarodunum in the first century of the
Common Era. By the fourth century it came to be called Tours and was the leading
city of the Roman province of Lugdunum. In the third century the first Christian
community and bishop were established there, but not until the arrival of St. Martin,
who became bishop in 372 and had established a monastery outside the city a de-
cade earlier, did the town emerge as one of the real centers of the Christian faith
in Gaul. Martin himself would be critical to the town’s emergence as an important
religious center during his lifetime and after when his tomb became an important
pilgrimage site, and in the fifth century a great church was built over Martin’s tomb.
During the barbarian invasions, Tours first fell under the control of the Visigoths and
was later made part of the Frankish kingdom by Clovis, who was made a canon of
St. Martin. In the late sixth century, Gregory became bishop and actively promoted
the town and its patron, St. Martin, and oversaw the restoration of the cathedral,
which had been destroyed by fire in 561. Gregory wrote a history of the Merovin-
gians as well as works on the saints, including a book of the miracles of St. Martin.
Around the tomb of his predecessor, Gregory built a monastery that became one of
the most important and influential in medieval France. The town and its religious
establishments grew in power and wealth during the course of the seventh century,
and in the eighth century the church and its wealth was the goal of Muslim raiders
from Spain.
Somewhere between Tours and Poitiers, the Carolingian mayor Charles Martel
defeated the Muslims and turned them back from their movement into the Frankish
 Tours, Battle of | 533

kingdom. Under the Carolingian kings, the town and its monastery continued to
thrive. The monastery at Tours became one of the leading intellectual centers of
the Carolingian Renaissance. Charlemagne appointed his close adviser and great-
est scholar of the day, Alcuin, the lay abbot of the monastery, and as a result Tours
became important in the development of Carolingian minuscule. In the later eighth
and ninth centuries, the town suffered repeated attacks by the Vikings, and as a result
extensive new fortifications were built around the town, its suburbs, and monastery.
See also: Alcuin; Carolingian minuscule; Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Clovis;
Charles Martel; Gregory of Tours; Martin of Tours, St; Tours, Battle of; Visigoths

Bibliography
Farmer, Sharon. Communities of Saint Martin: Legend and Ritual in Medieval Tours.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Mitchell, Kathleen and Ian Wood, eds. The World of Gregory of Tours. Leiden: Brill
Academic Publishers, 2002.

Tours, Battle of (732)

Battle fought by the Frankish mayor of the palace, Charles Martel, against invading
Muslims from Spain on October 25, 732, somewhere between Tours and Poitiers.
Although the military importance and technological impact of the battle has been
questioned, it was regarded as a major victory for Charles by contemporaries
and by the chroniclers of the ninth century who termed Charles “the Hammer”
(Martellus).
As a result of the Muslim conquest of Spain in the early eighth century, southern
Gaul was plagued by frequent Muslim raids into its territory. Although conquest of
the territory by the Muslims was unlikely, their raids into Aquitaine and surround-
ing areas were a serious problem. In the 720s when the Muslims attacked Autun
and towns along the Rhone River, the brunt of the fighting was born by the duke of
Aquitaine, Odo. In 732 a more serious raid was launched by the emir of Spain, Abd
al-Rahman, who swept through Aquitaine and reached Bordeaux and Poitiers. Odo,
who suffered defeat at the hands of the invaders, had requested aid from Charles
Martel. After sacking the monastery of St. Hilary in Poitiers, the Muslim party
moved toward the wealthy monastery of St. Martin of Tours. It was on the way to
Tours that Charles Martel met Abd al-Rahman. After a week of minor skirmishes,
the main contingents of the Franks and Muslims engaged in a significant struggle
in which, one chronicle noted with great exaggeration, 300,000 Muslims were
killed. Although the numbers involved were much more modest, the Franks by all
534 | Tours, Battle of

accounts withstood the Muslim onslaught and held the field, managing to kill the
Muslim general Abd al-Rahman during the battle. The coming of night put an end
to the conflict, and both sides retired to their camps. The next morning, Martel and
his army discovered that the Muslims had abandoned their encampment and had
withdrawn from the field leaving the Franks the opportunity to pillage the tents of
their defeated foes.
The battle has acquired much fame, but generally for the wrong reasons. It has
often been held that the victory at Tours “saved” Christian Europe from Muslim
conquest in the eighth century. But conquest of Gaul and the larger Frankish king-
dom by Muslim raiders from Spain was most unlikely to occur. The invasions were
attempts to gain plunder but posed no long-term threat. The victory at Tours did end
the raids by Muslims from Spain, and helped Charles Martel strengthen his hold
on the kingdom. The battle also demonstrated the weakness of Odo, which Charles
exploited after the duke’s death in 735.
The Battle of Tours is also supposed to have marked a great turning point in the
history of military technology. According to the thesis of Lynn White, Jr., the battle
marked the introduction of the stirrup to Western Europe, and the use of the stirrup
and the mounted shock troop guaranteed the victory of the Franks over the Mus-
lims. This view, however, has been shown to be wrong; there is neither written nor
archeological evidence to support White’s conclusions.
Although the military and technological importance of the Battle of Tours is
often overstated, the battle remains an important moment in Carolingian history.
Charles Martel’s victory, recognized as a great achievement by those in the eighth
and ninth centuries, was significant. The victory at Tours ended Muslim raids from
Spain, and later Carolingian rulers were to extend the frontier into Muslim territory.
The victory also further demonstrated the talents of Charles Martel as a military
leader and allowed him to gain greater authority over the Frankish kingdom and
the duchy of Aquitaine.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charles Martel

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. “Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudal-
ism.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 7 (1970): 47–75.
Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Trans. Michael Jones. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1964.
U
Ulfilas (c. 311–382/383)

Gothic bishop, missionary, and translator, Ulfilas, which means “little wolf” in the
Gothic language, was a key figure in the ongoing Christianization of the Goths. He
was hailed as the Moses of his age by the emperor Constantius II, and was com-
pared with the prophet Elijah by others. His reputation came from his missionary
activity among Goths who remained loyal to their traditional faith, as well as from
his standing as tribal leader of the Goths. He also earned this praise because, like
Moses, he brought the word of God to his people with his translation of the Bible
into the Gothic language. Like the much later translation of the Bible by Martin
Luther, that of Ulfilas had an important influence on the development of a language
and culture.
Born at around 311, Ulfilas was a third-generation Danubian Goth whose ances-
tors on his mother’s side, at least, may have come from Cappadocia. But he was a
true Goth from birth and, despite his name, was probably not of low social origins.
Indeed, his apparent education and later career suggest otherwise. From his early
years, Ulfilas seems to have been trilingual, learning Greek and Latin along with
his native language. He also probably studied rhetoric; at least his later theologi-
cal and exegetical works suggest such training. His upper-class social origins are
suggested also by his membership in a delegation to Constantinople between 332
and 337 representing the Goths before the imperial government. He may have even
lived in Constantinople for a while at that time before returning to his homeland.
On a second trip into imperial territory, to Antioch in 341, Ulfilas was conse-
crated “bishop of the Christians in the Getic land” by Eusebius the bishop of Con-
stantinople. It is likely that his ordination was part of a broader Roman initiative to
convert all the Goths, but it also suggests recognition of the minority population of
Goths and their need for spiritual leadership. His promotion to bishop also suggests
the esteem in which the Romans held Ulfilas, who advanced to the episcopal office
after holding only the minor church office of lector. As bishop in the 340s, Ulfilas
sought to fulfill the task bestowed on him at his consecration; as a result, he was an
active missionary. He not only ministered to his flock effectively but also reached
out to non-Christian Goths. His Christianity was the mainstream Christianity of the
empire and was influenced by the Arianism of the ruling emperors of the time. Al-
though Ulfilas may not have accepted fully all the tenets of Arianism, he rejected
the Nicene Creed and generally held a centrist position between the two extremes.

535
536 | Ulfilas

Whatever the exact nature of his belief, Ulfilas was an effective missionary, and his
activities among his fellow Goths may have alienated those who maintained belief
in the traditional gods. In the first Gothic persecution of Christians in 348, Ulfilas
was expelled, perhaps because of his evangelical zeal, and as a result of his expul-
sion has been known by the honorary title confessor.
He and his followers, for whom he was both a spiritual and secular leader, were
settled within the Roman Empire by the emperor, and Ulfilas again assumed his du-
ties as bishop. As bishop in exile from his native land, Ulfilas sought to continue his
evangelical and pastoral work, and even indulged in writing theological treatises.
He preached in Gothic, Greek, and Latin, and participated in the council of 360,
which supported the Arian faith in the empire. His greatest achievement, however,
was his translation of the Bible into the Gothic language, probably after 350. He was
faced, first, with the challenge of preparing an alphabet for the Gothic tongue, and
only after that could he translate Scripture. He most probably translated his Bible
from the Greek version commonly used in the fourth century. His translation and
missionary activity were a great inspiration to other Goths who carried on his work,
and his Bible provided a single source to unify the Goths in language and faith.
In his later years it is likely that Ulfilas opposed Athanaric, who persecuted
Christians, and supported his fellow Arian and pro-Roman Goth, Fritigern. But
when Fritigern revolted against the empire, Ulfilas was more inclined toward Rome
than Fritigern. Indeed, Ulfilas spent his last days in the imperial capital at Constan-
tinople, preparing for the start of a church council on the Arian question. Ulfilas
remained committed to his Arian faith, declaring on his deathbed: “There is one
eternal, unbegotten, and invisible God, who before time existed alone. Within time
he created the Son, the only-begotten God.”(Wolfram 1997, 84–85) Although the
empire was moving toward Catholic Christianity, it allowed the barbarian peoples
to follow the Christianity of their ancestors. Ulfilas had inspired numerous disciples
who spread his Arianism to other barbarian peoples, including the Ostrogoths, the
Vandals, and possibly the Franks.
See also: Arianism; Athanaric; Fritigern; Visigoths

Bibliography
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Thompson, Edward A. The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
V
Valens (328–378)

Arian Christian Roman emperor (r. 364–378), whose career is noteworthy for his
disastrous defeat by the Visigoths at the Battle of Hadrianople, Valens was coem-
peror with his brother Valentinian I (r. 364–375). Valens ruled in the eastern capi-
tal of Constantinople. His reign was marked by successes against the Visigoths
and Persians as well as against pretenders to the throne before his final, tragic
defeat.
Valens was promoted to the imperial throne on March 28, 364, when he was
elevated to the dignity by his brother Valentinian following the death of Emperor
Jovian (r. 363–364). He was faced almost immediately by a rebellion, but managed
to suppress it and execute its leaders. After defeating his rival for the throne, Valens
turned his attention to the defense of the imperial frontiers against pressures from
the Goths. In 367 and again in 369, Valens crossed the Danube River, leaving im-
perial territory, to attack the Goths. He successfully laid waste to Gothic territories
and then returned to Constantinople to celebrate his victory and assume the title
Gothicus. Although the raids did not yield any long-term benefits, they did pro-
mote the status of the emperor and force the Goths to come to terms. Valens and
the Gothic leader Athanaric agreed to a treaty in September 369, meeting on boats
in the middle of the Danube. As part of the agreement, the Romans sealed off the
border from Gothic trade with the empire. Valens may also have sought to exploit
the intratribal struggles that existed between the Gothic leaders Athanaric and Frit-
igern by forging a treaty with Fritigern.
Valens’s early success against the Visigoths was not, however, repeated later in
his reign. With the arrival of the Huns, new pressures were placed on the Roman
frontiers and the barbarian peoples living along those frontiers. The Huns were rec-
ognized as a major threat by the Visigoths and seriously undermined the authority
of Athanaric, who had previously struggled with the Romans and persecuted the
Christians in his midst. The weakness of Athanaric and the enormity of the threat
of the Huns inspired a large faction of the Goths, led by Fritigern, to petition Valens
for entry into the empire as foederati (federated allies) in 376. The request was not
unprecedented, but the size of the population involved was some 80,000. Despite
the great number of people involved, Valens agreed to allow the Goths to cross the
boundary and settle in Roman territory, a fateful decision that had a great influence
on the subsequent course of events.

537
538 | Vandals

Valens had allowed the Goths to enter, and he made promises of food, territory,
and administrative help. But none of this came, and in fact the Goths were harassed
by local Roman administrators rather than helped. The poor treatment and general
suffering caused the Goths to revolt against the Romans, and Valens himself de-
cided to lead the army against the rebels. After some negotiation and poor deci-
sion making by Valens, the battle was fought on August 9, 378, at Hadrianople (in
modern Turkey). The Romans were overwhelmed and annihilated by the Goths,
and Valens died during the battle. The Goths were allowed to settle in the empire
by Valens’s successor, Theodosius the Great.
See also: Alaric; Arianism; Athanaric; Hadrianople, Battle of; Fritigern; Huns; Visigoths

Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378). Trans. Walter
Hamilton. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1986.
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Cameron, Averil. The Later Roman Empire, A.D. 284–430. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1993.
Ferrill, Arthur. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. New York:
Thames and Hudson, 1986.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Vandals

One of the barbarian peoples who established successor kingdoms in the deteriorat-
ing remnants of the Western Empire in the fifth century. Although active from the
early fourth century, the Vandals only established a kingdom of any consequence
in the fifth century under their greatest king, Gaiseric, who carved out a kingdom
of his own in North Africa. His son and other descendants preserved this kingdom
into the sixth century and created one of the more powerful entities in the newly
forming post-Roman Mediterranean. The Vandal kingdom ultimately fell to the
armies of Justinian in the 530s, as he attempted to reunite the eastern and western
parts of the Roman Empire under his authority. The Vandals are perhaps best known
for Gaiseric’s sack of the city of Rome in 455, and have, since the 18th century,
been associated with the term vandalism. They acquired a reputation for senseless
destruction and violence that is reflected in the modern term, but one that is unde-
served and inaccurate.
The early history of the Vandals before their entry into the empire in the fifth cen-
tury remains a bit unclear. They probably originated in the region of the Baltic Sea
 Vandals | 539

or in Scandinavia, and in the first century of the Common Era they moved south and
divided into two groups, the Silings and the Hasdings. By the year 300, at the latest,
the Vandals seem to have settled in central Europe where they gradually began to
make contact with the Roman Empire and other barbarian peoples. These relation-
ships, however, before too long became increasingly complicated, as the Vandals,
like other peoples living outside the empire’s frontiers, faced increasing pressure
from westward-moving Huns or the peoples they displaced. The two groups of Van-
dals reunited and joined with other barbarian peoples, then were forced from their
homeland after losing a struggle against a confederation of Goths. According to one
tradition, the Vandals petitioned the emperor Constantine for admittance into the
empire as a people. But this version of events is quite unlikely, even though some
individual Vandals may have been settled within the empire at that time. They most
likely remained somewhere in central Europe, perhaps reaching parts of modern
Hungary in the course of the fourth century. As the pressure from the Huns contin-
ued to increase, the necessity of moving the tribe increased. By the late fourth and
early fifth centuries, the Vandals had become foederati, and had joined with the
Roman military commander Stilicho against Alaric and the Goths.
This connection with Stilicho, along with competition and cooperation with
other barbarian peoples, led to the entry of the Vandals into the empire when they
crossed the Rhine River in 406. After an initial setback following the crossing, the
Vandals inflicted a crushing defeat on the Frankish allies of Rome who defended
the frontier. Following this victory, the Vandals, along with their Alan allies, went
from one end of Gaul to the other and caused serious devastation. Thanks to the
decline in the power of the Western Empire, the Vandals, like other barbarian peo-
ples, roamed freely in the empire. After two and a half years in Gaul, they marched
into Spain, where they divided again in two and attempted to establish themselves.
The period in Spain was pivotal in the history of the Vandals and witnessed the
first appearance of their greatest king, Gaiseric. Before the rise of Gaiseric, how-
ever, the Vandals enjoyed a measure of success and endured serious setbacks in
Spain. By 422, a confederation of Vandals and Alans had conquered southern Spain,
but only after being forced south by Visigothic armies sent by Rome. Indeed, a
Visigothic army marched into Spain on Rome’s behalf, nearly obliterating the Sil-
ing Vandal tribe and forcing the Alans and Hasding Vandals together in 418. Forced
by the pressure of the Visigoths, the Vandals moved into the south. By 428, the Van-
dal king Gunderic (r. 406–428) had captured the Roman cities of Cartagena and
Seville. But the sack of Seville did not come without great cost, as Gunderic died
while the city was being plundered by the Vandals.
At the death of Gunderic, Gaiseric (c. 390–477) assumed the throne, even though
Gunderic had male heirs. Gaiseric regularized this succession plan later by estab-
lishing that the oldest Hasding male of the royal family should take the throne.
Gaiseric was the son of a Vandal king and an unfree woman, possibly a Roman
540 | Vandals

captured in a raid. At the time of succession he was nearly 40, and had a mature
son, Huneric, who may have himself been married to a Visigothic princess. Gai-
seric was the greatest of the Vandal kings and one of the ablest barbarian kings of
his age, equal to the more famous Attila the Hun. Indeed, Gaiseric had great vision.
He created a kingdom in Africa that lasted several generations, before falling in the
end to Byzantine armies led by Justinian’s general Belisarius.
Gaiseric’s vision is best revealed by his movement into Africa, which was em-
broiled in great turmoil at that time. Recognizing the difficulties the imperial gov-
ernment faced because of the ambitions of its general Boniface, in 429 Gaiseric
moved all his people, some 80,000 according to tradition, to Africa in a fleet of
ships. Once there, Gaiseric moved gradually across the region and threatened
Roman authority. According to one account, Boniface had invited Gaiseric to Africa
to help against a Gothic army sent to suppress his revolt, but then faced a hostile
Gaiseric. Whatever the cause of his movement, Gaiseric reached St. Augustine’s
city of Hippo in 430 and laid siege to the city that lasted 14 months. Although the
town held out against Gaiseric and the siege was lifted, Roman efforts to rescue
it failed when Gaiseric defeated an army led by Boniface, who was now back in
Rome’s good graces. Gaiseric occupied the town after the siege and settled a treaty
with the empire in 435 that recognized Vandal control over the territory. Four years
later, in 439, Gaiseric violated the treaty by seizing the great capital of Carthage. He
was now clearly in control of important parts of Africa, and the empire was forced
to deal with that reality.
Gaiseric had established his kingdom in North Africa, and he remained in control
there until his death in 477, despite Roman efforts to dislodge him. It must be noted,
however, that relations between Gaiseric and the empire were not always hostile.
In 442 Gaiseric agreed to a treaty with the Western Empire in which his authority
in Africa was recognized by the empire. And he remained on good terms with the
western emperor, Valentinian III (d. 455). But when Valentinian was murdered and
his daughter Eudocia, who had already been betrothed to Huneric, was forced to
marry the new emperor’s son, Gaiseric reacted violently. He led his fleet to Italy and
sacked Rome, although at the request of Pope Leo I, known as Leo the Great, he
did not massacre the population or burn the city down. He later conquered several
islands in the western Mediterranean, and in 456 he defeated a fleet sent against him
by the eastern emperor. In 474, he settled a treaty with Constantinople recognizing
his authority, and in 476 negotiated rights over Sicily with the western emperor, an
agreement that was accepted by the emperor’s successor, Odovacar. At his death on
January 24, 477, Gaiseric was clearly the greatest power in the western Mediter-
ranean. He transformed the tribal group that followed him into a settled people and
was the founder of a kingdom that seemed likely to last for a long time to come.
Gaiseric was succeeded by his son Huneric, who had lived a long life and was
probably 66 at the time of succession. Little is known of Huneric’s early life other
 Vandals | 541

than his role as hostage at the imperial court and his marriages. He was married
early on, perhaps before his father took the throne, and was betrothed to Eudocia
to confirm the treaty of 442. His first wife was accused of attempting to poison
Gaiseric and sent back to Visigothic Spain after being mutilated. The marriage of
Eudocia to the new emperor’s son was an excuse for the sacking of Rome. The two
were married the following year. But Huneric’s aggressive Arianism alienated his
wife, a devout Catholic, who left him for Jerusalem in 472. As king Huneric is per-
haps known for his persecution of Catholics in his kingdom, which became quite
serious in the last year of his reign. His death in 484 prevented the persecution from
doing serious damage to the church in Africa.
Despite the purge of family members that he had earlier carried out, Huneric was
succeeded by his nephew Gunthamund (r. 484–496) rather than his own son. And it
was at this point that the kingdom began to suffer from serious internal and exter-
nal difficulties. Indeed, already under Huneric the attempt to keep the succession
in one line of the family demonstrated the problems of Gaiseric’s succession plan,
according to which the oldest of the sons of the male members of the royal fam-
ily was to inherit the crown. Gunthamund in his turn faced a series of difficulties.
Although he did end Huneric’s persecution of Catholics, Gunthamund remained a
committed Arian, who made little accommodation with the Catholic church, which
increasingly alienated the majority Catholic population from the ruling dynasty.
He also felt increasing pressure from the native Berbers, who had formerly served
Gaiseric. The Vandal king also faced a challenge from Theodoric the Great, who
pushed the Vandals out of Sicily. These difficulties continued under Gunthamund’s
successor Thrasamund (r. 496–523), whose unrelenting Arianism further alienated
the Vandals from the Roman population. He also faced the further erosion of Berber
support and even threatened war with Theodoric. But good relations prevailed be-
tween the Ostrogoths and Vandals, both because of Thrasamund’s earlier marriage
to Theodoric’s daughter and because of the Vandal’s realization of Theodoric’s
power. Hilderic (r. 523–530), the mature son of Huneric, was the next to rule, and
unlike his predecessors he took a tolerant line with the Catholics, despite his own
continued Arianism. This act endeared him to the Roman population, as did his dip-
lomatic turn toward the empire and away from the Ostrogoths. He was a personal
friend of the great emperor Justinian. His diplomatic shift, however, brought him
to the brink of war with Theodoric, a war prevented only by Theodoric’s death, and
his closeness to the empire led to a revolt, which deposed him.
The final Vandal king was Gelimer (r. 530–534), who assumed the throne by a
palace coup, which violated Gaiseric’s succession plan and the peace treaty with the
empire in existence since 474. Indeed, the deposition of Justinian’s friend Hilderic
angered the emperor on a personal as well as political level. In 533, Justinian sent
his great general Belisarius against the Vandals. A combination of Belisarius’s mili-
tary brilliance and Gelimer’s miscalculation and willingness to concede battle led to
542 | Vandals

the rapid defeat of the Vandals by a relatively small imperial army. After a series of
defeats, Gelimer capitulated in March or April of 534 and was settled in the empire
away from his former kingdom. Justinian, thanks to Belisarius, was able to restore
Africa to imperial control and also able to take his first step toward reuniting the
empire. The Vandal kingdom, although one of the most powerful under Gaiseric,
was destroyed; and the Vandal people were absorbed by the empire.
The Vandals had little physical impact on the African countryside, or at least left
little evidence of it. They did seize land from the Roman provincials in an effort to
secure their own economic base and weaken Roman power. They built little in the
way of fortifications and did not establish urban bases from which they could have
defended themselves against the Romans. Their lack of building fortifications may
have been the result of the Vandals’ pride in their navy, which was quite powerful
and allowed them to control much of the western Mediterranean and sack Rome in
455. They also left little in terms of a written record of their time in Africa. Unlike
other barbarian peoples, the Vandals did not compile a law code, although there was
a collection of laws that reveals Roman influence. And all accounts of the Vandals
were written by writers from the Eastern Empire, who generally left an unfavor-
able portrait.
Vandal life in Africa is best captured by the fifth-century Byzantine historian
Procopius, in his history of the Vandal wars. He noted that the Vandals spent all
their time in the baths or attended the theater. They wore much gold and dressed in
elaborate clothes and were entertained by dancers and mimes. Procopius notes also
that they indulged in great banquets, with a wide variety of meat, fish, and other
foods. They pursued a number of pleasures, including hunting. Finally, it should be
noted that the Vandals were committed Arians, who persecuted the native Catholic
population. But here too, their stay in Africa had little long-term impact.
See also: Alans; Alaric; Arianism; Augustine of Hippo, St.; Attila the Hun; Belisarius;
Huneric; Huns; Gaiseric; Galla Placidia; Jordanes; Justinian; Law and Law Codes; Odovacar;
Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great; Visigoths

Bibliography
Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, A.D. 395–600. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Clover, Frank M. The Late Roman West and the Vandals. London: Variorum, 1993.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Todd, Malcolm. Everyday Life of the Barbarians: Goths, Franks, and Vandals. London:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1972.
Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution. Trans. John Moorhead. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool University Press, 1992.
 Verdun,Treaty of | 543

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Verdun,Treaty of (843)

A major agreement between the surviving sons of Louis the Pious—Charles the
Bald, Lothar, and Louis the German—that brought to a close the civil war that had
raged since the death of Louis the Pious in 840. The treaty divided the Carolingian
Empire between Charles, Louis, and Lothar, and established the outlines for the
later French kingdom and German empire. Although the treaty divided the empire
into three administrative realms, it did not necessarily destroy the empire. The
brothers worked together for a time, and each of the brothers attempted to establish
his authority over the entire realm during the next several decades.
At his death, Louis the Pious was succeeded by his three sons, Charles, Lothar,
and Louis the German, and Pippin II, an adult grandson, the son of his deceased son
Pippin. The oldest son, Lothar, had lived in relative disgrace in Italy during Louis’s
later years because of his part in the revolts against his father in the early 830s, but
he was reconciled to his father shortly before Louis’s death. Lothar was assigned
authority over the eastern section of the Frankish kingdom, with the exception of
Bavaria, which Louis the German administered. The other surviving son, Charles,
was assigned authority over the western part of the Frankish kingdoms, and Pippin
laid claim to his father’s territory in Aquitaine. Lothar, who held the imperial title
along with his rights over the eastern part of the kingdom, rushed north from Italy to
establish his authority over the entire realm and worked to undermine the authority
of Charles. Charles, in turn, joined with his other half brother, Louis, in an alliance
against the ambitious Lothar. The alliance was followed, in 841, by a terrible and
bloody battle between the three brothers at Fontenoy near Auxerre in Burgundy, at
which Lothar was defeated and forced to flee to Aachen. Louis and Charles sealed
the victory over their elder brother by swearing oaths of mutual support at Stras-
bourg in 842, a compact that was followed by their assault on Lothar in Aachen.
With the capture of Aachen, Lothar realized that he was beaten, and thus the three
brothers came together to negotiate the organization of the realm.
Negotiations began in June 842, and lasted over a year before a settlement was
reached with the Treaty of Verdun, the text of which no longer exists. The discus-
sions between the brothers began near Mücon in an atmosphere of distrust and
demands by Lothar for a fair and equitable partition of the realm. As part of the
negotiations, which included some 120 participants along with the three kings, a
survey of all the lands and possessions of the empire was taken. Lothar’s demands,
however, backfired, and he ultimately ended with the least defensible section of
the realm. The treaty most likely began with a call for divine support, and the final
544 | Verdun,Treaty of

settlement centered around the core realms of Aquitaine, Lombardy, and Bavaria
for Charles, Lothar, and Louis, respectively. Along with Aquitaine, Charles re-
ceived the western kingdom, whose boundary followed a line along several rivers,
the Scheldt, Meuse, Saone, and Rhone. Louis received Bavaria and lands east of
the Rhine and also some important cities and wine-producing regions on the west
bank of the Rhine. Lothar received a middle kingdom, stretching in the north from
the traditional Carolingian heartland down into Italy in the south.
Lothar was granted the imperial title but had only nominal authority over his
brothers. His most important imperial responsibilities involved obligations in rela-
tion to Italy and the pope. Charles and Louis had real power and freedom of action
in their own kingdoms, and Charles received an added bonus with the exclusion
of Pippin II, his nephew and heir to lands in Aquitaine. The treaty brought an end
to terrible fraternal conflict in the Carolingian Empire, and, in the following year,
Charles, Louis, and Lothar swore to maintain good fraternal relations and help
preserve the peace in each others’ kingdoms. The treaty, however, may have been
intended only as a short-term solution and a framework to allow for the formation
and reformation of the empire.
The rationale for the agreement remains poorly understood, and there are numer-
ous explanations concerning the purpose and meaning of the treaty and its division
of the empire. It has been suggested that an effort was made in forging the treaty
and configuring the creation of the three kingdoms to appeal to national instincts
in the various parts of the empire. Arguing that neither France nor Germany had
yet emerged, other scholars have noted the importance of economic considerations,
and have cited Lothar’s concerns for a fair and equitable division that led to the
land survey as support for their view. But already in the ninth century, the histo-
rian and member of the royal family Nithard noted that the primary concern of the
three brothers was for the welfare of their vassals, a group that was essential to the
long-term success of the kings of each region. Whatever the intentions of the three
participants in the treaty, the settlement at Verdun set the boundaries of the later
medieval kingdoms of France and Germany and provided a framework for the ul-
timate permanent division of the Carolingian Empire.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Fontenoy, Battle of; Lothar;
Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Nithard; Strasbourg, Oath of

Bibliography
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
 Visigoths | 545

Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.

Visigoths

Barbarian people whose migration played an important role in the decline and fall
of the Western Roman Empire. The contacts of the Visigoths (literally “west men”;
also known as the West Goths or Tervingi) with the Roman Empire may have
started as early as the first century, but clearly occurred in the third century when a
powerful Gothic kingdom formed along the imperial frontier by the Danube River.
These early contacts between the Visigoths and the Romans were often violent and
foreshadowed things to come for both Romans and Goths. The Romans were able
to smash the Visigothic threat in the third century, only to face a greater one in the
fourth and fifth centuries. From their settlements outside the empire, the Visigoths
entered the empire as a result of the advance of the Huns. Once inside the empire,
the Visigoths became both its defender and attacker. They inflicted a stunning defeat
on imperial armies in 378 and pillaged parts of the Eastern Empire before coming
to terms with Emperor Theodosius the Great. After the emperor’s death, and under
the aggressive leadership of Alaric, the Visigoths moved again and sacked Rome
in 410. They then moved out of Italy and eventually settled in southwestern France
and Spain, where they established one of the most successful kingdoms to form out
of the dissolving Western Empire. Although chased from France by the Merovin-
gian king Clovis (r. 481–511), they remained in Spain and established a dynamic
civilization that boasted, among other things, the works of the important early
seventh-century scholar Isidore of Seville. They also converted to Catholic Chris-
tianity from the Arian Christianity that the missionary Ulfilas had disseminated
among them in the fourth century. Despite its advanced political and cultural institu-
tions, the kingdom fell in the early eighth century when Muslim invaders conquered
most of Spain. But Visigothic civilization continued to influence Christian Europe
even after the kingdom’s conquest by Islam.
The people who came to be identified as the Visigoths are traditionally thought
to have emerged in Scandinavia and then to have moved further south, where they
came into contact with the Roman Empire. According to the sixth-century histo-
rian Jordanes, “from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races of a womb of
nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by
name” (104). Historians have long accepted this tale of Gothic origins as essentially
true, but recent archeological investigation has challenged this view, suggesting
instead origin along the Vistula River in Poland. Although the record is uncertain,
in part because the Goths were a nonliterate people and left no written records,
546 | Visigoths

it is possible that the Goths were involved with hostilities between Romans and bar-
barians in the first and second centuries. Their distance from the frontier, however,
guaranteed that they were not the focus of imperial concerns. The Visigoths, how-
ever, eventually moved from their original homeland southward along the Roman
frontier along the Danube and caused the Romans increasing difficulty, especially
in the dark years of the third century.
In 238, the first Gothic attack on Roman territory occurred, which was followed
by further hostilities between the two powers. Over the next several decades, Gothic
attacks became an ever greater problem for the empire, and in 251 the Goths de-
feated a Roman army and killed Emperor Decius. In the next generation, however,
Roman emperors Aurelian and Claudius were able to turn the tide, inflicting severe
defeats on the Visigoths that nearly wiped them out as a people.
The Visigoths then settled in the region between the Danubian border and the
Black Sea and remained good neighbors to the empire for over a century. During
this time, the Visigoths had much better relations with the empire. There were fre-
quent trade contacts between the two, as a variety of goods were exchanged, includ-
ing cattle, clothing, grain, slaves, and wine. It was during this period as well that
the Gothic missionary bishop Ulfilas spread Arian Christianity among the Gothic
people and converted some of them, despite a fierce reaction against his mission-
ary work by Gothic leaders. Settled life also brought increasing social sophistica-
tion and wealth. New social elites emerged, including specialized armed warriors
who served Gothic chieftains. The warriors, as revealed from burial sites in modern
Denmark, were well armed and carried knives, spears, lances, and other special-
ized weaponry. Along with the warrior elite there emerged a new ruling elite, as
well as a peasant class that was dedicated to farming. Indeed, agriculture became
an important economic activity in this period, as did metalworking; a number of
brooches worked in a way characteristic of the Goths began appearing at this time.
For much of the fourth century relations between the empire and the Goths were
relatively peaceful, but efforts by the empire to extend its influence into Gothic ter-
ritory strained relations. This situation was worsened by the westward movement
of the Huns, who had conquered Ostrogothic territory and were increasing their
pressure on the Visigoths. In 376, the pressure from the Huns was so severe that
the Visigoths divided into two camps, one led by Athanaric, who had failed to pre-
vent the Huns’ advance, and a larger contingent, led by Fritigern, who petitioned
Emperor Valens for entry into the empire. The Romans had welcomed barbarian
peoples into the empire as foederati previously, but not in such great numbers. Tra-
ditionally, the number of Goths to cross into the empire in 376 was about 80,000—
an overwhelming number that the local administrators could not handle. Indeed,
the sheer number was only one of the difficulties that was faced by the Visigoths
and the Romans. The Goths’ Arianism increased tensions with the predominately
Catholic Roman population, and Roman officials failed to provide the food and
 Visigoths | 547

other materials necessary for survival that had been promised by the emperor. The
Goths rose in rebellion and in 378 fought a great battle against Roman armies at
Hadrianople, during which Valens was killed and the imperial force was destroyed.
For the next several years the Goths had free rein in Roman territory.
In 382, Emperor Theodosius the Great, who had been made eastern emperor in
379 and given command in the Gothic Wars, brought an end to the pillaging of the
Goths. He forged a treaty with the Visigoths that granted them land to farm in ex-
change for service in the Roman military. This treaty held until Theodosius’s death
in 395 and proved beneficial to the emperor, who employed large numbers of Goths
to put down pretenders to the throne, even though he was forced to subdue rebel-
lious Goths on occasion. The death of Theodosius in 395, however, brought about
a significant change in the relationship between the two people and the fortunes of
both Romans and Visigoths.
The rise of Alaric as leader of the Visigoths in the late 390s resulted in the in-
creasing hostility of the Goths toward the Romans. Alaric himself had received a
high-ranking imperial military post but nevertheless launched raids into Italy in
the early fifth century. He was stopped by Emperor Honorius’s chief military offi-
cer, Stilicho. But the murder of Stilicho in 408 at the emperor’s order removed this
impediment to Alaric’s ambitions. Moreover, the emperor refused to grant Alaric
further concessions or to honor previous financial obligations, which pushed the
Gothic leader to launch another attack on Italy in 410. In August of that year, Alaric
sacked the city of Rome—the first time the city had suffered such treatment in
800 years—plundering and pillaging it for three days. The event profoundly shocked
the people of the empire and inspired St. Augustine of Hippo’s writing of his great
work City of God. After sacking the city, Alaric led his followers south with the
intention of invading Africa. But his efforts failed, and he died shortly thereafter,
replaced by Ataulf, who led the Visigoths into Gaul.
During the fifth century the Visigoths regularized their position in Gaul and
eventually expanded into Spain. Ataulf’s claim to rule in Gaul was uncertain, and
relations with the empire took an interesting turn because of his abduction of the
emperor’s sister Galla Placidia, whom Ataulf married in 414. But Ataulf’s death
in 415 ended any possibility of one his heirs ascending the imperial throne. His
successors returned his widow to the emperor and signed a treaty in 418 in which
the Romans recognized Visigothic claims to reside in Gaul between Toulouse and
Bordeaux. The treaty was signed by Theodoric I (r. 418–451), who was elected
king in 418 and led the Visigoths during their period of settlement and expansion
in Gaul. Although probably not recognized as an independent ruler, Theodoric ex-
ercised important power over his people and strove to improve its position in the
empire. On the one hand, Theodoric remained a loyal ally of the Romans and often
led his Visigoths in battle on behalf of the empire. They actively campaigned on
behalf of the empire in Spain to prevent other barbarian peoples from conquering
548 | Visigoths

that region. They also participated in the great battle fought in 451 against Attila
and the Huns on the Catalaunian Plains, where Roman success depended largely
on the Visigoths and their king Theodoric, who died in battle. But Theodoric also
sought to use any imperial crisis to his advantage and rallied his people on behalf
of Galla Placidia in her struggles against the general Aëtius in the 430s. Theodoric
also led numerous campaigns in southern Gaul to expand Visigothic control in that
part of the empire and attacked its capital, Arles, on several occasions.
Theodoric had laid the foundation for later Visigothic expansion under his sons,
who succeeded him in turn after his death in 451. The increasing weakness of the
Western Empire also enabled the Visigoths to increase the size of their kingdom,
although it should be noted that the Visigothic kingdom was not the picture of
governmental stability. Theodoric’s first two successors, his sons Thorismund and
Theodoric II, were assassinated in 453 and 466, respectively. His third son Euric,
however, did reign for some 18 years, and he built upon his father’s legacy and
Roman weakness to create a great kingdom in southern France and Spain. Breaking
the long-standing agreement with the empire, Euric initiated a series of campaigns
lasting from 471 to 476 in which he captured most of southern Gaul. At the same
time, Euric’s armies were extending Visigothic control over all of Spain, and as a
result Euric created the most significant successor kingdom of the age.
The kingdom, which Euric passed on to his son Alaric II when he died a natural
death in 484, inherited a number of Roman institutions that both Euric and Alaric
exploited effectively. A number of administrative and bureaucratic techniques were
adopted by these kings for their realm, most importantly Roman tax-gathering
practices. They also were influenced by Roman legal traditions. Euric issued a
set of laws, possibly the Code of Euric, in 473, and Alaric issued the Breviary of
Alaric in [Link] legal codes, which were influenced by Roman legal traditions
and incorporated Roman laws, addressed a wide range of issues, including loans,
use of charters, wills, and other matters concerning relations between Romans and
Visigoths under their authority. These kings also shaped church history in their
kingdom, promoting the Arian faith that the majority of the Visigoths now professed
but being careful not to offend their Catholic Roman subjects by persecuting the
Catholic church in their realm. Under Euric and Alaric the Visigoths enjoyed their
greatest success, but also suffered a significant setback in 507 when Alaric suf-
fered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Merovingian king Clovis at the Battle of
Vouillé. This battle, which the sixth-century Frankish historian Gregory of Tours
portrays as something of a crusade, forced the Visigoths out of most of Gaul and
limited their kingdom to the lands in Spain. But despite this loss and the death of
Alaric II, the Visigoths enjoyed nearly another two centuries of success in Spain.
Although the defeat by Clovis was a serious one, it did not end Visigothic power
even in all of Gaul. This was due in part to the Visigoths’ own king, but also to
support from the powerful Ostrogothic king in Italy, Theodoric the Great. Indeed,
 Visigoths | 549

Ostrogothic armies in 508 helped push Clovis’s armies out of Visigothic territory
and allowed Alaric’s heirs to preserve part of their former possession in Gaul. But
Theodoric’s support was not wholly altruistic and formed part of his plan for a
greater Gothic kingdom. He extended his authority over Spain and deposed Alaric’s
heir in favor of a prefect who administered Spain as part of a broader province.
Theodoric also transferred the Visigothic treasury to his own capital at Ravenna.
This situation was bound to cause dissatisfaction among the Goths in Spain, and
after Theodoric’s death in 526 the Visigothic royal line was restored when Amalaric,
Alaric’s son, took the throne.
Amalaric’s rule was a short and unhappy one, which involved further military
losses to the Merovingian kings and ended with his murder in 531. This abrupt end
to his reign was followed by an extended political crisis in the kingdom, despite
the lengthy rule of Amalaric’s murderer Theudis (r. 531–548). The kingdom was
plagued by internal instability brought about by the competition of the nobility for
greater power and by the attempts of several nobles to usurp the throne or estab-
lish themselves as independent of the king. This situation began to change in the
560s, as the Visigothic kings gradually took back control of the kingdom, and it
was Leovigild (r. 568–586) who successfully ended the turmoil and restored royal
authority fully during his reign.
Leovigild’s reign is noteworthy for several reasons, not the least of which was his
restoration of royal power. For much of the first decade of his reign, Leovigild led
or sent out military campaigns to suppress rebellious nobles or to conquer rival bar-
barian or Byzantine powers in Spain. To celebrate his triumph and signal his claims
to powers similar to those of the emperors, he founded a city, which he named after
his son Reccared. He also forged a marriage alliance with the Merovingians when
his son Hermenegild married a Merovingian princess, perhaps building on the mar-
riages of the Visigothic princesses Galswintha and Brunhilde to Merovingian kings.
Moreover, Leovigild sought to establish religious uniformity in his kingdom. He
promoted the Arian faith, but rather than persecuting Catholic Christians, he sought
to convert them by incorporating Catholic practices into the Arian church and mod-
erating Arian theology. His efforts were not that successful; they may even have
contributed to Hermenegild’s conversion to Catholic Christianity and failed revolt.
The religious dilemma, however, was resolved after Leovigild’s death by his son
Reccared (r. 586–601), who converted to Catholic Christianity and declared it the
official faith of the kingdom in 589.
The church Reccared founded was extremely independent and zealous in de-
fense of the faith. Indeed, Reccared himself aggressively promoted the new faith
against elements in the kingdom that supported the traditional Arianism of the
Visigoths. The church remained independent of Rome and was hostile toward the
Jews, an attitude supported by royal legislation against the Jews that cost the kings
vital support at the time of the Muslim invasions. On the other hand, the Visigothic
550 | Visigoths

church was highly sophisticated, and church and king presided over a flourishing
cultural life in Spain in the late sixth and seventh centuries. The most notable con-
tribution was that of Isidore of Seville, but Spain was also characterized by a vig-
orous monastic life, a high level of ecclesiastical culture, and widespread literacy
in Latin (unique at a time when inhabitants of the other barbarian kingdoms were
only beginning to learn the language). Remarkable too were the churches built in
Visigothic Spain, with their characteristic horseshoe arches and lavish decoration.
Despite the apparent strength of the Visigothic kingdom, the seventh century
witnessed the beginning of the end of this dynamic realm. The monarchy contin-
ued to be successful and developed an increasingly sophisticated political theory,
revealed in the first royal anointing and coronation after Old Testament models
among the barbarian peoples, which took place as early as 631, or at least by the
time of King Wamba (r. 672–680). But even before Wamba, Visigothic kings had

Votive crown of King Recceswinth, seventh century. (De

Agostini/Getty Images)
 Visigoths | 551

taken steps to strengthen the monarchy and improve relations between barbarians
and Romans. King Chindaswinth (r. 642–653) and his son and successor Rec-
ceswinth (r. 653–672) reformed Visigothic law and issued new legal codes that su-
perseded earlier versions, eliminated all distinctions between Romans and Goths,
and permitted marriage between the two peoples. Visigothic kings also eliminated
the last of their rivals for control of all of Spain. They also continued, however, to
pass anti-Semitic legislation, which alienated an important sector of the popula-
tion. Finally, in the opening decades of the eighth century the Visigoths faced their
greatest challenge—Muslim invasion from Africa. In 711, a force of Muslim Ber-
bers led by Tarik defeated a Visigothic army led by King Roderick (r. 710–711) and
killed the king. Visigothic resistance continued, but the kingdom was conquered
by the Muslims by 725. Although conquered by the Muslims, the influence of the
Visigothic kingdom lasted long beyond its disappearance.
See also: Aëtius; Agriculture; Alaric; Arianism; Attila the Hun; Augustine of Hippo, St.;
Brunhilde; Clovis; Galla Placidia; Galswintha; Gregory of Tours; Hadrianople, Battle of;
Hermenegild; Huns; Isidore of Seville; Jordanes; Law and Law Code; Leovigild; Merovin-
gian Dynasty; Ostrogoths; Reccared I; Stilicho, Flavius; Theodoric the Great; Ulfilas

Bibliography
Bonnassie, Pierre. “Society and Mentalities in Visigothic Spain.” In From Slavery to
Feudalism in South-Western Europe. Trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991, pp. 60–103.
Bury, John B. The Invasions of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarians and Romans A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommoda-
tion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi. 2d rev.
ed. Trans. Guido Domini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
James, Edward, ed. Visigothic Spain: New Approaches. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes. Trans. Charles C. Mierow. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1985.
King, Peter D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press 1972.
Thompson, Edward A. The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.
Thompson, Edward A. The Goths in Spain. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
552 | Vita Karoli

Vita Karoli

One of the most important and influential biographies of the Middle Ages, the Vita
Karoli (Life of Charlemagne) is the life of the great Carolingian king and emperor
Charlemagne that was composed by his friend and advisor Einhard. The work sur-
vives in 123 manuscripts and became very popular early in its history. It seems to
have become a sort of school text for Carolingian students, and it influenced gen-
erations of Carolingian scholars and rulers. The work was studied and quoted by
such scholars as Lupus of Ferriere, Gottschalk of Orbais, and Walafrid Strabo, who
provided an introduction to the work and arranged it into chapters. The biography
also seemed to have inspired Charlemagne’s grandson, Charles the Bald, who read
the work closely and may have quoted it in some of his legislation.
Despite Einhard’s assertion that he lacked the skills necessary to write the biog-
raphy, his work is one of the most important of the Carolingian Renaissance. His
writing reveals the extent of his learning and bears clear echoes of many Roman
and Christian Latin writers, including Cicero, Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Orosius, and
Sulpicius Severus. His greatest debt, however, was to the great Roman biographer,
Suetonius, whose De vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars), particularly his life of
Augustus, provided the format and vocabulary for Einhard’s work. But Einhard’s
work was no slavish copy of Suetonius; it was based also on Einhard’s intimate
knowledge of his subject. The work addresses the major wars of Charlemagne, his
diplomatic activities, and building projects. Einhard provides information on the
great ruler’s family life, including the king’s too strong love of his daughters (whom
he would not allow to marry), personal appearance, and personality. Einhard also
includes discussion of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne and makes the still
controversial statement that had Charlemagne known what was going to happen
that Christmas day he would have not gone to church. The life concludes with an
extended discussion of Charlemagne’s death and includes a copy of his will.
The purpose of the biography and its date of composition remain uncertain, and
the former is surely conditioned by the latter. Einhard’s life is clearly biased in
favor of its subject. He notes in his preface that he must write so as not to allow
“the most glorious life of this most excellent king, the greatest of all princes of
this day, and his wonderful deeds, difficult for people of later times to imitate, to
slip into the darkness of oblivion” (52). He offers only passing criticism of the
king, and blames rebellions on the nobles or one of Charlemagne’s wives rather
than on any action of the king. The work is clearly intended to prove the greatness
and virtue of its subject. Beyond Einhard’s regard for Charlemagne and sense of
obligation, it is likely that the work was intended as a commentary on political
affairs in the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne. A letter of 830
establishes that date as the latest it could have been written. And if the biography
 Vortigern | 553

were written in the late 820s, it was surely a commentary on the difficulties that
Louis the Pious faced by that time, as his sons and the nobility began to stir against
him. It has also been suggested that the biography was written early in the reign
of Louis and within only a few years of Charlemagne’s death. Certain internal
evidence supports an early composition, and if the work were completed in the
late 810s it was intended to support the claim of Louis as Charlemagne’s divinely
ordained heir to imperial power. The biography also helped define the nature of
imperial power for the Carolingians, an issue Louis himself pursued. Whether the
life was composed circa 817 or circa 830, it is one of the most important biogra-
phies of the Middle Ages, and one that provides an image of the ideal Christian
ruler.
See also: Carolingian Renaissance; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Einhard; Gottschalk
of Orbais

Bibliography
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. David Ganz.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 2008.
Ganshof, Francois Louis. “Einhard: Biographer of Charlemagne.” In The Carolingians
and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1971, pp. 1–16.
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In Carolin-
gian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, edited by Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
Laistner, Max L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976.
McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Vortigern (fl. 425–455)

A king of the Britons, Vortigern assumed power after the Roman withdrawal from
the island. According to an early tradition recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
Bede, and Gildas, Vortigern invited the Saxon kings Hengist and Horsa to England
as mercenaries. His invitation led to the eventual conquest of Britons by the Anglo-
Saxons, even though the king of the Britons had invited the two leaders to aid
the Britons against the Picts and Scots. According to the sixth-century historian
Gildas, a great hero arose in the wake of these invasions; that hero was later be-
lieved to be King Arthur.
After the last of the Roman armies left the island of England in the early fifth
century, the people of the island were forced to find a means to defend themselves
554 | Vortigern

from the attacks of the less civilized Picts and Scots to the north. They sought aid
from the emperor Honorius in 410, but got little more than the approval to organize
their own defense. At around 425, a leader of the Roman-British aristocracy, Vor-
tigern, arose to take control of part of the country and provide for its defense. Called
a tyrant or king by Gildas and other early sources, Vortigern acted as a traditional
Roman military governor and struggled to protect the Britons from the invaders.
He may have attempted to secure aid from the western emperor by writing a letter
to the general Aëtius, but any efforts in that regard failed. He did find allies in the
Saxon leaders Hengist and Horsa, who, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
were invited during the reigns of the emperors Marcian and Valentinian III, prob-
ably between 449 and 456. According to the early sources, the Saxons arrived in
three longboats on the eastern side of the island, at a place called Ipwinesfleet ac-
cording to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and they immediately waged war against
the Picts and Scots.
Vortigern’s plan at first seemed a good one; the Saxons enjoyed great success
against the northern invaders at the British king’s direction. But Hengist and Horsa
soon sent word back to their homeland of their victories and need for help to se-
cure further victory over their enemies. They also informed their kin that “the
country was fertile and the Britons cowardly” (Bede 1981, 56). The Saxons were
soon joined by large numbers of Germans, including more Saxons and Angles and
Jutes. They then turned against the Britons and Vortigern and proceeded to con-
quer the Britons. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Vortigern took up the
sword against his former allies, and in a battle in 455 Horsa was killed. But despite
this loss and continued wars with Vortigern, the Saxons took control of much of
the kingdom.
Vortigern’s fate is uncertain, but his legacy, according to the early sources, is
certain. The king was blamed for the conquest of England by the Anglo-Saxons. In
Gildas’s view, the king was a proud tyrant whose unwise rule encouraged the con-
querors’ invasion. Bede developed the earlier accounts of the progress of the An-
gles, Saxons, and Jutes, noting that it was the sinfulness of the Britons that brought
on God’s judgment in the conquest by the mercenaries hired by Vortigern.
See also: Aëtius; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Anglo-Saxons; Bede; Gildas; Hengist and Horsa;
Honorius; King Arthur

Bibliography
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and
Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1991.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
 Vouillé, Battle of | 555

Howe, Nicholas. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Sawyer, Peter H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1998.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Vouillé, Battle of (507)

Fought in 507, battle of Vouillé was a major battle between the Merovingian king
of the Franks, Clovis, and the Visigothic king in Spain, Alaric II. According to the
tradition recorded by the sixth-century Frankish historian Gregory of Tours, Clovis
waged the war as a sort of crusade to expel the Arian Visigoths from Gaul, and the
battle came well after the conversion of Clovis to Catholic Christianity. Although
the relationship between the time of Clovis’s conversion and the battle is now open
to question, it is certain that Clovis gained the victory over Alaric, who died in the
battle, and that it was a key battle in one of the Frankish king’s wars of expansion
and conquest.
As recorded by Gregory of Tours in his history, Clovis desired to remove the
Visigoths from Gaul because of their Arianism. He declared to his ministers that he
could not bear the existence of the Visigoths in Gaul. He said further that the Franks
should invade the region and that with God’s help he would defeat the Visigoths
and take over their territory. His followers agreed with the proposal, and the army
marched toward Poitiers to meet the forces of Alaric II. Along the way, one of Clovis’s
soldiers took hay from the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, which the king had
expressly forbidden. Upon learning of this, Clovis killed the soldier to maintain
the support of the powerful saint. The battle itself took place some 10 miles from
Poitiers, according to Gregory. The fighting included hand-to-hand combat and the
exchange of volleys of javelins. The Visigoths fled the attack, and, Gregory wrote,
“Clovis was the victor, for God was on his side” (153). Clovis killed Alaric while
the Goths fled, but two Goths attacked and struck Clovis with their spears on each
side. He was saved by his leather corselet; after the battle, he captured several cit-
ies and forced the Visigoths from Gaul.
Modern research, however, shows that both the events leading up to the battle
and the battle itself were not so simple and clear-cut as Gregory portrayed them. At
the very least, it has been argued that Clovis himself converted to Catholic Chris-
tianity only late in his life, or at least after the traditional date of 496, and that he
was motivated by a number of factors other than crusading zeal when he attacked
Alaric II. The two kings had long been in negotiations over a variety of issues, and
previous battles had left the Franks defeated. Clovis had also been successful at
556 | Vouillé, Battle of

times against the Visigoths, and he may have attacked in 507 to exact the payment
of tribute he was owed by Alaric. There is clear indication that economic issues in-
spired Clovis. Moreover, there is no hint in Gregory of the international diplomacy
that was involved, which was intended to keep Clovis out of southwestern Gaul.
The Ostrogothic king of Italy and greatest power in the west, Theodoric the Great,
had supported Alaric and threatened to intervene on his side should Clovis attack.
Byzantine warships, however, limited Theodoric’s ability to maneuver.
The battle itself probably involved a large Frankish infantry, with the king and his
retainers mounted, and a Visigothic cavalry of inferior numbers. Rather than flee-
ing outright as Gregory reports, the skilled cavalry probably made several feigned
retreats to trick the Franks, who were too stubborn and well trained to fall for the
trick. Whether or not Clovis was responsible for the death of Alaric, at any rate the
Visigothic king did die in the battle. Clovis may well have accepted baptism as a
Catholic Christian following the victory, and religious motives should not be totally
discounted; most likely they did play a role in Clovis’s planning, even though not
in the way that Gregory portrayed them.
See also: Alaric II; Arianism; Clovis; Franks; Gregory of Tours; Merovingian Dynasty;
Ostrogoths; Visigoths; Theodoric the Great

Bibliography
Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin, 1974.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1982.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.
W
Waltharius

A Latin epic poem of 1,456 lines of dactylic hexameter written in the ninth or tenth
century, the Waltharius tells the story of Walter of Aquitaine and his adventures at
the court of Attila the Hun and in his homeland. The exact date and authorship of
the poem remain uncertain, but there are three possible candidates: Ekkehard I of
St. Gall (d. 973); an unknown Gerald from Alemannia or Bavaria who wrote the
22-line prologue to the poem; or an anonymous scribe who composed the work for
his patron, Erckambald, bishop of Strasbourg from 965 to 991. The author, a German
speaker, drew from a wide range of Germanic tales in creating his poem, and he also
drew extensively on the works of the classical Latin authors Ovid, Statius, and Virgil
and the Christian Latin poet Prudentius. The date of composition has ranged from
the time of Charlemagne in the early ninth century to the time of his successors in
the late ninth century or to the time of the Ottonian emperors in the late tenth century.
The action of the poem begins at the court of Attila the Hun, where Walter along
with Hagen the Frank, and Hildegund of Burgundy are hostages taken during Attila’s
conquest. As they grow to adulthood, the three flee from Attila’s court, with Hagen
escaping first. Walter concocts an elaborate plan so that he can escape with his be-
loved Hildegard. A great warrior now, Walter throws a banquet following a success-
ful battle for his Hunnish comrades. Once they have fallen asleep from too much
drink, Walter and Hildegund flee to Frankland. The two are met by King Gunther
and Hagen and the king’s warriors who plan to seize the treasure carried away from
the Huns by Walter. The poem’s hero fights a series of duels with Gunther’s retain-
ers, beating them all before facing the king and Hagen. Although reluctant to attack
his friend, Hagen is compelled by obligation to his king, and the three warriors in-
dulge in combat in which Gunther loses a leg, Hagen an eye and six teeth, and Walter
his right hand. After the fight, Hagen and Walter are reconciled, and Hagen escorts
Gunther to Frankland. Walter and Hildegund continue on to Aquitaine, where they
are married and where Walter will rule as king after his father’s death.
See also: Attila the Hun; Charlemagne

Bibliography
Kratz, Denis, ed. and trans. “Waltharius” and “Ruodlieb”. New York: Garland, 1984.
Laistner, M.L.W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe A.D. 500 to 900. 2nd ed. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1957.

557
558 | Weapons and Armor

Magoun, F. P. Jr., and H. M. Smyser, trans. Walter of Aquitaine: Materials for the Study
of his Legend. New London, CT: Connecticut College, 1950.

Weapons and Armor

One of the more important functions of late antique and early medieval nobles,
kings, and emperors was as warriors or war leaders. As a result it was necessary
for them to be properly outfitted for battle, and a certain standard in weapons and
armor developed. The basic nature of military technology in barbarian Europe was
established already in the pre-migration period among the barbarians themselves,
as well as by the ancient Romans and others, and involved both offensive and de-
fensive tools. Included in the armory of the barbarian warrior was some form of
armor, a shield, thrusting weapons like spears and swords, axes, and bows and ar-
rows. There was also a degree of specialization among the various peoples who
invaded the empire.
The weapons used by the early medieval warrior were the descendants of the pre-
migration Germanic warrior and his ancient Roman counterpart. Although the tac-
tics employed by Germans and Romans in the use of their weapons differed, the
basic outlines of the armaments of the ancient Roman and barbarian soldier were
essentially the same. Of course, there was some diversity in the armories of the Ro-
mans and of the various Germanic peoples. In fact, it is sometimes suggested that
some of the peoples who invaded the Roman Empire were given their names from
the weapons that were unique to them. The Saxons were so called because of the
long knife, the saxo or seax, that they used, and the Angles were known for their
barbed spear, or ango. Similarly, the Huns were known for the hunnica, a type of
whip, and the Franks for their throwing axe, the frankisca.
Along with the various “national” weapons, noble warriors carried a basic com-
plement of implements of destruction, including a sword or a long knife, a spear,
an axe, and a bow and arrows. The poorer foot soldiers carried a lesser complement
of weapons, which included a spear, shield, and bow and arrows. The difference in
weaponry carried by the noble, usually cavalry, warriors and the infantrymen was
due in part to expense. Indeed, outfitting a typical noble warrior was quite a costly
proposition. The average cost of a helmet was six solidi, and the cost for a sword
and scabbard was about seven solidi, the equivalent of six or seven months’ wages
for the average soldier, or six or seven cows. Clearly, the fully armed and armored
warrior in barbarian Europe was usually a wealthy and powerful figure.
The sword was usually one of two kinds: a blade of some three feet, rather
than the shorter Roman sword, which measured roughly two feet in length, or
the shorter saxo. The long sword, or spata, was a double-edged blade suitable for
thrusting and slashing and general destruction, and the saxo was a single-edged
 Weapons and Armor | 559

blade that was lighter, more easily wielded, and could even be thrown. In the
Carolingian age, however, these two types of sword were merged into one, as the
spata was transformed from a blade of parallel edges that ended in a short point to
a blade that gradually tapered to a point. Carolingian swords were also engraved
and decorated with gold, silver, or ivory handles, and were so highly prized for
their quality that Charlemagne and other Carolingian rulers sought to restrict their
export.
The spear or lance was another popular and important weapon; it was such a
valuable part of a soldier’s armory that Carolingian legislation required monaster-
ies to provide lances as an annual gift to the king. The least expensive weapon in
the early medieval armory, it could be used in various ways by either the infantry
or cavalry soldier. This weapon, made of ash and sometimes fitted with a metal
point, could be used as either a throwing or a thrusting weapon, and contemporary
illustrations depict its use in both ways. Throwing spears continued to be used by
soldiers as the early Middle Ages progressed, but the lance gradually became pri-
marily a thrusting weapon used by both cavalry and infantry. As a thrusting weapon,
the lance could be thrust downward in a stabbing motion or could be thrust upward
to knock an opponent off his horse. It was once argued that during the Carolingian
period the lance was held under the arm of the mounted warrior who, held in place
by a stirrup, could use the full power of the horse against his enemy, creating a force
of mounted shock troops. Although the idea is attractive, there is little evidence,
either from contemporary illustrations or from archeological discoveries, to sup-
port this theory.
Warriors in barbarian Europe were equipped with two other important weapons.
The axe was used during this period as a throwing weapon or a slashing weapon,
and it was often double-edged and appeared with either a short or long handle. Bows
and arrows were also used and were an essential component of the foot soldiers’
armory. Carolingian legislation required that infantry troops carry an extra string
and 12 arrows as part of their equipment. Throughout the early Middle Ages the
bow was a necessary part of the infantry’s weaponry, and arrows have been found
in the graves of the Merovingian Franks and other barbarian peoples. The Lombards
were noted for their use of a composite reflex bow made of wood, horn, and sinew
that was glued together to form a more flexible bow, which gave the string more
pull. Even though a short, simple bow was commonly used by the Merovingians
and Carolingians archers, it was gradually replaced, beginning in the ninth century,
by the composite bow.
Along with a wide range of weapons, barbarian warriors of late antiquity and
the early Middle Ages had an extensive complement of body armor. Indeed, Char-
lemagne appeared as the “iron Charles” to his opponents because of his strong will
and body armor. The early medieval soldier used a mixture of body armor, hel-
met, and shield, with the noble warrior possessing more elaborate and expensive
560 | Weapons and Armor

defensive armament. Perhaps the most important piece of protective gear was body
armor, which appeared in a variety of styles, but was usually called either brunia
or lorica in contemporary sources. One style, generally preferred by the poorer
soldiers, was the so-called lorica squamata. This was a cloth-covered suit that was
popular because it offered protection to the soldier and was relatively affordable for
the common foot soldier. Better known was the lorica hamata, a suit of mail that of-
fered better protections but was fabulously expensive and therefore affordable only
to the wealthier nobles in the army. A shirt of mail was made of interlocking iron
rings of the same size and provided its owner great protection in battle. There are
also examples of leg armor made of iron, and the hands and arms were protected by
armored gloves and armguards. After about 800, the hauberk, or halsbergen (German:
neck guard) became a common piece of body armor. This was a caped hood that
was worn over the head, under the helmet, and either over or under the mail shirt
to provide protection for the neck.
Along with armor to protect the body, early medieval combatants wore hel-
mets, which were usually conical and made of several possible materials, to pro-
tect their heads and faces. The most common helmet was the spangenhelm, so
called because its design involved six or more metal strips (spangen) that joined
the headband to a plate of metal. The framework strips of the helmet were usually
of bronze or iron, but a fully iron helmet was rare. The framework was then filled
with metal or horn plates. The spangenhelm common in the early Middle Ages
was most likely based on an original model used by the Huns, and the Ostrogoths
designed a distinctive spangenhelm, used by the Ostrogothic kings as a diplomatic
gift for other rulers.
The final piece of equipment used for protection by all soldiers in barbarian
Europe was the shield, which was also probably the least expensive of all offensive
and defensive weapons possessed by cavalry and infantry soldiers. Despite its low
cost, the shield was a very important piece of equipment, as Carolingian legislation
reveals. Charlemagne required that shield makers live in all regions of the empire,
and Louis the Pious and Louis the German required that some monasteries include
shields in their annual gifts to the ruler. And makers and merchants of shields often
accompanied armies when they campaigned. The shield itself was used to protect
the soldier from his enemy’s blows, and according to contemporary records, it could
even protect a soldier from a javelin. The shield was usually made of a sturdy wood
and covered with leather, which would keep the shield in one piece even after the
wood split under the force of heavy blows. The shield was reinforced with iron or
other metal strips and rivets, and it measured roughly three feet in diameter and of-
fered protection from the thigh to the shoulder. Shields might be round or oval; the
shield was always concave and had a grip along one side so that it could be held.
Some shields had a pointed boss, which allowed the shield to be used as an offen-
sive weapon and thrust against an attacker.
 Wessex | 561

See also: Anglo-Saxons; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Franks; Huns; Lombards;

Louis the German; Louis the Pious; Merovingian Dynasty; Ostrogoths; Poitiers, Battle of

Bibliography
Bachrach, Bernard S. “Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and
Feudalism.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 7 (1970): 47–75.
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Bachrach, Bernard S. Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Trans. Michael Jones. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1984.
Coupland, Simon. “Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century.” Viator:
Medieval and Renaissance Studies 21 (1990): 29–50.
DeVries, Kelly. Medieval Military Technology. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1992.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce Lyon
and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
Martin, Paul. Arms and Armour from the 9th to the 17th Century. Trans. René North.
Rutland: Tuttle, 1968.
Verbruggen, Jan F. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages:
From the Eighth Century to 1340. 2nd ed. Trans. Sumner Willard and S.C.M. Southern.
Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1997.
White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1964.

Wearmouth. See Benedict Biscop

Wessex

One of the major kingdoms of Anlgo-Saxon England, Wessex, or the kingdom of

the West Saxons, was the most powerful of the southern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms
and included the upper Thames river valley and Berkshire, Dorset, eastern Devon,
Hampshire, Somerset, and Wiltshire. Founded by the Gewisse clan of the Anglo-
Saxon peoples in the sixth century, Wessex would achieve its greatest heights under
King Alfred in the ninth century and would survive until the Norman Conquest of
England in 1066.
The kingdom was established, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, by the
chieftains of the Gewisse tribe Cerdic (d. 561) and his son Cynric (d. 581) who in-
vaded England in 494 or 495 with five ships of fellow Saxons. Following a period
of conquest in which they established themselves over and became kings of Wessex
562 | Wessex

by 519. The line of Cerdic continued to extend the boundaries of Wessex throughout
the sixth century, and his successors often shared the kingship. Cerdic’s grandson
Cealwin (d. 592) won a series of battles against the Britons and is identified by Bede
as one of the kings to hold imperium over Britain, to rule as bretwalda. During the
early years of the kingdom its rulers extended their power into Sussex and north of
the Thames, which would bring them into contact and competition with rival king-
doms including Mercia and Northumbria.
During the seventh and eighth centuries the fortunes of Wessex ebbed and
flowed. In the 620s, Penda of Mercia and the kings of Wessex clashed. Dur-
ing the reigns of Cynegils (d. 643), the first Christian king of Wessex, and his
son Cwichelm, Penda secured the territories of the subkingdom Hwicce. The
West Saxons also lost control of the Isle of Wight and South Hampshire to
the Mercians, and the king of Wessex was driven into exile in East Anglia by
the Mercians. Under Caedwalla (r. 685–688), however, the kingdom enjoyed
a resurgence. He recaptured the Isle of Wight, took control of Sussex, and ex-
panded his authority into Kent. He also converted to Christianity and abdicated
so that he could undertake a pilgrimage to Rome to be baptized by the pope. Ine
(r. 688–726), Caedwalla’s successor, built upon the successes of earlier West
Saxon kings. He promulgated a new law code, abolished the practice of estab-
lishing sub-king, and appointed earldormen as local representatives of royal
power. During his reign, the church expanded in Wessex and a new bishopric
was established at Sherbourne. The later years of the eighth century saw the re-
vival of Mercian power and the possible recognition by the kings of Wessex of
Mercian overlordship.
The kingdom of the West Saxons achieved its greatest success during the ninth
and tenth centuries, especially during the reign of its greatest king Alfred the
Great (r. 871–899). The tide began to turn under King Ecgberht (r. 802–838) who
won a major victory over the Mercians in 825 at the battle of Ellendum. Ecgberht
regained control of Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex. He continued his expansion
of the kingdom in 829 by conquering all of Mercia and gained the submission of
the Northumbrians. Despite these successes, the West Saxon kingdom and all of
England would face a major challenge with the coming of the Danes. Through-
out the ninth century, Danish Vikings invaded England, carving out settlements
throughout north and central England and defeating rulers in Northumbrian and
East Anglia. In the 870s the Danes threatened and nearly overran Wessex but were
turned away, thanks to the efforts of Alfred the Great. Alfred himself was forced
into exile but managed to return and inflict a stinging defeat on the Danes at the
Battle of Eddington in 878 that drove the Danes from Wessex. He also intro-
duced military reforms and established a series of fortified settlements through-
out the kingdom to help prepare it for future threats. Alfred secured his position
in Wessex and extended his authority over all of England not held by the Danes.
 Widukind | 563

Along with his military and political reforms, Alfred issued a new legal code,
translated works by Augustine of Hippo and Boethius into Anglo-Saxon, and
commissioned translations into the vernacular of a number of other important
Latin works. Alfred’s son and grandson consolidated West Saxon control over
much of England, incorporating East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria into the
kingdom and establishing the first true king of the English. Wessex would be-
come an earldom in the late 10th century and would remain an earldom the Dan-
ish conqueror Cnut and the last Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson. With the
conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066, the existence of Wessex
as a distinct political unit came to an end and the region became part of the newly
created Anglo-Norman kingdom.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Anglo-Saxons; Bretwalda; Bede;
Caedwalla; Mercia; Penda

Bibliography
Campbell, James. The Anglo-Saxons. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Cunliffe, Barry. Wessex to A.D. 1000. London: Longman, 1993.
Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. New York:
Routledge, 1997.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986.

Widukind (d. c. 807)

Widukind was a Westphalian nobleman who led a serious rebellion against Char-
lemagne. Widukind managed to rally the pagan Saxons against Carolingian reli-
gious and political expansion. The severity of his rebellion threatened Carolingian
efforts and caused great difficulties for Charlemagne. Widukind’s eventual conver-
sion to Christianity was a key moment in the long Carolingian struggle to conquer
and convert the Saxon people.
Shortly after his rise to power as king and the death of his brother, Charlemagne
began the conquest of Saxony. Although it began as a response to cross-border
raiding by the Saxons, the campaign in Saxony quickly turned into a more serious
venture. Indeed, Charlemagne began to look upon the conquest and conversion to
Christianity of the pagan Saxons as part of his responsibility as king. The conquest
of Saxony ended by taking some 30 years to complete (772–804) and involving
some of Charlemagne’s most terrible actions, including the deportation of large
numbers of Saxons from their homeland to the heart of Frankish territory. The Sax-
ons themselves were poorly organized and lacked any unifying institutions, which
made the process all the more difficult, especially since they were intent on preserv-
ing their independence and religious traditions.
564 | Widukind

The Saxons struggled to prevent Charlemagne from conquering them, and the
most effective leader against Carolingian incursion into Saxony was Widukind. In
778 Widukind, taking advantage of Charlemagne’s absence from Saxony to cam-
paign in Spain, led a massive revolt against Carolingian authority. Unifying the
Saxons for the moment, Widukind managed to retake important territory along the
Rhine River and even planned to attack the important Carolingian monastery of
Fulda. Responding with great urgency, Charlemagne returned from Spain to restore
order in the region. His generals waged two further campaigns in 779 and 780 to
quell the rebellion. In 782, Charlemagne held a great assembly to organize the re-
gion and establish religious institutions there. According to the Royal Frankish An-
nals, many Saxons participated in this assembly, but Widukind did not participate
because he remained in rebellion.
After Charlemagne’s return to his kingdom, Widukind led the Saxons in revolt
again and routed the armies established by Charlemagne in Saxony. The churches
and monasteries established by the Carolingian king were destroyed, and the priests
and monks were attacked and killed. In a great rage, Charlemagne returned and
massacred 4,500 Saxons at Verdun in an effort to suppress the rebellion. His ef-
forts failed, and Widukind and his followers struggled on. Charlemagne also issued
his first Saxon Capitulary at that time, which sought to impose Christianity on the
Saxons by force. Charlemagne’s continued pressure on the Saxons in the mid-780s,
however, wore Widukind down, and in 785 he submitted to his Carolingian rival.
In 785, Widukind and his son accepted baptism. Although the conquest of Saxony
took another twenty years to complete, the submission and conversion of Widu-
kind was a significant step in the process and ended the most serious challenge to
Charlemagne’s conquest.
See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Franks; Saxon Capitularies

Bibliography
Collins, Roger. Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1979.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman 1983.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
 Witigis | 565

Witenagemot

General council of the Anglo-Saxon kings, also known as the Witan (Anglo-Saxon:
wise men), that met to witness royal charters and other enactments of the king. The
witenagemot (meeting of wise men) was made up of the leading nobles of the realm
along with the leading bishops, abbots, and priests of the kingdom. The members of
the council, however, were a relatively fluid group who came when called by the king.
Although it was clearly an important institution in Anglo-Saxon England, the wi-
tenagemot’s origins remain unclear and are known primarily from charter evidence,
which becomes less available after the reign of Alfred the Great. No longer identified
as the descendant of a Germanic institution or the precursor of the English Parlia-
ment, the witenagemot most likely evolved out of the king’s need for advice and was
based on his ability to call nobles and ecclesiastics to court. The witenagemot was
a mobile assembly that came together before the king as he traveled throughout the
kingdom. Members of the assembly were generally high-ranking clergy and nobility;
thegns also participated, but only when the king’s court was in the thegn’s territory.
When meeting in the council, the nobles and churchmen came not as representa-
tives of any specific group, but as advisors to the king who knew the law and needs
of the land. They worked together with the king to ensure that law and justice was
executed throughout the realm. Although he could rule without the members of
the witenagemot, the wise king considered consulting with them valuable and was
careful to call the council to advise with him. The council did not meet at specific
intervals, but was called to meet when the need arose, when the king needed its help
to resolve some problem at hand.
See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxons; Thegn

Bibliography
Loyn, Henry R. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. 2nd ed. London:
Longmans, 1991.
Loyn, Henry R. The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, 500–1087. London: Edward
Arnold, 1984.
Lyon, Bryce. A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England. 2nd ed. Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1980.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Witigis (fl. 536–540)

Ostrogothic king in Italy from 536 to 540 who led his people against the Byzan-
tine armies sent by Justinian to conquer the peninsula and restore imperial rule
566 | Witigis

there. Although not of the royal line of Theodoric the Great, Witigis was a success-
ful general, whose prominence led to his election as king. He adopted an aggres-
sive strategy against the Byzantine armies led by Belisarius and took the offensive
against Byzantine territory outside of Italy. He also pursued diplomatic ties with the
Merovingian Franks and the Lombards. His efforts, however, proved fruitless, and
he eventually succumbed to Belisarius, whom the Goths hoped to elect as emperor.
On the death of Theodoric’s last heir, Theodohad, in 536, the Goths turned to
Witigis, who had enjoyed some success in the campaigns against the armies of the
Eastern Empire. Theodohad’s failure to save the city of Rome led to his death, and
the Goths hoped to have someone worthy of Theodoric to take the throne. Witigis,
not of the royal line, proclaimed himself a member of Theodoric’s family because
the deeds he and the great king performed were of similar stature. To confirm his
position on the throne, however, Witigis married Amalaswintha’s daughter Mata-
suntha. His own propaganda to the Goths never stressed this marriage, but he did
inform Emperor Justinian of the marriage. The new king also suggested that Justin-
ian’s purpose in the war, avenging the murder of Amalaswintha, had been fulfilled
by the murder of Theodohad and the marriage, which restored Amalaswintha’s line
to the throne. His argument, however, did not persuade Justinian, and both the em-
peror and the new Gothic king were fully committed to war.
Shortly after his election as king in late 536, Witigis moved his Gothic armies
south to meet Belisarius, who had recently taken possession of the city of Rome.
Along with his march on Rome, Witigis secured a peace treaty with the Merovin-
gian king of the Franks that guaranteed that the Franks would not invade Italy and
take advantage of the uncertain situation. He also launched a campaign against
the Byzantines in Dalmatia. Indeed, Witigis took the initiative in the hopes of end-
ing the invasion of the Byzantines. Upon reaching Rome, Witigis began a siege
of the city that lasted almost a year in the hopes of capturing it outright or forc-
ing Belisarius into open battle. Over the next year, the Goths launched repeated
assaults on the city walls, often leading to numerous casualties on their side. The
Byzantine forces suffered as well, although not only from Gothic attacks but also
from shortage of food and the spread of disease. Attempts to find a diplomatic so-
lution failed, and the arrival of Eastern Roman armies forced Witigis to accept a
truce in late 537.
Despite his aggressive efforts, Witigis was doomed to failure, and events began
to turn against him by early 538. The Dalmatian campaign failed, and Belisarius,
no longer hampered by the siege, decided to take the initiative and ordered a cav-
alry force to attack a nearby town where the families of the Gothic soldiers re-
sided. His plan succeeded; Witigis was forced to break off the siege and returned
to the royal city of Ravenna. He then faced a series of attacks by Belisarius and
other forces. The Byzantine general began a march north from Rome to defeat
his rival. The Alemanni raided northern Italy, and the devastation contributed to
 Witigis | 567

famine conditions on the peninsula. Even worse, an imperial army under the com-
mand of Narses arrived to aid Belisarius and counter Gothic numeric superiority.
But the arrival of Narses offered the Gothic king a glimmer of hope because of
the rivalry that existed between Narses and Belisarius, which often paralyzed the
Byzantine war effort.
Witigis in 538 and 539 came to the realization that he would not overcome the
Byzantines militarily and sought to win through diplomatic negotiations. Here too,
however, Witigis was unsuccessful. Indeed, his earlier treaty with the Franks did
not prevent the Merovingian king Theudebert from raiding northern Italy in 539.
The Goths no longer trusted the Franks and refused further offers of assistance
from them. Witigis’s efforts to establish an alliance with the Lombards also proved
a failure. And as his diplomatic initiatives came to nothing, Witigis faced a resur-
gent Belisarius, who managed to unite the Roman armies in 539 and lay siege to
Ravenna. By 540, the end of Witigis was near, as the Goths started to abandon him.
But Ravenna was nearly impregnable, and so the king began negotiations, at first
with other barbarian peoples and with the Persians, and then finally with Constan-
tinople. He hoped for a settlement and was willing to accept terms from Justinian.
But Belisarius seemed unwilling to come to terms and may have given the Goths
the impression that he was willing to accept the imperial dignity from them. The
Goths were willing to elevate him to the rank of emperor, and there is some pos-
sibility that he seriously considered it. Ultimately, however, Belisarius remained
loyal to Justinian, and accepted the surrender of Witigis, entering Ravenna in May
540. The reign of Witigis had come to an end, but the Goths continued the struggle
against the Byzantine invaders under the next Gothic king, Totila.
See also: Alemanni; Amalaswintha; Belisarius; Franks; Justinian; Lombards; Merovingian
Dynasty; Narses; Ostrogoths; Theodoric the Great; Totila

Bibliography
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press,
1984.
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S.J.B. Barnish.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Procopius. History of the Wars. Trans. H. B. Dewing. 1979.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
568 | Women

Women

The place of women in late antique and early medieval society was a complex one;
women used a variety of strategies to negotiate their way at a time when their legal
status was often low. Modern understanding of these strategies and the place of
women in barbarian Europe is made difficult by the nature of the sources, which
are often limited to the more traditional histories of government and battles. That
notwithstanding, a variety of sources—collections of laws, contemporary literature,
religious documents, histories—properly approached can provide insights into the
lives of women of the time. The vast majority of women, it can safely be said, sim-
ply labored. They worked the fields with their peasant brothers, fathers, and hus-
bands, raised children, and tended the family. The small minority, about whom most
can be known, also tended to the family, one of the primary duties of all the women
of barbarian Europe, but these women also had the opportunity to exercise power
as queens and nobles. Furthermore, they could have recourse to a life of religion
and often founded or headed communities of religious men and women. Although
their history can sometimes be difficult to discern, women in the late antiquity and
the early Middle Ages played an important role in society.
The earliest literary record of barbarian women was provided by the Roman his-
torian and moralist, Tacitus (c. 56–117), whose Germania provides an account of
the status and duties of barbarian women prior to the migration period and its ex-
tensive contacts with the Roman Empire. According to Tacitus, Germanic women
were especially esteemed and respected in society. They were thought to possess
special holiness and powers of prophecy, and were often asked their advice, which
was often heeded, on a wide range of matters. Tacitus also notes that women ral-
lied their warrior husbands and fathers in battle by baring their breasts and “making
them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement” (108). The Roman historian
also provides details concerning the domestic life of women among the premigra-
tion Germanic tribes. He notes that their dress differs from that of men in two im-
portant ways. Women wear sleeveless outer garments of linen decorated in purple,
which expose their arms and shoulders. Tacitus also notes the important role that
women play in marriage and family among the Germans. Marital customs were
well defined, according to Tacitus, and involved a specific exchange of gifts be-
tween husband and wife that defined their relationship as one of partnership and
mutual labor. Indeed, as noted in the Germania, the gifts included oxen and weap-
ons, indicating that women were involved in farming and warfare. Marriages were
strictly monogamous, and women were severely punished for adultery. Women also
were responsible for nursing and raising children, and thus played a central role in
all aspects of family life.
Unfortunately, Tacitus’s description is as much an indictment of Roman val-
ues and decadent family life as it is a picture of the status of Germanic women.
 Women | 569

Consequently, his assessment must be treated cautiously and is perhaps best un-
derstood as commentary on Roman social life. Nevertheless, although his view is
colored by his attitudes toward Roman society, it is not without merit and at the
very least provides a rough outline of the areas in which women did play a role. In
work, family, politics and war, and religious life, women in late antiquity and the
early Middle Ages exercised some, often considerable, influence.
The fundamental role for women in barbarian Europe was that of wife and mother,
which was true no matter what social rank they held. Their importance in marriage
and family was clearly outlined in the numerous legal codes that were compiled
throughout the early Middle Ages. Notably, the Salic law defined the value of men
and women in society and established different values for women depending upon
their age and ability to bear children. One section noted that if a pregnant woman
was struck, the fine was 28,000 denars; if a woman of childbearing age was struck,
the fine was 24,000 denars; and if a woman past the age childbearing was struck, the
fine was only 8,000 denars. In the laws of King Alfred the Great, a fine was assessed
for both mother and child if a pregnant woman was killed, and in earlier Anglo-
Saxons laws the amount of inheritance a woman was owed from her husband’s fam-
ily was determined by the bearing of children. Moreover, during the Merovingian
and early Carolingian dynasties women used childbearing as a means to power.
Women of lower status at times married and bore children to powerful figures in
the kingdom. And some women, who were not married but still bore children, en-
joyed the prestige of having children with nobles and kings. Merovingian queens
especially were empowered by the birth of sons, and their prestige as mothers of
kings was even greater than their status as wives of kings. Indeed, as late as the age
of Charlemagne, the children from illegitimate unions were given rank and status,
which enhanced the prestige of their mothers. Clearly, the most important duty of
women was to produce children; in the higher social ranks, bearing children was
essential for preserving the dynasty and for use later in marriage alliances.
Although the primary duties of women in late antiquity and the early Middle
Ages involved the family, high-ranking women could, and often did, exploit their
position. In all the successor kingdoms, women played an important political role.
Indeed, even in the Roman and Byzantine Empires, women exercised great influ-
ence and direct political authority. Constantine’s mother, St. Helena, was an im-
portant figure in the church during her son’s reign and was an influential pilgrim
to Jerusalem, where she discovered the True Cross (believed to be the cross on
which Christ was crucified). Theodora, Justinian’s wife, was the emperor’s partner
throughout their marriage. She encouraged Justinian to stand his ground during the
Nika Revolt in 532, played a key role in Justinian’s plans to reconquer Italy, and
helped her husband manage the divided church in the empire. Her contemporary,
and some would say victim, Amalaswintha, daughter of the Ostrogothic king The-
odoric the Great, assumed the regency for her son and continued to be a powerful
570 | Women

figure in Ostrogothic Italy until her murder by rival Gothic nobles who opposed her
pro-Roman policy. In Lombard Italy, Queen Theudelinda was the real power in the
kingdom for three generations, marrying two successive kings and acting as regent
for her son. She introduced Catholic Christianity to the kingdom and was a close
friend of Pope Gregory I, called the Great.
In the Frankish kingdoms of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, queens
also influenced politics. From the very beginning of the Merovingian dynasty,
women played a key role in the direction the kingdom took. Clotilda, a Burgundian
Catholic princess, according to the sixth-century historian of the Franks Gregory of
Tours, convinced her husband Clovis (r. 481–511), the great Merovingian king of the
Franks, to convert to Catholic Christianity. Also, according to Gregory, she persuaded
one of her sons to invade and conquer the Burgundians in revenge for the reigning
king’s murder of her father. In subsequent generations, queens continued to play a
central role in the political life of the kingdom, and perhaps the two greatest figures
were Brunhilde and Fredegund. The career of Fredegund reveals the fluid nature of
marriage and rank in the Merovingian kingdom. She may have been a slave woman,
and was surely lowborn, yet she married a king and bore him an heir, Chlotar II, who
went on to reign in the early seventh century, restoring the dynasty’s greatness. Both
Brunhilde and Fredegund, furthermore, employed ruthless measures to guarantee
their own power and that of their husbands and especially their sons. They indulged
in a terrible blood feud during which each sought to kill the other or the husbands,
sons, and supporters of her opponent. During the last decade of the sixth and first
decade of the seventh century, Brunhilde was the real power in the kingdom.
In the Carolingian period, marriage customs changed, and women had fewer
opportunities to rule as Brunhilde and Fredegund did. Nonetheless, leading Caro-
lingian women managed to influence affairs of state. The widow of Pippin II, Plec-
trude, seized control of her husband’s treasury and nearly managed to take control
of the kingdom before being defeated by Pippin’s son Charles Martel. Bertrada, the
widow of Pippin III, called the Short, exercised great influence after her husband’s
death and remained an esteemed figure during her son’s reign. She negotiated a
marriage alliance with the Lombards for her son Charlemagne and struggled to keep
the peace between her sons Charlemagne and Carloman. Charlemagne married Fas-
trada, the daughter of a powerful east Frankish count, to gain political influence in
the eastern part of the kingdom; he may have kept his daughters close by his side,
refusing to let them marry, so that their husbands would not use their connections
to the royal line as justification for revolt. The wife of Louis the Pious, Judith, ac-
tively promoted her son, Charles the Bald, and was identified by Louis’s sons by his
first wife as the cause for disruption in the empire. And the noblewoman, Dhuoda,
wrote an important manual for her son to teach him the proper behavior at court and
as a Christian nobleman. Although women did not often have formal, legal powers,
their close proximity to kings, emperors, and other powerful figures provided them
the opportunity to influence affairs and even rule themselves.
 Women | 571

As Tacitus noted, pre-migration Germanic women were esteemed for their pow-
ers of prophecy. In the mid-ninth century, the prophet Theoda gained a significant
following when she preached the coming of the end of the world and called for re-
ligious reform. She was quickly suppressed by the authorities, and there were few
true female prophets in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Women did, how-
ever, play a key role in religious life, just as they often did in political life. Indeed,
many of the same women who influenced politics shaped religious affairs in their
kingdoms. Theodora sponsored and protected Monophysite monks and priests and
even established a special chapel in the imperial palace where they officiated for
her. Theudelinda warmed relations between the Arian Lombards and the Catholic
church in Italy, and laid the foundation for the ultimate triumph of Catholic Chris-
tianity in the kingdom. According to Gregory of Tours, Clotilda not only convinced
Clovis to accept Catholic Christianity, and with him 3,000 of his followers, but also
entered a convent after her husband’s death.
Brunhilde, despite her violent struggle with Fregedund and hostility toward the
Irish saint Columban, supported the mission to England of Augustine of Canter-
bury and encouraged reforms in the church at the suggestion of Gregory the Great.
Moreover, other royal women, including Balthild, wife of the seventh-century
Merovingian king Clovis II, and Radegund, a sixth-century Merovingian queen,
founded or led communities of religious women. Indeed, one way that queens and
aristocratic women could exercise power and influence was through the founda-
tion or endowment of monasteries, for men or women. And the religious life was
highly esteemed even by the most ruthless of kings. In their communities, royal
women could wield great power over the other nuns, and they also gained power
in the wider world because of the economic strength of their house. Moreover,
religious women throughout the early Middle Ages ruled over the unique institu-
tion of the double monastery—a community of monks and nuns ruled over by an
abbess. Although often without much legal authority, women nonetheless played
an important role in the political, religious, and social life of late antiquity and the
early Middle Ages.
See also: Alfred the Great; Amalaswintha; Anglo-Saxons; Augustine of Canterbury, St.;
Bertrada; Brunhilde; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Charles the Bald; Charles Martel;
Clotilda, St.; Columban, St.; Dhuoda; Fredegund; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory
of Tours; Judith; Justinian; Lombards; Louis the Pious; Marriage; Merovingian Dynasty;
Ostrogoths; Plectrude; Radegund; Salic Law; Theodora; Theodoric the Great; Theudelinda
Bibliography
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, a.d. 395–600. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993.
Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. New York:
Harper and Row, 1987.
572 | Women

Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1974.
Kirshner, Julius, and Suzanne Wemple, eds. Women of the Medieval World. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1985.
Leyser, Henrietta. Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England, 450–1500.
New York: St. Martin’s, 1995.
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of Their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, ca.
500–1100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Shahar, Shulamith. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. New
York: Routledge, 1990.
Tacitus. The Agricola and the Germania. Trans. H. Mattingly, rev. trans. S. A. Handford.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Thiébaux, Marcelle, trans. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology. New York:
Garland, 1994.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Wulfstan. See Anglo-Saxons

Z
Zachary, St. (d. 752)

A central figure in the political revolution in the Frankish kingdom, Zachary, or

Zacharias, was pope during an important period in the development of the papacy
(r. 741–752). He was actively involved in diplomatic affairs during his reign, fre-
quently attending to negotiations with representatives of the Byzantine Empire, the
Franks, and the Lombards. He sought to limit Lombard aggression during his reign,
but is remembered most for his relations with the powerful Carolingian family. In-
deed, it was Zachary’s response to a famous question from Pippin that provided
the Carolingian with the justification to depose the last of the Merovingian kings.
Zachary was also in close correspondence with the great Anglo-Saxon mission-
ary St. Boniface and made an important translation into Greek of the Dialogues of
Gregory the Great that was well known in the Byzantine Empire.
Born to a Greek family living in Calabria, possibly in 679, Zachary was eventu-
ally ordained a deacon and priest and may have participated in an important church
council in Rome in 732 held by his predecessor Gregory III. A portrait in Rome
portrays him as a thin and small person, balding and with a reserved air. Accord-
ing to his official biographer, Zachary was “gentle and gracious, adorned with all
kindness, a lover of the clergy and all the Roman people” (Davis 1992, 35). He
was also “slow to anger and quick to have pity, repaying no one evil for evil, nor
taking even merited vengeance, but dutiful and compassionate to everyone” (35).
Clearly these virtues, even if they are only the standard traits attributed to all popes
by their biographers, would serve the pope well in his often difficult relations with
the Lombard rulers of Italy.
Although no longer a threat to Rome because of their Arianism, the now Catho-
lic Lombard kings in Italy still pursued the dream of unifying the peninsula under
their authority. Zachary faced this problem almost immediately upon ascending
the papal throne, but did not feel bound to follow the policies of Pope Gregory III,
who sought an alliance with the Carolingian Franks, and instead found new solu-
tions to the problem. Indeed, he sought to establish a policy of conciliation with
King Liutprand (r. 712–744). Liutprand had advanced on the independent southern
Lombard duchy of Spoleto. Zachary broke with the duke, who had refused to re-
turn Roman territory to the pope. Liutprand quickly brought the duke to heel, but
he too was slow to return the territory to Rome. Zachary then went to the Lombard
capital, Pavia, where he met the king and made his demands known. Liutprand was

573
574 | Zachary, St.

so taken by the courage and prestige of the pope that he returned several cities and
other important territories to the papacy. He also provided an escort of his nobles
to return Zachary to Rome. Although this worked out well for the pope, difficulties
with Liutprand continued because the king did not feel bound to respect imperial
territory in Italy. His attacks on Ravenna initiated a second papal visit, and again
Liutprand made concessions to the pope.
The policy of conciliation toward the Lombards seemed to have born fruit for the
papacy, and Zachary was able to continue the policy during the reign of Liutprand’s
successor, Ratchis (r. 744–749). Indeed, so impressed was Ratchis with the pope
that he abandoned efforts to bring all of Italy under his authority and then abdicated
and retired to a monastery. Unfortunately, Ratchis’s successor, Aistulf (r. 749–756),
was perhaps the most bloodthirsty and expansionistic of all the Lombard kings and
was less open to Zachary. The pope’s death in 752, however, meant that a resolu-
tion of the Lombard question would have to wait until the time of his successor.
Zachary’s relationship with the Lombards did bring a period of peace and stability
for Italy and, especially, papal territories on the peninsula.
Zachary was also actively involved in affairs in the north, where important reli-
gious reforms and political change benefited from his rule. The great missionary,
Boniface, was in frequent correspondence with Zachary, who guided and encour-
aged the missionary’s activities in the Frankish kingdom and Saxony. Shortly after
the pope ascended the throne, Boniface wrote to Zachary professing his loyalty
and submission to Rome. Boniface also organized the Frankish church and brought
it more fully under the influence and authority of Rome. Zachary approved of
Boniface’s activities, confirmed three new bishoprics Boniface founded, and made
Boniface the papal legate in the Frankish realm. The pope also adopted some of
the reform initiatives of Boniface, and was in correspondence with the Carolingian
mayors, Pippin and Carloman, concerning church councils and church reform in
the kingdom.
The correspondence with Boniface and the Carolingian leaders led to the most
famous moment of Zachary’s reign. Pippin and Carloman, mayors of the palace,
were the real powers in the kingdom, and the Merovingian king, Childeric III,
served mainly as a figurehead. In 747, Zachary welcomed Carloman to the mon-
astery of Monte Cassino, just north of Rome, after the Carolingian mayor had ab-
dicated and taken monastic vows. Three years later, Pippin, as the sole real power
in the Frankish kingdom, sent two high-ranking representatives to the pope with
an important message. As the Royal Frankish Annals note, Pippin asked the pope
“whether it was good or not that the kings of the Franks should wield no power”
(Scholz 1972, 39). The pope responded that “it was better to call him king who had
royal power than the one who did not” (39), and ordered that Pippin be made king.
Having gained the answer he desired, Pippin deposed the last of the Merovingian
kings and assumed the throne as the first Carolingian king. Zachary had provided
 Zeno | 575

Pippin with the justification and higher sanction that he needed to usurp the throne,
thus surely strengthening the Carolingian’s support for the papacy.
See also: Aistulf; Anglo-Saxons; Arianism; Boniface, St.; Carloman, Mayor of the Palace;
Carolingian Dynasty; Childeric III; Franks; Gregory I, the Great, Pope; Gregory III, Pope;
Liutprand; Lombards; Merovingian Dynasty; Pippin III, Called Pippin the Short; Royal
Frankish Annals

Bibliography
Christie, Neil. The Lombards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 1992.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael Idomir
Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and
Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen,
1972.

Zeno (d. 491)

Zeno was an Eastern Roman emperor (r. 474–491) whose reign witnessed the so-
called fall of the Roman Empire in 476. His own reign demonstrates the flaw in the
traditional argument about the “fall of Rome,” and his continued interest in the af-
fairs of Italy after 476 reveals the importance of the entire empire to the emperors
in Constantinople. Zeno’s reign was marked by the ambitions of a number of gen-
erals, both Roman and barbarian, who sought control of Italy. It was also marked
by his own efforts to strengthen the position of the Eastern Empire in the face of
the advance of various Germanic peoples, and the conclusion of a treaty with the
Vandals that was the first of its kind for Rome and the barbarians.
Since 395 the Roman Empire had been ruled by two emperors in two capitals,
one in Constantinople and the other in one of several cities in Italy. In the 470s that
situation continued, but it was threatened by the powerful and ambitious generals
in Italy. In 475, Orestes, the highest ranking officer in the Western Empire, rose
up against the emperor Julius Nepos, who fled into exile. Orestes made his son,
576 | Zeno

Romulus Augustulus, emperor, but Zeno rejected this claim and continued to sup-
port Julius Nepos as his legitimate colleague in the west. The situation was compli-
cated for Zeno in the following year when Orestes and Romulus Augustulus were
overthrown by Odovacar, a German tribal leader who was serving in the Roman
army, who led a revolt of German soldiers against the western emperor. Odova-
car executed Orestes but merely deposed Romulus and allowed him to retire with
his family. Odovacar also sent word of his actions to Zeno and requested that Zeno
grant him the title Patricius (patrician) so that he could rule Italy legitimately.
Zeno was told by Odovacar’s representatives, who returned the imperial insignia
to Zeno, that there should be only one emperor—Zeno—and that Odovacar would
rule as his representative. But Zeno stood by his exiled colleague, Julius Nepos, and
informed Odovacar that the legitimate authority in the Western Empire was Julius.
Nevertheless, Zeno did confer the office of Patricius on Odovacar, and thus began
a long period of uncertain relations between the two rulers. The situation was clari-
fied somewhat by the murder of Julius Nepos in 480, but no formal treaty was ever
signed by Zeno and Odovacar.
While Odovacar ruled as the imperial representative in Italy, Zeno faced another
powerful and ambitious barbarian general, Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostro-
goths. Indeed, Zeno was particularly in Theodoric’s debt because the Goth rescued
the emperor at a critical period in his reign. In 475, the Gothic commander, The-
odoric Strabo, forced Zeno from the throne, and with the aid of Theodoric the Great
Zeno was able to seize back the imperial throne. Theodoric was richly rewarded
for his efforts and promoted in the ranks of the Roman military. But Theodoric also
used his position to improve the position of his Gothic peoples and threatened the
stability of Zeno’s control of the Eastern Empire in the mid-480s. Zeno’s resources
as emperor, however, turned out to be too great for Theodoric to overwhelm, even
though his rebellion was quite serious. Instead, Zeno offered Theodoric the oppor-
tunity to march against Odovacar in Italy as the emperor’s representative in Italy.
Zeno intended to ease the pressures in his own part of the empire and use Theodoric
to correct the uncertain situation in Italy. Although the exact nature of the political
establishment Theodoric was to create and the relations of Italy and Constantinople
that were to follow remain unclear, it is certain that Zeno intended to use Theodoric
to end Odovacar’s reign in Italy. In fact Theodoric claimed the title of king once he
had established himself in Italy, but the murder of Odovacar and the creation of a
new Gothic kingdom in Italy took place after Zeno’s death. The emperor was, how-
ever, responsible for guiding the empire through uncertain times and establishing
new and innovative relations with various barbarian peoples.
See also: Odovacar; Orestes; Ostrogoths; Romulus Augustulus; Theodoric the Great; Vandals

Bibliography
Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to
the Death of Justinian. 2 Vols. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
 Zeno | 577

Bury, John B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages.
1931. Reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe,
A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.
Primary Documents

1. Tacitus’s Description of Early Germanic Society

In his work Germania, Tacitus (56–117), one of the great historians and moralists of the
first century of the Roman Empire, provides one of the best early introductions to the
Germanic peoples living on the empire’s frontiers. Although, as revealed in the excerpts
below, Tacitus offers valuable insights into the political and social structures of the
Germans, his account is marred by his dependence on traditional Roman ethnography
and his desire to contrast the noble Germans with the corrupt Romans of his day.

7. In the election of kings they have regard to birth; in that of generals, to valor.
Their kings have not an absolute or unlimited power; and their generals com-
mand less through the force of authority, than of example. If they are daring,
adventurous, and conspicuous in action, they procure obedience from the ad-
miration they inspire. None, however, but the priests are permitted to judge of-
fenders, to inflict bonds or stripes; so that chastisement appears not as an act of
military discipline, but as the instigation of the god whom they suppose present
with warriors. They also carry with them to battle certain images and standards
taken from the sacred groves. It is a principal incentive to their courage, that
their squadrons and battalions are not formed by men fortuitously collected, but
by the assemblage of families and clans. Their pledges also are near at hand;
they have within hearing the yells of their women, and the cries of their chil-
dren. These, too, are the most revered witnesses of each man’s conduct, these
his most liberal applauders. To their mothers and their wives they bring their
wounds for relief, nor do these dread to count or to search out the gashes. The
women also administer food and encouragement to those who are fighting.
20. In every house the children grow up, thinly and meanly clad, to that bulk of
body and limb which we behold with wonder. Every mother suckles her own
children, and does not deliver them into the hands of servants and nurses. No
indulgence distinguishes the young master from the slave. They lie together

579
580 | 2. An Early Crisis of Church and State

amidst the same cattle, upon the same ground, till age separates, and valor
marks out, the free-born. The youths partake late of the pleasures of love, and
hence pass the age of puberty unexhausted: nor are the virgins hurried into
marriage; the same maturity, the same full growth is required: the sexes unite
equally matched and robust; and the children inherit the vigor of their parents.
Children are regarded with equal affection by their maternal uncles as by their
fathers: some even consider this as the more sacred bond of consanguinity, and
prefer it in the requisition of hostages, as if it held the mind by a firmer tie, and
the family by a more extensive obligation. A person’s own children, however,
are his heirs and successors; and no wills are made. If there be no children,
the next in order of inheritance are brothers, paternal and maternal uncles. The
more numerous are a man’s relations and kinsmen, the more comfortable is his
old age; nor is it here any advantage to be childless.

Source: The Germany and the Agricola of Tacitus. The Oxford Translation, with Notes, by
Edward Brooks, Jr. Philadelphia: D. McKay, c. 1897, pp. 22–24, 42–43.

2. An Early Crisis of Church and State: Ambrose of Milan’s

Excommunication of Theodosius

Theodoret (c. 393–457), an influential theologian and historian, provides an account of

a pivotal moment in the history of church–state relations in late antiquity—the conflict
between the powerful archbishop of Milan, Ambrose, and the emperor Theodosius the
Great. Asserting his authority as an archbishop, Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius
for the brutal massacre of the people of Thessalonika ordered by the emperor in 390.
A devout Christian, Theodosius sought absolution and appeared as a penitent before
Ambrose, establishing a precedent for popes and bishops in the Middle Ages that the
secular power must submit to the spiritual authority.

What vast power the Christian bishops and clergy were able to assume less than
one hundred years after they ceased to be subject to dire persecution, is shown
by the following story of the humiliation and penance St. Ambrose, the master-
ful bishop of Milan, inflicted upon Theodosius I, the last ruler of the undivided
Empire.
Thessalonica is a large and populous city, in the province of Macedonia. [In
consequence of a sedition there] the anger of the Emperor [Theodosius] rose to
the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheath-
ing the sword most unjustly, and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and
 2. An Early Crisis of Church and State | 581

guilty alike. It is said 7000 perished without any forms of law, and without even
having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of corn in the time of
harvest, they were alike cut down.
When Ambrose [Bishop of Milan] heard of this deplorable catastrophe, he went
out to meet the Emperor, who—on his return to Milan—desired as usual to enter
the holy church, but Ambrose prohibited his entrance, saying, “You do not reflect,
it seems, O Emperor, on the guilt you have incurred by that great massacre; but now
that your fury is appeased, do you not perceive the enormity of your crime? You
must not be dazzled by the splendor of the purple you wear, and be led to forget the
weakness of the body which it clothes. Your subjects, O Emperor, are of the same
nature as yourself, and not only so, but are likewise your fellow servants; for there
is one Lord and Ruler of all, and He is the Maker of all creatures, whether princes
of people. How would you look upon the temple of the one Lord of all? How could
you lift up in prayer hands steeped in the blood of so unjust a massacre? Depart
then, and do not by a second crime add to the guilt of the first.”
The Emperor, who had been brought up in the knowledge of Holy Writ, and who
knew well the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the temporal power, sub-
mitted to the rebuke, and with many tears and groans returned to his palace. More
than eight months after, occurred the festival of our Saviour’s birth. The Emperor
shut himself up in his palace . . . and shed floods of tears.
[After vain attempts by intermediaries to appease the bishop, Theodosius at
last went to Ambrose privately and besought mercy, saying], “I beseech you, in
consideration of the mercy of our common Lord, to unloose me from these bonds,
and not to shut the door which is opened by the Lord to all that truly repent.”
[Ambrose stipulated that the Emperor should prove his repentance by recalling
his unjust decrees, and especially by ordering] “that when sentence of death or
of proscription has been signed against any one, thirty days are to elapse before
execution, and on the expiration of that time the case is to be brought again be-
fore you, for your resentment will then be calmed [and you can justly decide the
issue].” The Emperor listened to this advice, and deeming it excellent, he at once
ordered the law to be drawn up, and himself signed the document. St. Ambrose
then unloosed his bonds.
The Emperor, who was full of faith, now took courage to enter holy church,
[where] he prayed neither in a standing, nor in a kneeling posture, but throwing him-
self on the ground. He tore his hair, struck his forehead, and shed torrents of tears,
as he implored forgiveness of God. [Ambrose restored him to favor, but forbade
him to come inside the altar rail, ordering his deacon to say], “The priests alone,
O Emperor, are permitted to enter within the barriers by the altar. Retire then, and
remain with the rest of the laity. A purple robe makes Emperors, but not priests.” . . .
[Theodosius uttered some excuses, and meekly obeyed, praising Ambrose for his
spirit, and saying], “Ambrose alone deserves the title of ‘bishop.’ ”
582 | 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople

Source: Theodoret. “How St Ambrose Humiliated Theodosius the Great.” In Readings in

Ancient History. Vol. II: Rome and the West. Ed. William Sterns Davis. New York: Allyn and
Bacon, 1913, pp. 298–300.

3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of

Hadrianople

The battle of Hadrianople (August 378) was one of the first steps leading toward the
“fall of the Roman Empire.” Described here by the late Roman historian Ammianus
Marcellinus, the battle was a devastating defeat for the emperor Valens, who was
overwhelmed by Visigothic forces that he had welcomed into the empire two years
earlier. The account of the battle, steeped in references to events from ancient Greek
and Roman history, reveals the preparations undertaken by both sides in the days and
weeks prior to the battle, as well as the chaos of the struggle and the death of many
Roman soldiers and the emperor himself. Ammianus also provides a description of the
appearance of Valens and his many flaws and misdeeds as emperor.

10. When the day broke which the annals mark as the fifth of the Ides of August, the
Roman standards were advanced with haste, the baggage having been placed
close to the walls of Hadrianople, under a sufficient guard of soldiers of the
legions; the treasures and the chief insignia of the emperor’s rank were within
the walls, with the prefect and the principal members of the council.
11. Then, having traversed the broken ground which divided the two armies, as the
burning day was progressing towards noon, at last, after marching eight miles,
our men came in sight of the waggons of the enemy, which had been stated by
the scouts to be all arranged in a circle. According to their custom, the barbar-
ian host raised a fierce and hideous yell, while the Roman generals marshalled
their line of battle. The right wing of the cavalry was placed in front; the chief
portion of the infantry was kept in reserve.
12. But the left wing of the cavalry, of which a considerable number were still
straggling on the road, were advancing with speed, though with great difficulty;
and while this wing was deploying, not as yet meeting with any obstacle, the
barbarians being alarmed at the terrible clang of their arms and the threatening
crash of their shields (since a large portion of their own army was still at a dis-
tance, under Alatheus and Saphrax, and, though sent for, had not yet arrived),
again sent ambassadors to ask for peace.
13. The emperor was offended at the lowness of their rank, and replied, that if they
wished to make a lasting treaty, they must send him nobles of sufficient dignity.
 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople | 583

They designedly delayed, in order by the fallacious truce which subsisted dur-
ing the negotiation to give time for their cavalry to return, whom they looked
upon as close at hand; and for our soldiers, already suffering from the summer
heat, to become parched and exhausted by the conflagration of the vast plain;
as the enemy had, with this object, set fire to the crops by means of burning
faggots and fuel. To this evil another was added, that both men and cattle were
suffering from extreme hunger.
14. In the meantime Fritigern, being skilful in divining the future, and fearing a
doubtful struggle, of his own head sent one of his men as a herald, requesting
that some nobles and picked men should at once be sent to him as hostages
for his safety, when he himself would fearlessly bring us both military aid and
supplies.
15. The proposition of this formidable chief was received with praise and approba-
tion, and the tribune Equitius, a relation of Valens, who was at that time high
steward of the palace, was appointed, with general consent, to go with all speed
to the barbarians as a hostage. But he refused, because he had once been taken
prisoner by the enemy, and had escaped from Dibaltum, so that he feared their
vengeful anger; upon this Richomeres voluntarily offered himself, and will-
ingly undertook to go, thinking it a bold action, and one becoming a brave man;
and so he set out, bearing vouchers of his rank and high birth.
16. And as he was on his way towards the enemy’s camp, the accompanying ar-
chers and Scutarii, who on that occasion were under the command of Bacurius,
a native of Iberia, and of Cassio, yielded, while on their march, to an indiscreet
impetuosity, and on approaching the enemy, first attacked them rashly, and
then by a cowardly flight disgraced the beginning of the campaign.
17. This ill-timed attack frustrated the willing services of Richomeres, as he was
not permitted to proceed; in the mean time the cavalry of the Goths had returned
with Alatheus and Saphrax, and with them a battalion of Alani; these descend-
ing from the mountains like a thunderbolt, spread confusion and slaughter
among all whom in their rapid charge they came across.

XIII

§ 1. And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce conflict, and
Bellona, blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging more fiercely than usual, to
inflict disaster on the Romans, our men began to retreat; but presently, roused
by the reproaches of their officers, they made a fresh stand, and the battle in-
creased like a conflagration, terrifying our soldiers, numbers of whom were
pierced by strokes from the javelins hurled at them, and from arrows.
584 | 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople

2. Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks (or
rams) of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro,
like the waves of the sea. Our left wing had advanced actually up to the wag-
ons, with the intent to push on still further if they were properly supported;
but they were deserted by the rest of the cavalry, and so pressed upon by
the superior numbers of the enemy, that they were overwhelmed and beaten
down, like the ruin of a vast rampart. Presently our infantry also was left un-
supported, while the different companies became so huddled together that
a soldier could hardly draw his sword, or withdraw his hand after he had
once stretched it out. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was
scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries; and in
consequence, the darts, which were bearing death on every side, reached their
mark, and fell with deadly effect, because no one could see them beforehand
so as to guard against them.
3. But when the barbarians, rushing on with their enormous host, beat down our
horses and men, and left no spot to which our ranks could fall back to deploy,
while they were so closely packed that it was impossible to escape by forcing
a way through them, our men at last began to despise death, and again took to
their swords and slew all they encountered, while with mutual blows of battle-
axes, helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces.
4. Then you might see the barbarian towering in his fierceness, hissing or shout-
ing, fall with his legs pierced through, or his right hand cut off, sword and all,
or his side transfixed, and still, in the last gasp of life, casting round him defi-
ant glances. The plain was covered with carcasses, strewing the mutual ruin of
the combatants; while the groans of the dying, or of men fearfully wounded,
were intense, and caused great dismay all around.
5. Amidst all this great tumult and confusion, our infantry were exhausted by toil
and danger, till at last they had neither strength left to fight, nor spirits to plan
anything; their spears were broken by the frequent collisions, so that they were
forced to content themselves with their drawn swords, which they thrust into
the dense battalions of the enemy, disregarding their own safety, and seeing that
every possibility of escape was cut off from them.
6. The ground, covered with streams of blood, made their feet slip, so that all that
they endeavored to do was to sell their lives as dearly as possible; and with
such vehemence did they resist their enemies who pressed on them, that some
were even killed by their own weapons. At last one black pool of blood disfig-
ured everything, and wherever the eye turned, it could see nothing but piled-up
heaps of dead, and lifeless corpses trampled on without mercy.
 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople | 585

7. The sun being now high in the heavens, having traversed the sign of Leo, and
reached the abode of the heavenly Virgo, scorched the Romans, who were emaci-
ated by hunger, worn out with toil, and scarcely able to support even the weight
of their armor. At last our columns were entirely beaten back by the overpower-
ing weight of the barbarians, and so they took to disorderly flight, which is the
only resource in extremity, each man trying to save himself as well as he could.
8. While they were all flying and scattering themselves over roads with which
they were unacquainted, the emperor, bewildered with terrible fear, made his
way over heaps of dead, and fled to the battalions of the Lancearii and the Mat-
tiarii, who, till the superior numbers of the enemy became wholly irresistible,
stood firm and immovable. As soon as he saw him, Trajan exclaimed that all
hope was lost, unless the emperor, thus deserted by his guards, could be pro-
tected by the aid of his foreign allies.
9. When this exclamation was heard, a count named Victor hastened to bring up
with all speed the Batavians, who were placed in the reserve, and who ought to
have been near at hand, to the emperor’s assistance; but as none of them could
be found, he too retreated, and in a similar manner Richomeres and Saturninus
saved themselves from danger.
10. So now, with rage flashing in their eyes, the barbarians pursued our men, who
were in a state of torpor, the warmth of their veins having deserted them. Many
were slain without knowing who smote them; some were overwhelmed by the
mere weight of the crowd which pressed upon them; and some were slain by
wounds inflicted by their own comrades. The barbarians spared neither those
who yielded nor those who resisted.
11. Besides these, many half slain lay blocking up the roads, unable to endure the
torture of their wounds; and heaps of dead horses were piled up and filled the
plain with their carcasses. At last a dark moonless night put an end to the irre-
mediable disaster which cost the Roman state so dear.
12. Just when it first became dark, the emperor being among a crowd of common
soldiers, as it was believed—for no one said either that he had seen him, or
been near him—was mortally wounded with an arrow, and, very shortly after,
died, though his body was never found. For as some of the enemy loitered for
a long time about the field in order to plunder the dead, none of the defeated
army or of the inhabitants ventured to go to them.
13. A similar fate befell the Cæsar Decius, when fighting vigorously against the
barbarians; for he was thrown by his horse falling, which he had been unable
to hold, and was plunged into a swamp, out of which he could never emerge,
nor could his body be found.
586 | 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople

14. Others report that Valens did not die immediately, but that he was borne by
a small body of picked soldiers and eunuchs to a cabin in the neighborhood,
which was strongly built, with two stories; and that while these unskillful hands
were tending his wounds, the cottage was surrounded by the enemy, though
they did not know who was in it; still, however, he was saved from the disgrace
of being made a prisoner.

XIV

§ 1. Such was the death of Valens, when he was about fifty years old, and had
reigned rather less than fourteen years. We will now describe his virtues, which
were known to many, and his vices.
2. He was a faithful and steady friend—a severe chastiser of ambition—a rigid
upholder of both military and civil discipline—always careful that no one
should assume importance on account of any relationship to himself; slow both
in conferring office, and in taking it away; a very just ruler of the provinces, all
of which he protected from injury, as if each had been his own house; devot-
ing singular care to the lessening the burdens of the state, and never permitting
any increase of taxation. He was very moderate in the exaction of debts due
to the state, but a vehement and implacable foe to all thieves, and to every one
convicted of peculations; nor in affairs of this kind was the East, by its own
confession, ever better treated under any other emperor.
3. Besides all this, he was liberal with due regard to moderation, of which quality
there are many examples, one of which it will be sufficient to mention here:—
As in palaces there are always some persons covetous of the possessions of
others, if any one petitioned for lapsed property, or anything else which it was
usual to apply for, he made a proper distinction between just and unjust claims,
and when he gave it to the petitioner, while reserving full liberty to any one
to raise objections, he often associated the successful candidate with three or
four partners, in order that those covetous suitors might conduct themselves
with more moderation, when they saw the profits for which they were so eager
diminished by this device.
4. Of the edifices, which in the different cities and towns he either repaired or
built from their foundations, I will say nothing (to avoid prolixity), allowing
those things to speak for themselves. These qualities, in my opinion, deserve
the imitation of all good men. Now let us enumerate his vices.
5. He was an immoderate coveter of great wealth; impatient of labor, he
affected an extreme severity, and was too much inclined to cruelty; his
 3. Ammianus Marcellinus’s Account of the Battle of Hadrianople | 587

behavior was rude and rough; and he was little imbued with skill either in
war or in the liberal arts. He willingly sought profit and advantage in the
miseries of others, and was more than ever intolerable in straining ordinary
offences into sedition or treason; he cruelly encompassed the death or ruin
of wealthy nobles.
6. This also was unendurable, that while he wished to have it appear that all
actions and suits were decided according to the law, and while the investiga-
tion of such affairs was delegated to judges especially selected as the most
proper to decide them, he still would not allow any decision to be given
which was contrary to his own pleasure. He was also insulting, passionate,
and always willing to listen to all informers, without the least distinction
as to whether the charges which they advanced were true or false. And this
vice is one very much to be dreaded, even in private affairs of everyday
occurrence.
7. He was dilatory and sluggish; of a swarthy complexion; had a cast in one
eye, a blemish, however, which was not visible at a distance; his limbs were
well set; his figure was neither tall nor short; he was knock-kneed, and rather
pot-bellied.
8. This is enough to say about Valens: and the recollection of his contemporaries
will fully testify that this account is a true one. But we must not omit to men-
tion that when he had learnt that the oracle of the tripod, which we have related
to have been moved by Patricius and Hilanus, contained those three prophetic
lines, the last of which is,—

“Ἐíía̓έa῎ ”
“Repelling murd’rous war in Mimas’ plain;”

—he, being void of accomplishments and illiterate, despised them at first; but as
his calamities increased, he became filled with abject fear, and, from a recollection
of this same prophecy, began to dread the very name of Asia, where he had been
informed by learned men that both Homer and Cicero had spoken of the Mountain
of Mimas over the town of Erythræ.
9. Lastly,—after his death, and the departure of the enemy, it is said that a monu-
ment was found near the spot where he is believed to have died, with a stone
fixed into it inscribed with Greek characters, indicating that some ancient noble
of the name of Mimas was buried there.

Source: The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus. Trans. C.D. Yonge. London: G. Bell and
Sons, Ltd., 1911, pp. 609–18.
588 | 4. Pope Leo I, the Great, Defends Rome against Attila the Hun

4. Pope Leo I, the Great, Defends Rome against Attila

the Hun

During the fifth century, the forces of Attila the Hun terrorized the Roman Empire and
even invaded deep into the heart of Italy. Reaching Rome in 453, Attila was prepared
to sack the city, which had already been sacked earlier in the century in 410. He was
met outside the gates by Pope Leo the Great, whose persuasive powers and the timely
appearance of the spirits of St. Peter and St. Paul alongside the pope convinced Attila to
withdraw and leave the city in peace. Prosper, a Christian chronicler, writing about 455,
provides an account of Attila’s march on Rome and its miraculous defense by the pope
and the Apostles.

Now Attila, having once more collected his forces which had been scattered in
Gaul [at the battle of Chalons], took his way through Pannonia into Italy. . . . To the
emperor and the senate and Roman people none of all the proposed plans to oppose
the enemy seemed so practicable as to send legates to the most savage king and beg
for peace. Our most blessed Pope Leo—trusting in the help of God, who never fails
the righteous in their trials—undertook the task, accompanied by Avienus, a man of
consular rank, and the prefect Trygetius. And the outcome was what his faith had
foreseen; for when the king had received the embassy, he was so impressed by the
presence of the high priest that he ordered his army to five up warfare and, after he
had promised peace, he departed beyond the Danube.
In a life of Leo the Great by some later author, whose name is unknown to us,
the episode as told by Prosper has been developed into a miraculous tale calculated
to meet the taste of the time:
Attila, the leader of the Huns, who was called the scourge of God, came into Italy,
inflamed with fury, after he had laid waste with most savage frenzy Thrace and
Illyricum, Macedonia and Moesia, Achaia and Greece, Pannonia and Germany. He
was utterly cruel in inflicting torture, greedy in plundering, insolent in abuse. . . .
He destroyed Aquileia from the foundations and razed to the ground those regal
cities, Pavia and Milan; he laid waste many other towns, (1) and was rushing down
upon Rome.
Then Leo had compassion on the calamity of Italy and Rome, and with one of the
consuls and a large part of the Roman senate he went to meet Attila. The old man
of harmless simplicity, venerable in his gray hair and his majestic garb, ready of his
own will to give himself entirely for the defense of his flock, went forth to meet the
tyrant who was destroying all things. He met Attila, it is said, in the neighborhood
of the river Mincio, and he spoke to the grim monarch, saying: “The senate and
the people of Rome, once conquerors of the world, now indeed vanquished, come
before thee as suppliants. We pray for mercy and deliverance. O Attila, thou king
of kings, thou couldst have no greater glory than to see suppliant at thy feet this
 5. Augustine of Hippo’s Definition of a True Commonwealth | 589

people before whom once all peoples and kings lay suppliant. Thou hast subdued,
O Attila, the whole circle of the lands which it was granted to the Romans, victors
over all peoples, to conquer. Now we pray that thou, who hast conquered others,
shouldst conquer thyself. The people have felt thy scourge; now as suppliants they
would feel thy mercy.”
As Leo said these things, Attila stood looking upon his venerable garb and as-
pect, silent, as if thinking deeply. And lo, suddenly there were seen the apostles
Peter and Paul, clad like bishops, standing by Leo, the one on the right hand, the
other on the left. They held swords stretched out over his head, and threatened Attila
with death if he did not obey the pope’s command. Wherefore Attila was appeased
by Leo’s intercession—he who had rages as one mad. He straightway promised a
lasting peace and withdrew beyond the Danube.

Source: “How Pope Leo the Great Saved Rome from Attila.” In Readings in European History,
Vol. 1. Ed. J.H. Robinson. New York: Gin & Company, 1904, pp. 49–51.

5. Augustine of Hippo’s Definition of a True Commonwealth

Written in response to the devastating sack of Rome by the Goths in 410, Augustine’s
City of God sought to defend Christianity against the pagans who blamed it for the
sack of the city. One of the greatest theologians in the history of the church, Augustine
provided a philosophy of history in his great work as well as one of the most substantial
commentaries of the faith ever written. In the City of God, Augustine developed the idea
that there are two cities on earth—an earthly city and a city of God—and that members
of the city of God are on pilgrimage in this world on their way to the heavenly city. In
this celebrated passage from book X, Augustine addresses the definition of a republic
and whether a true republic could ever exist in the world. Although Augustine himself
did not believe a true commonwealth could exist in this sinful world, later Christian
rulers and theologians, notably the Carolingian kings and their advisors, saw Augustine’s
work as a blueprint for the establishment of a Christian kingdom.

21. Whether there ever was a Roman republic answering to the definitions of
Scipio in Cicero’s dialogue.

This, then, is the place where I should fulfill the promise gave in the second book
of this work, and explain, as briefly and clearly as possible, that if we are to accept
the definitions laid down by Scipio in Cicero’s De Republica, there never was a
Roman republic; for he briefly defines a republic as the weal of the people. And if
this definition be true, there never was a Roman republic, for the people’s weal was
590 | 5. Augustine of Hippo’s Definition of a True Commonwealth

never attained among the Romans. For the people, according to his definition, is
an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgement of right and by a com-
munity of interests. And what he means by a common acknowledgment of right he
explains at large showing that a republic cannot be administered without justice.
Where, therefore, there is no true justice there can be no right. For that which is
done by right is justly done, and what is unjustly done cannot be done by right. For
the unjust inventions of men are neither to be considered nor spoken of as rights;
for even they themselves say that right is that which flows from the fountain of jus-
tice, and deny the definition which is commonly given by those who misconceive
the matter, that right is that which is useful to the stronger party. Thus, where there
is not true justice there can be no assemblage of men associated by a common ac-
knowledgment of right, and therefore there can be no people, as defined by Scipio
or Cicero; and if no people, then no weal of the people, but only of some promis-
cuous multitude unworthy of the name of people. Consequently, if the republic is
the weal of the people, and there is no people if it be not associated by a common
acknowledgment of right, and if there is no rights where there is no justice, then
most certainly it follows that there is no republic where there is no justice. Further,
justice is that virtue which gives every one his due. Where, then, is the justice of
man, when he deserts the true God and yields himself to impure demons? Is this to
give every one his due? Or is he who keeps back a piece of ground from the pur-
chaser, and gives it to a man who has no right to it, unjust, while he who keeps back
himself from the God who made him, and serves wicked spirits, is just?
This same book, De Republica, advocates the cause of justice against injustice
with great force and keenness. The pleading for injustice against justice was first
heard, and it was asserted that without injustice a republic could neither increase
nor even subsist, for it was laid down as an absolutely unassailable position that it
is unjust for some men to rule and some to serve; and yet the imperial city to which
the republic belongs cannot rule her provinces without having recourse to this in-
justice. It was replied in behalf of justice, that this ruling of the provinces is just,
because servitude may be advantageous to the provincials, and is so when rightly
administered, hat is to say, when lawless men are prevented from doing harm. And
further, as they became worse and worse so long as they were free, they will improve
by subjection. To confirm this reasoning, there is added an eminent example drawn
from nature: for “why,” it is asked, “does God rule man, the soul, the body, the rea-
son the passions and other vicious parts of the soul?” This example leaves no doubt
that, to some, servitude is useful; and indeed, to serve God is useful to all. And it is
when the soul serves God that it exercises a right control over the body; and in the
soul itself the reason must be subject to God if it is to govern as it ought the passions
and other vices. Hence, when a man does not serve God, what justice can we ascribe
to him, since in this case his soul cannot exercise a just control over the body, nor
his reason over his vices? And if there is no justice in such an individual, certainly
there can be none in a community composed of such persons. Here, therefore, there
 6. Augustine of Hippo’s Conversion Experience | 591

is not that common acknowledgment of right which makes an assemblage of men

a people whose affairs we call a republic. And why need I speak of the advanta-
geousness, the common participation in which, according to the definition, makes
a people? For although, if you choose to regard the matter attentively, you will see
that there is nothing advantageous to those who live godlessly, as every one lives
who does not serve God but demons, whose wickedness you may measure by their
desire to receives the worship of men though they are most impure spirits, yet what
I have said of the common acknowledgment of right is enough to demonstrate that,
according to the above definition, there can be no people, and therefore no republic,
where there is no justice. For if they assert that in their republic the Romans did not
serve unclean spirits, but good and holy gods, must we therefore again reply to this
evasion, though already we have said enough, and more than enough, to expose it?
He must be an uncommonly stupid, or a shamelessly contentious person, who has
read through the foregoing books to this point, and can yet question whether the
Romans served wicked and impure demons. But, not to speak of their character, it
is written in the law of the true God, “He that scarificeth unto any god save unto the
Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” He, therefore, who uttered so menacing a
commandment decreed that no worship should be given either to good or bad gods.

Source: The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Vol. II: City of God. Ed. Rev.
Marcus Dods, MA. Edinburgh: Murray and Gibb, 1871, Book 19, Chapter 21.

6. Augustine of Hippo’s Conversion Experience

Augustine of Hippo, one of the Church Fathers and one of the greatest theologians in
the history of the church, left an extensive literary legacy. Along with his meditation on
history and philosophy in his City of God, Augustine’s most famous and influential work
was his Confessions. A work of autobiography and a prayer offered to God, Confessions
depicts Augustine’s spiritual journey toward God and his conversion to Catholic
Christianity. The work describes Augustine’s early sinful life and his long relationship with
a woman who remains anonymous, as well as his interest in classical philosophy, and
long adherence to Manichaeanism. The excerpt that follows describes the famous scene
where Augustine hears a child’s voice calling him to take up and read, which leads him to
read the Bible and convert to the Christian faith.

Chapter 11
Thus I was soul-sick, and tormented, accusing myself much more severely than was
my wont, rolling and turning myself in my chain, until they were wholly broken, by
which I was held. And You, O Lord, pressed upon me in my inward parts by a severe
592 | 6. Augustine of Hippo’s Conversion Experience

mercy, redoubling the lashes of fear and shame, lest I should again give way, and
not bursting that same slight remaining tie, it should recover strength, and bind me
the faster. For I said with myself, “Be it done now, be it done now.” And as I spoke,
I all but enacted it: I all but did it, and did it not: yet I sunk not back to my former
state, but kept my stand hard by, and took breath. And I essayed again, and wanted
somewhat less of it, and somewhat less, and all but touched, and laid hold of it. Yet
I came not at it, nor touched nor laid hold of it, hesitating to die to death and to live
to life. The worse whereto I was inured, prevailed more with me than the better
whereto I was unused. The very moment where I was to become other than I was,
the nearer it approached me, the greater horror did it strike into me, yet did it not
strike me back, nor turned me away, but held me in suspense.
The very toys of toys, and vanities of vanities, my ancient temptations, still held
me. They plucked my garment, and whispered softly, “Do you cast us off? From
that moment shall we no more be with you forever? From that moment shall not
this or that be lawful for you forever?” What defilements did they suggest! What
shame! And now I much less than half heard them, and not openly showing them-
selves and contradicting me, but muttering as it were behind my back, and privately
plucking me, as I was departing, but to look back on them. Yet they did slow me, so
that I hesitated to burst and shake myself free from them, and to spring over whither
I was called, a violent habit saying to me, “Think you, can you live without them?”
But now it spoke very faintly. . . .

Chapter 12
But when a deep consideration from the secret bottom of my soul had drawn to-
gether and heaped up all my misery in the sight of my heart; there arose a mighty
storm, bringing a mighty shower of tears. That I might pour forth wholly, in its
natural expressions, I rose from Alypius. Solitude was suggested to me as fitter
for the business of weeping, so I retired so far that even his presence could not be
a burden to me. Thus was it then with me, and he perceived something of it; for
something I suppose I had spoken, wherein the tones of my voice appeared choked
with weeping, and so had risen up. He then remained where we were sitting, most
extremely astonished. I cast myself down I know not how, under a certain fig-tree,
giving full vent to my tears. The floods of mine eyes gushed out an acceptable sac-
rifice to You Oh God. And, not indeed in these words, yet to this purpose, I spoke
much to You: and You, O Lord, how long? how long, Lord, will You be angry for
ever? Remember not my former iniquities, for I felt that I was held by them. I sent
up these sorrowful words: “How long, how long, tomorrow, and tomorrow? Why
not now? Why is there not an end to my uncleanness?”
So was I speaking and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when,
lo! I heard from a neighboring house a voice, as of boy or girl, I know not, chanting,
 7. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England | 593

and oft repeating, “Take up and read; Take up and read.” Instantly, my countenance
altered, I began to think most intently whether children were wont in any kind
of play to sing such words, nor could I remember ever to have heard the like. So
checking the torrent of my tears, I arose, interpreting it to be no other than a com-
mand from God to open the book, and read the first chapter I should find. For I had
heard of Antony (the famous Egyptian hermit), that coming in during the reading
of the Gospel, he received the admonition, as if what was being read was spoken to
him: “Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure
in heaven, and come and follow me.” By such oracle he was forthwith converted.
Eagerly then I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting, for there had I laid
the volume of the Apostle when I left. I seized, opened, and in silence read that sec-
tion on which my eyes first fell: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering
and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
make not provision for the flesh, in concupiscence.” No further would I read, nor
needed I: for instantly at the end of this sentence, by a light as it were of serenity
infused into my heart, all the darkness of doubt vanished away.
Then putting my finger between, or some other mark, I shut the volume, and with
a calmed countenance made it known to Alypius. And what was wrought in him,
which I knew not, he thus showed me. He asked to see what I had read. I showed
him, and he looked even further than I had read, and I knew not what followed. This
followed, “him that is weak in the faith, receive,” which he applied to himself, and
disclosed to me. And by this admonition was he strengthened; without any turbulent
delay he joined me. Thence we went in to my mother; we told her; she rejoiced.
We related the order in which it took place. She leapt for joy, and triumphed, and
blessed You, Who are able to do more than we ask or think. For she perceived that
You had given her more for me, than she was wont to beg by her pitiful and most sor-
rowful groanings. For You converted me to Yourself, so that I sought neither wife,
nor any hope of this world, standing in that rule of faith, where You had showed me
unto her in a vision, so many years before. And You did convert her mourning into
joy, much more plentiful than she had desired.

Source: “Augustine: Conversion (399 CE ).” In World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 6 May 2012.

7. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England according to Bede

During the barbarian invasions of the fifth century, numerous Germanic peoples entered
the Roman Empire and created independent kingdoms on former Roman territory. In
England, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were able to establish kingdoms following the
594 | 7. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England

Roman withdrawal. In the eighth century, Bede, one of the greatest of early medieval
historians, described how England was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons. Led by the
chieftains Hengist and Horsa, the Anglo-Saxons had been invited by the Britons into their
country to protect them and maintain order after the Romans withdrew. Hengist and
Horsa exploited this opportunity to seize control of the land, which, Bede suggests, was
a punishment sent by God for the sins of the Britons.

In the year of our Lord 449, Marcian, the forty-sixth from Augustus, being made
emperor with Valentinian, ruled the empire seven years. Then the nation of the
Angles, or Saxons, being invited by the aforesaid king, arrived in Britain with
three ships of war and had a place in which to settle assigned to them by the same
king, in the eastern part of the island, on the pretext of fighting in defence of their
country, whilst their real intentions were to conquer it. Accordingly they engaged
with the enemy, who were come from the north to give battle, and the Saxons obtained
the victory. When the news of their success and of the fertility of the country, and
the cowardice of the Britons, reached their own home, a more considerable fleet
was quickly sent over, bringing a greater number of men, and these, being added
to the former army, made up an invincible force. The newcomers received of the
Britons a place to inhabit among them, upon condition that they should wage war
against their enemies for the peace and security of the country, whilst the Britons
agreed to furnish them with pay. Those who came over were of the three most
powerful nations of Germany—Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. From the Jutes are de-
scended the people, of Kent, and of the Isle of Wight, including those in the prov-
ince of the West-Saxons who are to this day called Jutes, seated opposite to the Isle
of Wight. From the Saxons, that is, the country which is now called Old Saxony,
came the East-Saxons, the South-Saxons, and the West Saxons. From the Angles,
that is, the country which is called Angulus, and which is said, from that time, to
have remained desert to this day, between the provinces of the Jutes and the Sax-
ons, are descended the East-Angles, the Midland-Angles, the Mercians, all the race
of the Northumbrians, that is, of those nations that dwell on the north side of the
river Humber, and the other nations of the Angles. The first commanders are said
to have been the two brothers Hengist and Horsa. Of these Horsa was afterwards
slain in battle by the Britons, and a monument, bearing his name, is still in exis-
tence in the eastern parts of Kent. They were the sons of Victgilsus, whose father
was Vitta, son of Vecta, son of Woden; from whose stock the royal race of many
provinces trace their descent. In a short time, swarms of the aforesaid nations came
over into the island, and the foreigners began to increase so much, that they became
a source of terror to the natives themselves who had invited them. Then, having on
a sudden entered into league with the Picts, whom they had by this time repelled
by force of arms, they began to turn their weapons against their allies. At first, they
obliged them to furnish a greater quantity of provisions; and, seeking an occasion
 8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works | 595

of quarrel, protested, that unless more plentiful supplies were brought them, they
would break the league, and ravage all the island; nor were they backward in put-
ting their threats into execution. In short, the fire kindled by the hands of the pagans,
proved God’s just vengeance for the crimes of the people; not unlike that which,
being of old lighted by the Chaldeans, consumed the walls and all the buildings of
Jerusalem. For here, too, through the agency of the pitiless conqueror, yet by the
disposal of the just Judge, it ravaged all the neighbouring cities and country, spread
the conflagration from the eastern to the western sea, without any opposition, and
overran the whole face of the doomed island. Public as well as private buildings
were overturned; the priests were everywhere slain before the altars; no respect was
shown for office, the prelates with the people were destroyed with fire and sword;
nor were there any left to bury those who had been thus cruelly slaughtered. Some
of the miserable remnant, being taken in the mountains, were butchered in heaps.
Others, spent with hunger, came forth and submitted themselves to the enemy, to
undergo for the sake of food perpetual servitude, if they were not killed upon the
spot. Some, with sorrowful hearts, fled beyond the seas. Others, remaining in their
own country, led a miserable life of terror and anxiety of mind among the moun-
tains, woods and crags.

Source: Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England: A Revised Translation. Ed. A.M. Seller. London:
George Bell and Sons, 1907, Book 1, Chapter 15.

8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works, Including the

Conversion of England, of Pope Gregory I, the Great

One of the greatest and most influential of early medieval historians, Bede describes the
process of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon people and the triumph of Christianity
in England in his great work of history. One of the key figures in that history was Pope
Gregory I, who sent an evangelical mission to England in 595 that would begin the
process of spreading the faith there. Bede provides a moving and respectful account of
the pope in the following passage and recounts the episode in Gregory’s life when the
pope first encountered the English people and was inspired to work for their conversion.

Chap. I
AT this time, that is, in the year of our Lord 605, the blessed Pope Gregory, after hav-
ing most gloriously governed the Roman Apostolic see thirteen years, six months,
and ten days, died, and was translated to an eternal abode in the kingdom of Heaven.
Of whom, seeing that by his zeal he converted our nation, the English, from the
596 | 8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works

power of Satan to the faith of Christ, it behoves us to discourse more at large in

our Ecclesiastical History, for we may rightly, nay, we must, call him our apostle;
because, as soon as he began to wield the pontifical power over all the world, and
was placed over the Churches long before converted to the true faith, he made our
nation, till then enslaved to idols, the Church of Christ, so that concerning him we
may use those words of the Apostle; “if he be not an apostle to others, yet doubtless
he is to us; for the seal of his apostleship are we in the Lord.”
He was by nation a Roman, son of Gordianus, tracing his descent from ancestors
that were not only noble, but religious. Moreover Felix, once bishop of the same
Apostolic see, a man of great honour in Christ and in the Church, was his forefa-
ther, Nor did he show his nobility in religion by less strength of devotion than his
parents and kindred. But that nobility of this world which was seen in him, by the
help of the Divine Grace, he used only to gain the glory of eternal dignity; for soon
quitting his secular habit, he entered a monastery, wherein he began to live with
so much grace of perfection that (as he was wont afterwards with tears to testify)
his mind was above all transitory things; that he rose superior to all that is subject
to change; that he used to think of nothing but what was heavenly; that, whilst de-
tained by the body, he broke through the bonds of the flesh by contemplation; and
that he even loved death, which is a penalty to almost all men, as the entrance into
life, and the reward of his labors. This he used to say of himself, not to boast of his
progress in virtue, but rather to bewail the falling off which he imagined he had
sustained through his pastoral charge. Indeed, once in a private conversation with
his deacon, Peter, after having enumerated the former virtues of his soul, he added
sorrowfully, “But now, on account of the pastoral charge, it is entangled with the
affairs of laymen, and, after so fair an appearance of inward peace, is defiled with
the dust of earthly action. And having wasted itself on outward things, by turning
aside to the affairs of many men, even when it desires the inward things, it returns
to them undoubtedly impaired. I therefore consider what I endure, I consider what
I have lost, and when I behold what I have thrown away; that which I bear appears
the more grievous.”
So spake the holy man constrained by his great humility. But it behoves us to be-
lieve that he lost nothing of his monastic perfection by reason of his pastoral charge,
but rather that he gained greater profit through the labour of converting many, than
by the former calm of his private life, and chiefly because, whilst holding the pon-
tifical office, he set about organizing his house like a monastery. And when first
drawn from the monastery, ordained to the ministry of the altar, and sent to Con-
stantinople as representative of the Apostolic see, though he now took part in the
secular affairs of the palace, yet he did not abandon the fixed course of his heavenly
life; for some of the brethren of his monastery, who had followed him to the royal
city in their brotherly love, he employed for the better observance of monastic rule,
to the end that at all times, by their example, as he writes himself, he might be held
 8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works | 597

fast to the calm shore of prayer, as it were, with the cable of an anchor, whilst he
should be tossed up and down by the ceaseless waves of worldly affairs; and daily
in the intercourse of studious reading with them, strengthen his mind shaken with
temporal concerns. By their company he was not only guarded against the assaults
of the world, but more and more roused to the exercises of a heavenly life.
For they persuaded him to interpret by a mystical exposition the book of the
blessed Job, which is involved in great obscurity; nor could he refuse to undertake
that work, which brotherly affection imposed on him for the future benefit of many;
but in a wonderful manner, in five and thirty books of exposition, he taught how that
same book is to be understood literally; how to be referred to the mysteries of Christ
and the Church; and in what sense it is to be adapted to every one of the faithful.
This work he began as papal representative in the royal city, but finished it at Rome
after being made pope. Whilst he was still in the royal city, by the help of the grace
of Catholic truth, he crushed in its first rise a new heresy which sprang up there,
concerning the state of our resurrection. For Eutychius, bishop of that city, taught,
that our body, in the glory of resurrection, would be impalpable, and more subtle
than wind and air. The blessed Gregory hearing this, proved by force of truth, and
by the instance of the Resurrection of our Lord, that this doctrine was every way
opposed to the orthodox faith. For the Catholic faith holds that our body, raised by
the glory of immortality, is indeed rendered subtle by the effect of spiritual power,
but is palpable by the reality of nature; according to the example of our Lord’s Body,
concerning which, when risen from the dead, He Himself says to His disciples,
“Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” In
maintaining this faith, the venerable Father Gregory so earnestly strove against the
rising heresy, and with the help of the most pious emperor, Tiberius Constantine,
so fully suppressed it, that none has been since found to revive it.
He likewise composed another notable book, the “Liber Pastoralis,” wherein he
clearly showed what sort of persons ought to be preferred to rule the Church; how
such rulers ought to live; with how much discrimination they ought to instruct the
different classes of their hearers, and how seriously to reflect every day on their own
frailty. He also wrote forty homilies on the Gospel, which he divided equally into
two volumes; and composed four books of Dialogues, in which, at the request of his
deacon, Peter, he recounted the virtues of the more renowned saints of Italy, whom
he had either known or heard of, as a pattern of life for posterity; to the end that, as
he taught in his books of Expositions what virtues men ought to strive after, so by
describing the miracles of saints, he might make known the glory of those’ virtues.
Further, in twenty-two homilies, he showed how much light is latent in the first and
last parts of the prophet Ezekiel, which seemed the most obscure. Besides which,
he wrote the “Book of Answers,” to the questions of the holy Augustine, the first
bishop of the English nation, as we have shown above, inserting the same book en-
tire in this history; and the useful little “Synodical Book,” which he composed with
598 | 8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works

the bishops of Italy on necessary matters of the Church; as well as private letters to
certain persons. And it is the more wonderful that he could write so many lengthy
works, seeing that almost all the time of his youth, to use his own words, he was
frequently tormented with internal pain, constantly enfeebled by the weakness of
his digestion, and oppressed by a low but persistent fever. But in all these troubles,
forasmuch as he carefully reflected that, as the Scripture testifies, “He scourgeth
every son whom He receiveth,” the more severely he suffered under those present
evils, the more he assured himself of his eternal hope.
Thus much may be said of his immortal genius, which could not be crushed by
such severe bodily pains. Other popes applied themselves to building churches or
adorning them with gold and silver, but Gregory was wholly intent upon gaining
souls. Whatsoever money he had, he took care to distribute diligently and give to
the poor, that his righteousness, might endure for ever, and his horn be exalted with
honour; so that the words of the blessed Job might be truly said of him, “When the
ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it gave witness to me:
because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to
help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me, and I caused
the widow’s heart to sing for, joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my
judgement was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the
lame. I was a father to the poor; and the cause which I knew not, I searched out. And
I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.” And a little
after: “If I have withheld,” says he, “the poor from their desire; or have caused the
eyes of the widow to fail; or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless
hath not eaten thereof: (for from my youth compassion grew up with me, and from
my mother’s womb it came forth with me.”
To his works of piety and righteousness this also may be added, that he saved
our nation, by the preachers he sent hither, from the teeth of the old enemy, and
made it partaker of eternal liberty. Rejoicing in the faith and salvation of our
race, and worthily commending it with praise, he says, in his exposition of the
blessed Job, “Behold, the tongue of Britain, which only knew how to utter bar-
barous cries, has long since begun to raise the Hebrew Hallelujah to the praise
of God! Behold, the once swelling ocean now serves prostrate at the feet of the
saints; and its wild upheavals, which earthly princes could not subdue with the
sword, are now, through the fear of God, bound by the lips of priests with words
alone; and the heathen that stood not in awe of troops of warriors, now believes
and fears the tongues of the humble! For he has received a message from on high
and mighty works are revealed; the strength of the knowledge of God is given
him, and restrained by the fear of the Lord, he dreads to do evil, and with all his
heart desires to attain to everlasting grace.” In which words the blessed Gregory
shows us this also, that St. Augustine and his companions brought the English to
receive the truth, not only by the preaching of words, but also by showing forth
heavenly signs.
 8. Bede’s Description of the Life and Works | 599

The blessed Pope Gregory, among other things, caused Masses to be celebrated
in the churches of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, over their bodies. And in the
celebration of Masses, he added three petitions of the utmost perfection: “And dis-
pose our days in thy peace, and bid us to be preserved from eternal damnation, and
to be numbered in the flock of thine elect.”
He governed the Church in the days of the Emperors Mauritius and Phocas, and
passing out of this life in the second year of the same Phocas, departed to the true life
which is in Heaven. His body was buried in the church of the blessed Apostle Peter
before the sacristy, on the 12th day of March, to rise one day in the same body in glory
with the rest of the holy pastors of the Church. On his tomb was written this epitaph:
Receive, Earth, his body taken from thine own; thou canst restore it, when
God calls to life. His spirit rises to the stars; the claims of death shall not avail
against him, for death itself is but the way to new life. In this tomb are laid the
limbs of a great pontiff, who yet lives for ever in all places in countless deeds
of mercy. Hunger and cold he overcame with food and raiment, and shielded
souls from the enemy by his holy teaching. And whatsoever he taught in word,
that he fulfilled in deed, that he might be a pattern, even as he spake words of
mystic meaning. By his guiding love he brought the Angles to Christ, gaining
armies for the Faith from a new people. This was thy toil, thy task, thy care,
thy aim as shepherd, to offer to thy Lord abundant increase of the flock. So,
Consul of God, rejoice in this thy triumph, for now thou hast the reward of
thy works for evermore.
Nor must we pass by in silence the story of the blessed Gregory, handed down
to us by the tradition of our ancestors, which explains his earnest care for the salva-
tion of our nation. It is said that one day, when some merchants had lately arrived
at Rome, many things were exposed for sale in the market place, and much people
resorted thither to buy: Gregory himself went with the rest, and saw among other
wares some boys put up for sale, of fair complexion, with pleasing countenances,
and very beautiful hair. When he beheld them, he asked, it is said, from what region
or country they were brought? and was told, from the island of Britain, and that the
inhabitants were like that in appearance. He again inquired whether those islanders
were Christians, or still involved in the errors of paganism, and was informed that
they were pagans. Then fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart, “Alas!
what pity,” said he, “that the author of darkness should own men of such fair coun-
tenances; and that with such grace of outward form, their minds should be void of
inward grace. He therefore again asked, what was the name of that nation? and was
answered, that they were called Angles. “Right,” said he, “for they have an angelic
face, and it is meet that such should be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven. What is
the name of the province from which they are brought?” It was replied, that the na-
tives of that province were called Deiri. (Note: Southern Northumbria) “Truly are
they Deira,” said he, “saved from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ. How is
600 | 9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby

the king of that called?” They told him his name was Aelli; and he, playing upon the
name, said, “Allelujah, the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.”
Then he went to the bishop of the Roman Apostolic see (for he was not himself
then made pope), and entreated him to send some ministers of the Word into Brit-
ain to the nation of the English, that it might be converted to Christ by them; de-
claring himself ready to carry out that work with the help of God, if the Apostolic
Pope should think fit to have it done. But not being then able to perform this task,
because, though the Pope was willing to grant his request, yet the citizens of Rome
could not be brought to consent that he should depart so far from the city, as soon as
he was himself made Pope, he carried out the long-desired work, sending, indeed,
other preachers, but himself by his exhortations and prayers helping the preaching
to bear fruit. This account, which we have received from a past generation, we have
thought fit to insert in our Ecclesiastical History.

Source: Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England: A Revised Translation. Ed. A.M. Seller. London:
George Bell and Sons, 1907, Book 2, Chapter 1.

9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby

In his History of the English Church and People, Bede described the key moments in
the conversion of England. One of the most important events in that process, discussed
in the following excerpt from Bede’s history, was the synod of Whitby, which was held
in 663 or 664. It was at this synod, presided over by King Oswy of Northumbria to
determine the method of calculating the date of Esater, that the fate of the English
church was determined. Representatives of the Celtic church and the church of
Rome attended the synod, and Oswy and the council accepted the Roman practice of
calculating Easter. The king was swayed by the knowledge that Rome was the city of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. Following the council, Celtic practices were replaced by Roman
traditions in England.

How the question arose about the due time of keeping Easter, with those that
came out of Scotland.
At this time, a great and frequently debated question arose about the observance
of Easter; those that came from Kent or Gaul affirming, that the Scots celebrated
Easter Sunday contrary to the custom of the universal Church. Among them was
a most zealous defender of the true Easter, whose name was Ronan, a Scot by na-
tion, but instructed in the rule of ecclesiastical truth in Gaul or Italy. Disputing with
Finan, he convinced many, or at least induced them to make a more strict inquiry
after the truth; yet he could not prevail upon Finan, but, on the contrary, embittered
 9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby | 601

him the more by reproof, and made him a professed opponent of the truth, for he
was of a violent temper. James, formerly the deacon of the venerable Archbishop
Paulinus, as has been said above, observed the true and Catholic Easter, with all
those that he could instruct in the better way. Queen Eanfled and her followers also
observed it as she had seen it practised in Kent, having with her a Kentish priest
who followed the Catholic observance, whose name was Romanus.
Thus it is said to have sometimes happened in those times that Easter was twice
celebrated in one year; and that when the king, having ended his fast, was keeping
Easter, the queen and her followers were still fasting, and celebrating Palm Sunday.
Whilst Aidan lived, this difference about the observance of Easter was patiently tol-
erated by all men, for they well knew, that though he could not keep Easter contrary
to the custom of those who had sent him, yet he industriously labored to practise the
works of faith, piety, and love, according to the custom of all holy men; for which
reason he was deservedly beloved by all, even by those who differed in opinion
concerning Easter, and was held in veneration, not only by less important persons,
but even by the bishops, Honorius of Canterbury, and Felix of the East Angles.
But after the death of Finan, who succeeded him, when Colman, who was also
sent from Scotland, came to be bishop, a greater controversy arose about the ob-
servance of Easter, and other rules of ecclesiastical life. Whereupon this question
began naturally to influence the thoughts and hearts of many who feared, lest haply,
having received the name of Christians, they might run, or have run, in vain. This
reached the ears of the rulers, King Oswy and his son Alchfrid. Now Oswy, having
been instructed and baptized by the Scots, and being very perfectly skilled in their
language, thought nothing better than what they taught; but Alchfrid, having for his
teacher in Christianity the learned Wilfrid, who had formerly gone to Rome to study
ecclesiastical doctrine, and spent much time at Lyon with Dalfinus, archbishop of
Gaul, from whom also he had received the crown of ecclesiastical tonsure, rightly
thought that this man’s doctrine ought to be preferred before all the traditions of
the Scots. For this reason he had also given him a monastery of forty families, at
a place called Inhrypum; which, not long before, he had given for a monastery to
those that were followers of the Scots; but forasmuch as they afterwards, being left
to their choice, preferred to quit the place rather than alter their custom, he gave it
to him, whose life and doctrine were worthy of it.
Agilbert, bishop of the West Saxons, a friend of King Alchfrid and of Abbot Wil-
frid, had at that time come into the province of the Northumbrians, and was stay-
ing some time among them. At the request of Alchfrid, he made Wilfrid a priest in
his aforesaid monastery. He had in his company a priest, whose name was Agatho.
Since questions concerning Easter and the tonsure and other ecclesiastical matters
persisted, a synod (664) was held in the monastery of Streanaeshalch, which signi-
fies the Bay of the Lighthouse, where the Abbess Hilda, a woman devoted to the
service of God, then ruled; and that this question should be decided. The kings, both
602 | 9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby

father and son, came thither, and the bishops, Colman with his Scottish clerks, and
Agilbert with the priests Agatho and Wilfrid. James and Romanus were on their
side; but the Abbess Hilda and her followers were for the Scots, as was also the
venerable Bishop Cedd, long before ordained by the Scots, as has been said above,
and he acted in that council as a most careful interpreter for both parties.
King Oswy first made an opening speech, in which he said that it behooved those
who served one God to observe one rule of life; and as they all expected the same
kingdom in heaven, so they ought not to differ in the celebration of the heavenly
mysteries; but rather to inquire which was the truer tradition, that it might be fol-
lowed by all in common; he then commanded his bishop, Colman, first to declare
what the custom was which he observed, and whence it derived its origin. Then
Colman said, “The Easter which I keep, I received from my elders, who sent me
hither as bishop; all our forefathers, men beloved of God, are known to have cel-
ebrated it after the same manner; and that it may not seem to any contemptible and
worthy to be rejected, it is the same which the blessed John the Evangelist, the dis-
ciple specially beloved of our Lord, with all the churches over which he presided,
is recorded to have celebrated.”
When he had said thus much, and more to the like effect, the king commanded
Agilbert to make known the manner of his observance and to show whence derived
from its origin, and on what authority he followed it. Agilbert answered, “I beseech
you, let my disciple, the priest Wilfrid, speak in my stead, because we both concur
with the other followers of the ecclesiastical tradition that are here present, and he
can better and more clearly explain our opinion in the English language, than I can
by an interpreter.”
Then Wilfrid, being ordered by the king to speak, began thus: “The Easter which
we keep, we saw celebrated by all at Rome, where the blessed Apostles, Peter
and Paul, lived, taught, suffered, and were buried. We saw the same done by all
in Italy and in Gaul, when we traveled through those countries for the purpose of
study and prayer. We found it observed in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, and all the
world, wherever the Church of Christ is spread abroad, among different nations and
tongues, at one and the same time; save only among these and their accomplices
in obstinacy, I mean the Picts and the Britons, who foolishly, in these two remote
islands of the ocean, and only in part even of them, strive to oppose all the rest of
the world.”
When he had so said, Colman answered, “It is strange that you choose to call
our efforts foolish, when we follow the example of so great an Apostle, who was
thought worthy to lean on our Lord’s bosom, when all the world knows him to have
lived most wisely.”
Wilfrid replied, “ Far be it from us to charge John with folly, for he literally ob-
served the precepts of the Mosaic Law, whilst the Church was still Jewish in many
points, and the Apostles, lest they should give cause of offence to the Jews who
 9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby | 603

were among the Gentiles, were not able at once to cast off all the observances of the
Law which had been instituted by God . . . So John, according to the custom of the
Law, began the celebration of the feast of Easter, on the fourteenth day of the first
month, in the evening, not regarding whether the same happened on a Saturday, or
any other weekday. But when Peter preached at Rome, being mindful that our Lord
arose from the dead, and gave to the world the hope of resurrection, on the first day
of the week, he perceived that Easter ought to be kept after this manner: he always
awaited the rising of the moon on the fourteenth day of the first month in the eve-
ning, according to the custom and precepts of the Law, even as John did. And when
that came, if the Lord’s day, then called the first day of the week, was the next day,
he began that very evening to celebrate Easter, as we all do at the present time. But
if the Lord’s day did not fall the next morning after the fourteenth moon, but on
the sixteenth, or the seventeenth, or any other moon till the twenty-first, he waited
for that, and on the Saturday before, in the evening, began to observe the holy so-
lemnity of Easter. Thus it came to pass, that Easter Sunday was only kept from the
fifteenth moon to the twenty-first. Nor does this evangelical and apostolic tradition
abolish the Law, but rather fulfill it; the command being to keep the passover from
the fourteenth moon of the first month in the evening to the twenty-first moon of
the same month in the evening; which observance all the successors of the blessed
John in Asia, since his death, and all the Church throughout the world, have since
followed; and that this is the true Easter, and the only one to be celebrated by the
faithful, was not newly decreed by the council of Nicaea but only confirmed afresh;
as the history of the Church informs us.
“Thus it is plain, that you, Colman, neither follow the example of John, as you
imagine, nor that of Peter, whose tradition you oppose with full knowledge, and that
you neither agree with the Law nor the Gospel in the keeping of your Easter. For
John, keeping the Paschal time according to the decree of the Mosaic Law, had no
regard to the first day of the week, which you do not practise, seeing that you cel-
ebrate Easter only on the first day after the Sabbath. Peter celebrated Easter Sunday
between the fifteenth and the twenty-first moon, which you do not practise, see-
ing that you observe Easter Sunday from the fourteenth to the twentieth moon; so
that you often begin Easter on the thirteenth moon in the evening, whereof neither
the Law made any mention, nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospel,
on that day either eat the old passover in the evening, or deliver the Sacraments
of the New Testament, to be celebrated by the Church, in memory of His Passion,
but on the fourteenth. Besides, in your celebration of Easter, you utterly exclude
the twenty-first moon, which the Law ordered to be specially observed. Thus, as
I have said before, you agree neither with John nor Peter, nor with the Law, nor the
Gospel, in the celebration of the greatest festival.”
To this Colman rejoined: “Did the holy Anatolius, much commended in the his-
tory of the Church, judge contrary to the Law and the Gospel, when he wrote, that
604 | 9. Bede’s Account of the Synod of Whitby

Easter was to be celebrated from the fourteenth to the twentieth moon? Is it to be

believed that our most reverend Father Columba and his successors, men beloved
by God, who kept Easter after the same manner, judged or acted contrary to the
Divine writings? There were many among them, whose sanctity was attested by
heavenly signs and miracles; whom I, for my part, doubt not to be saints, and whose
life, customs, and discipline I never cease to follow.”
“It is evident,” said Wilfrid, “that Anatolius was a most holy, learned, and com-
mendable man; but what have you to do with him, since you do not observe his
decrees? For he undoubtedly, following the rule of truth in his Easter, appointed a
cycle of nineteen years, which either you are ignorant of, or if you know it, though
it is kept by the whole Church of Christ, yet you despise it as a thing of naught. He
so computed the fourteenth moon in our Lord’s Paschal Feast, that according to the
custom of the Egyptians, he acknowledged it to be the fifteenth moon on that same
day in the evening; so in like manner he assigned the twentieth to Easter-Sunday,
as believing that to be the twenty-first moon, when the sun had set. That you are
ignorant of the rule of this distinction is proved by this—that you sometimes mani-
festly keep Easter before the full moon, that is, on the thirteenth day. Concerning
your Father Columba and his followers, whose sanctity you say you imitate, and
whose rule and precepts confirmed by signs from Heaven you say that you follow,
I might answer, then when many, in the day of judgement, shall say to our Lord,
that in His name they have prophesied, and have cast out devils, and done many
wonderful works, our Lord will reply, that He never knew them. But far be it from
me to speak thus of your fathers, for it is much more just to believe good than evil
of those whom we do not know. Wherefore I do not deny those also to have been
God’s servants, and beloved of God, who with rude simplicity, but pious intentions,
have themselves loved Him. Nor do I think that such observance of Easter did them
much harm, as long as none came to show them a more perfect rule to follow; for
assuredly I believe that, if any teacher, reckoning after the Catholic manner, had
come among them, they would have as readily followed his admonitions, as they are
known to have kept those commandments of God, which they had learned and knew.
“But as for you and your companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the de-
crees of the Apostolic see, nay, of the universal Church, confirmed, as they are, by
Holy Scripture, you scorn to follow them. For, though your fathers were holy, do
you think that those few men, in a corner of the remotest island, are to be preferred
before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world? And if Columba was
a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet could he be preferred before the most
blessed chief of the Apostles, to whom our Lord said, ‘You are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and
I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven?’ ”
When Wilfrid had ended, the king said, “Is it true, Colman, that these words
were spoken to Peter by our Lord?” He answered, “It is true, O king!” Then said
 10. Charlemagne’s Letter Promoting Learning in His Empire | 605

he, “Can you show any such power given to your Columba?” Colman answered,
“None.” Then again the king asked, “Do you both agree in this, without any contro-
versy, that these words were said above all to Peter, and that the keys of the king-
dom of Heaven were given to him by our Lord?” They both answered, “Yes.” Then
the king concluded, “And I also say unto you, that he is the door-keeper, and I will
not gainsay him, but I desire, as far as I know and am able, in all things to obey his
laws, lest haply when I come to the gates of the kingdom of Heaven, there should
be none to open them, he being my adversary who is proved to have the keys.” The
king having said this, all who were seated there or standing by, both great and small,
gave their assent, and renouncing the less perfect custom, hastened to conform to
that which they had found to be better.

Source: “Bede: The Synod of Whitby (ca. 663 or 664 CE).” In World History: Ancient and
Medieval Eras. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. May 2012.

10. Charlemagne’s Letter Promoting Learning in His Empire

The Letter to Baugulf (De litteris colendis) is one of the foundational letters of the
Carolingian Renaissance. Issued by the Carolingian ruler Charlemagne sometime
between 780 and 800, the circular letter was to be sent to the bishops and abbots of
Charlemagne’s empire calling on them to promote learning and teaching throughout the
realm. This letter was one of the cornerstones of Charlemagne’s intellectual and cultural
reform that led to the extensive copying of a wide range of classical and Christian Latin
works and the production of new works of history and religion and the production of
magnificent illuminated manuscripts.

Charles, by the grace of God, King of the Franks and Lombards and Patrician
of the Romans, to Abbot Baugulf and to all the congregation, also to the faithful
committed to you, we have directed a loving greeting by our ambassadors in the
name of omnipotent God.
Be it known, therefore, to your devotion pleasing to God, that we, together
with our faithful, have considered it to be useful that the bishoprics and monas-
teries entrusted by the favor of Christ to our control, in addition, in the culture
of letters also ought to be zealous in teaching those who by the gift of God are
able to learn, according to the capacity of each individual, so that just as the ob-
servance of the rule imparts order and grace to honesty of morals, so also zeal in
teaching and learning may do the same for sentences, so that those who desire to
please God by living rightly should not neglect to please him also by speaking
correctly. For it is written: “Either from thy words thou shalt be justified or from
606 | 10. Charlemagne’s Letter Promoting Learning in His Empire

thy words thou shalt be condemned.” For although correct conduct may be better
than knowledge, nevertheless knowledge precedes conduct. Therefore, each one
ought to study what he desires to accomplish, sc) that so much the more fully
the mind may know what ought to be clone, as the tongue hastens in the praises
of omnipotent God without the hindrances of errors. For since errors should be
shunned by all men, so much the more ought they to be avoided as far as possible
by those who are chosen for this very purpose alone, so that they ought to be the
especial servants of truth.
For when in the years just passed letters were often written to us from several
monasteries in which it was stated that the brethren who dwelt there offered up in
our behalf sacred and pious prayers, we have recognized in most of these letters
both correct thoughts and uncouth expressions; because what pious devotion dic-
tated faithfully to the mind, the tongue, uneducated on account of the neglect of
study, was not able to express in the letter without error. Whence it happened that
we began to fear lest perchance, as the skill in writing was less, so also the wisdom
for understanding the Holy Scriptures might be much less than it rightly ought to
be. And we all know well that, although errors of speech are dangerous, far more
dangerous are errors of the understanding. Therefore, we exhort you not only not
to neglect the study of letters, but also with most humble mind, pleasing to God,
to study earnestly in order that you may be able more easily and more correctly to
penetrate the mysteries of the divine Scriptures. Since, moreover, images, tropes
and similar figures are found in the sacred pages, no one doubts that each one in
reading these will understand the spiritual sense more quickly if previously he shall
have been fully instructed in the mastery of letters. Such men truly are to be chosen
for this work as have both the will and the ability to learn and a desire to instruct
others. And may this be done with a zeal as great as the earnestness with which we
command it.
For we desire you to be, as it is fitting that soldiers of the church should be, de-
vout in mind, learned in discourse, chaste in conduct and eloquent in speech, so
that whosoever shall seek to see you out of reverence of God, or on account of your
reputation for holy conduct, just as he is edified by your appearance, may also be
instructed by your wisdom, which he has learned from your reading or singing, and
may go away joyfully giving thanks to omnipotent God. Do not neglect, therefore,
if you wish to have our favor, to send copies of this letter to all your suffragans and
fellow-bishops and to all the monasteries. [And let no monk hold courts outside of
his monastery or go to the judicial and other public assemblies. Farewell.]

Source: In Boretius, No. 29, p. 78, trans. by D.C. Munro, In University of Pennsylvania. Dept.
of History. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Published
for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania, Vol. VI, No. 5. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1900, pp. 12–14.
 11. An Inventory of a Carolingian Royal Estate | 607

11. An Inventory of a Carolingian Royal Estate

The following inventory provides a detailed account of the holdings of and crafts
practiced on a country estate in the age Charlemagne. The exact location of Asnapium
remains unknown, but the estate was most likely one of the smaller royal estates. The
very detailed listing of the holdings of the estate represents the type of annual report
that the king expected of his servants. It was important that both the king and his
steward know what the estate possessed should the king himself visit the estate as he
sometimes did during his travels throughout the realm.

We found in the imperial estate of Asnapium a royal house built of stone in the
very best manner, having 3 rooms. The entire house was surrounded with balconies
and it had 11 apartments for women. Underneath was 1 cellar. There were 2 porti-
coes. There were 17 other houses built of wood within the courtyard, with a similar
number of rooms and fixtures, all well constructed. There was 1 stable, 1 kitchen,
1 mill, 1 granary, and 3 barns.
The yard was enclosed with a hedge and a stone gateway, and above was a bal-
cony from which distributions can be made. There was also an inner yard, sur-
rounded by a hedge, well arranged, and planted with various kinds of trees.
Of vestments: coverings for 1 bed, 1 table-cloth, and 1 towel.
Of utensils: 2 brass kettles, 2 drinking cups, 2 brass cauldrons, 1 iron cauldron,
1 frying pan, 1 grammalin, 1 pair of andirons, 1 lamp, 2 hatchets, 1 chisel, 2 augers,
1 axe, 1 knife, 1 large plane, 1 small plane, 2 scythes, 2 sickles, 2 spades edged with
iron, and a sufficient supply of utensils of wood.
Of farm produce: old spelt from last year, 90 baskets which can be made into
450 weight of flour, and 100 measures of barley. From the present year, 110 bas-
kets of spelt, of which 60 baskets had been planted, but the rest we found, 100
measures of wheat, 60 sown, the rest we found, 98 measures of rye all sown,
1,800 measures of barley, 1,100 sown, the rest we found; 430 measures of oats;
1 measure of beans; 12 measures of peas. At 5 mills were found 800 measures of
small size. At 4 breweries, 650 measures of small size, 240 given to clergymen,
the rest we found. At 2 bridges, 60 measures of salt and 2 shillings. At 4 gardens,
11 shillings. Also honey, 3 measures; about 1 measure of butter; lard, from last
year 10 sides; new sides, 200, with fragments and fats; cheese from the present
year, 43 weights.
Of cattle: 51 head of larger cattle; 5 three-year-olds; 7 two-year-olds; 7 year-
lings; 10 two-year old colts; 8 yearlings; 3 stallions; 16 cows; 2 asses; 50 cows with
calves; 20 young bulls; 38 yearling calves; 3 bulls; 260 hogs; 100 pigs; 5 boars;
150 sheep with lambs; 200 yearling lambs; 120 rams; 30 goats with kids; 30 year-
ling kids; 3 male goats; 30 geese; 80 chickens; 22 peacocks.
608 | 12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons

Also concerning the manors which belong to the above mansion: in the villa of
Grisio we found domain buildings where there are 3 barns and a yard enclosed by
a hedge. There were, besides, 1 garden with trees, 10 geese, 8 ducks, 30 chickens.
In another villa we found domain buildings and a yard surrounded by a hedge,
and within 3 barns; 1 arpent of vines; 1 garden with trees; 15 geese; 20 chickens.
In a third villa, domain buildings, with 2 barns; 1 granary; 1 garden and 1 yard
well enclosed by a hedge.
We found all the dry and liquid measures just as in the palace. We did not find
any goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, huntsmen, or persons engaged in other
services.
The garden herbs which we found were lily, putchuck, mint, parsley, rue, celery,
libesticum, sage, savory, juniper, leeks, garlic, tansy, wild mint, coriander, scul-
lions, onions, cabbage, kohlrabi, betony. Trees: pears, apples, medlars, peaches,
filberts, walnuts, mulberries, quinces.

Source: Oggs, Frederic Austin. A Source Book of Mediaeval History. New York: American
Book Company, 1908, pp. 127–29.

12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons

The Capitulatio de Partibus Saxoniae (785), or first Saxon capitulary, was issued as part
of Charlemagne’s prolonged conquest and conversion of Saxony, which lasted from 772
to 804. The capitulary, the standard form of legal decree during Charlemagne’s reign,
was issued shortly after the rebellion of the Saxon leader Widikund and was part of
Charlemagne’s attempt to impose Carolingian political authority and religious belief on
the Saxons. The Saxon capitulary imposed the death penalty for failing to honor Catholic
teachings or harming priests or churches and for performing pagan sacrifices and rituals.
The severity of the law was recognized and even condemned by contemporaries such as
Alcuin. The capitulary, however, did have a more constructive side in that it established
Carolingian civil and judicial administration over Saxony.

First, concerning the greater chapters it has been enacted.

It was pleasing to all that the churches of Christ, which are now being built in
Saxony and consecrated to God, should not have less, but greater and more illustri-
ous honor, than the fanes of the idols had had.

2. If any one shall have fled to a church for refuge, let no one presume to expel
him from the church by violence, but he shall be left in peace until he shall be
brought to the judicial assemblage; and on account of the honor due to God
and the saints, and the reverence due to the church itself, let his life and all his
 12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons | 609

members be granted to him. Moreover, let him please his cause as best he can
and he shall be judged; and so let him be led to the presence of the lord king,
and the latter shall send him where it shall have seemed fitting to his clemency.
3. If any one shall have entered a church by violence and shall have carried off
anything in it by force or theft, or shall have burned the church itself, let him
be punished by death.
4. If any one, out of contempt for Christianity, shall have despised the holy Lenten
fast and shall have eaten flesh, let him be punished by death. But, neverthe-
less, let it be taken into consideration by a priest, lest perchance any one from
necessity has been led to eat flesh.
5. If any one shall have killed a bishop or priest or deacon, let him likewise be
punished capitally.
6. If any one deceived by the devil shall have believed, after the manner of the
pagans, that any man or woman is a witch and eats men, and on this account
shall have burned the person, or shall have given the person’s flesh to others to
eat, or shall have eaten it himself, let him be punished by a capital sentence.
7. If any one, in accordance with pagan rites, shall have caused the body of a
dead man to be burned and shall have reduced his bones to ashes, let him be
punished capitally.
8. If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have
wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism
and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.
9. If any one shall have sacrificed a man to the devil, and after the manner of the
pagans shall have presented him as a victim to the demons, let him be pun-
ished by death.
10. If any one shall have formed a conspiracy with the pagans against the Chris-
tians, or shall have wished to join with them in opposition to the Christians,
(1) let him be punished by death; and whosoever shall have consented to this
same fraudulently against the king and the Christian people, let him be pun-
ished by death.
11. If any one shall have shown himself unfaithful to the lord king, let him be pun-
ished with a capital sentence.
12. If any one shall have ravished the daughter of his lord, let him be punished by
death.
13. If any one shall have killed his lord or lady, let him be punished in a like manner.
14. If, indeed, for these mortal crimes secretly committed any one shall have fled
of his own accord to a priest, and after confession shall have wished to do pen-
ance, let him be freed by the testimony of the priest from death.
610 | 12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons

15. Concerning the lesser chapters all have consented. To each church let the
parishioners (2) present a house and two mansi (3) of land, and for each one
hundred and twenty men, noble and free, and likewise lili, let them give to the
same church a man-servant and a maid-servant.
16. And this has been pleasing, Christ being propitious, that whencesoever any re-
ceipts shall have come into the treasury, either for a breach of the peace or for
any penalty of any kind, and in all income pertaining to the king, a tithe shall
be rendered to the churches and priests.
17. Likewise, in accordance with the mandate of God, we command that all shall
give a tithe of their property and labor to the churches and priests; let the nobles
as well as the freemen, and likewise the lili, according to that which God shall
have given to each Christian, return a part to God.
18. That on the Lord’s day no meetings and public judicial assemblages shall be
held, unless perchance in a case of great necessity or when war compels it, but
all shall go to the church to hear the word of God, and shall be free for prayers
or good works. Likewise, also, on the especial festivals they shall devote them-
selves to God and to the services of the church, and shall refrain from secular
assemblies.
19. Likewise, it has been pleasing to insert in these decrees that all infants shall
be baptized within a year; and we have decreed this, that if any one shall have
despised to bring his infant to baptism within the course of a year, without the
advice or permission of the priest, if he is a noble he shall pay 120 solidi to the
treasury, if a freeman 60, if a litus 30.
20. If any one shall have made a prohibited or illegal marriage, if a noble 60 solidi,
if a freeman 30, if a litus 15.
21. If any one shall have made a vow at springs or trees or groves, or shall have
made any offering after the manner of the heathen and shall have partaken of a
repast in honor of the demons, if he shall be a noble 60 solidi, if a freeman 30,
if a litus 15. If, indeed, they have not the means of paying at once, they shall
be given into the service of the church until the solidi are paid.
22. We command that the bodies of Saxon Christians shall be carried to the church
cemeteries and not to the mounds of the pagans.
23. We have ordered that diviners and soothsayers shall be given to the churches
and priests.
24. Concerning robbers and malefactors who shall have fled from one county to
another, if any one shall receive them into his power and shall keep them with
him for seven nights, except for the purpose of bringing them to justice, let him
 12. Charlemagne’s Law Imposing Christianity on the Saxons | 611

pay our ban. Likewise, if a count shall have concealed him and shall be unwill-
ing to bring him forward so that justice may be done and is not able to excuse
himself for this, let him lose his office.
25. Concerning a pledge: that no one shall in any way presume to pledge another,
and whosoever shall do this shall pay the ban.
26. That no one shall presume to impede any many coming to us to claim justice;
and if any one shall have attempted to do this, he shall pay our ban.
27. If any man shall not have been able to find a fidejussor, his property shall be
sequestrated until he shall present a fidejussor. If, indeed, he shall have pre-
sumed to enter in to his own dwelling in defiance of the ban, he shall forfeit
either ten solidi or an ox for the violation of the ban itself, and in addition he
shall pay the sum for which he was in debt. If, indeed, the fidejussor shall not
observe the day fixed, then he shall suffer as much loss as his proportion of
the guarantee was; moreover, he who was debtor to the fidejussor shall restore
double the loss which he has permitted the fidejussor to incur.
28. Concerning presents and gifts: let no one receive gifts to the detriment of an
innocent person; and if any one shall have presumed to do this, he shall pay
our ban. And if perchance the count shall have done this (may it not happen!)
he shall lose his office.
29. Let all the counts strive to preserve peace and unity with one another; and if
perchance any discord or disturbance shall have arisen between them, they
shall not on this account neglect either our aid or profit. (4)
30. If any one shall have killed or shall have aided in the murder of a count, his
property shall go to the king, and he shall become the serf of the latter.
31. We have granted the authority to the counts within their jurisdiction of inflict-
ing the ban of 60 solidi for revenge (faida) or the greater crimes; for the lesser
crimes, on the other hand, we have fixed the ban of the count at 15 solidi.
32. If any one owes an oath to any man whatsoever, let him duly make his oaths
to that one at the church on the day appointed; and if he shall have despised to
take the oath, let him give a pledge, and let him who was contumacious pay
fifteen solidi, and afterwards let him fully compound for his act.
33. Concerning perjuries, let it be according to the law of the Saxons. (5)
34. We have forbidden that all the Saxons shall hold public assemblies in general,
unless perchance our missus shall have caused them to come together in ac-
cordance with our command; but each count shall hold judicial assemblies and
administer justice in his jurisdiction. And this shall be cared for by the priests,
lest it be done otherwise.
612 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

(1) Vel cum illis in adversitate christianorum perdurare volueril.

(2) Pagenses ad ecclesiam recurrentes.
(3) A mansus is, according to Platz, 720 rods long and 30 broad.
(4) Abel substitutes profectum for perfectum, and this suggestion has been
followed in the translation.
(5) Death penalty.

Source: Capitulatio de Partibus Saxoniae. In Translations and Reprints from the Original
Sources of European History. Vol. VI: Laws of Charles the Great. Ed. Dana Carleton Munro.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1899, pp. 2–5.

13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

Einhard’s “Life of Charlemagne” or Vita Karoli is one of the most important medieval
biographies and one of the great examples of the cultural reform initiated by
Charlemagne. Although the exact date of composition of the work remains uncertain,
the biography was composed by the 830s and perhaps as early as 817 and, whatever
the date, was most likely intended as a commentary on Carolingian politics. Drawing
from personal experience and a wide range of classical Latin sources, such as works by
Suetonius, Cicero, and Tacitus, the Vita provides an eyewitness account of the life of the
great Carolingian king and offers insights into his appearance and personality as well as
his many conquests and his diplomatic and administrative activities. Einhard’s work also
raises one of the great questions of Charlemagne’s life and reign, whether he knew and
welcomed the coronation he received on Christmas Day 800.

SINCE I have taken upon myself to narrate the public and private life, and no
small part of the deeds, of my lord and foster-father, the most lent and most justly
renowned King Charles, I have condensed the matter into as brief a form as possible.
I have been careful not to omit any facts that could come to my knowledge, but at the
same time not to offend by a prolix style those minds that despise everything mod-
ern, if one can possibly avoid offending by a new work men who seem to despise
also the masterpieces of antiquity, the works of most learned and luminous writers.
Very many of them, l have no doubt, are men devoted to a life of literary leisure,
who feel that the affairs of the present generation ought not to be passed by, and who
do not consider everything done today as unworthy of mention and deserving to be
given over to silence and oblivion, but are nevertheless seduced by lust of immortal-
ity to celebrate the glorious deeds of other times by some sort of composition rather
than to deprive posterity of the mention of their own names by not writing at all.
 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne | 613

Be this as it may, I see no reason why I should refrain from entering upon a task
of this kind, since no man can write with more accuracy than I of events that took
place about me, and of facts concerning which I had personal knowledge, ocular
demonstration as the saying goes, and I have no means of ascertaining whether or
not any one else has the subject in hand.
In any event, I would rather commit my story to writing, and hand it down to pos-
terity in partnership with others, so to speak, than to suffer the most glorious life of
this most excellent king, the greatest of all the princes of his day, and his illustrious
deeds, hard for men of later times to imitate, to be wrapped in the darkness of oblivion.
But there are still other reasons, neither unwarrantable nor insufficient, in my
opinion, that urge me to write on this subject, namely, the care that King Charles
bestowed upon me in my childhood, and my constant friendship with himself and
his children after I took up my abode at court. In this way he strongly endeared me
to himself, and made me greatly his debtor as well in death as in life, so that were
I unmindful of the benefits conferred upon me, to keep silence concerning the most
glorious and illustrious deeds of a man who claims so much at my hands, and suffer
his life to lack due eulogy and written memorial, as if he had never lived, I should
deservedly appear ungrateful, and be so considered, albeit my powers are feeble,
scanty, next to nothing indeed, and not at all adapted to write and set forth a life that
would tax the eloquence of a Tully [note: Tully is Marcus Tullius Cicero].
I submit the book. It contains the history of a very great and distinguished man;
but there is nothing in it to wonder at besides his deeds, except the fact that I, who
am a barbarian, and very little versed in the Roman language, seem to suppose
myself capable of writing gracefully and respectably in Latin, and to carry my pre-
sumption so far as to disdain the sentiment that Cicero is said in the first book of the
Tusculan Disputations to have expressed when speaking of the Latin authors. His
words are: “It is an outrageous abuse both of time and literature for a man to commit
his thoughts to writing without having the ability either to arrange them or elucidate
them, or attract readers by some charm of style.” This dictum of the famous ora-
tor might have deterred me from writing if I had not made up my mind that it was
better to risk the opinions of the world, and put my little talents for composition to
the test, than to slight the memory of so great a man for the sake of sparing myself.

3. Charlemagne’s Accession
Pepin, however, was raised by decree of the Roman pontiff, from the rank of Mayor
of the Palace to that of King, and ruled alone over the Franks for fifteen years or
more [752–768]. He died of dropsy [Sept. 24, 768] in Paris at the close of the Aqui-
tanian War, which he had waged with William, Duke of Aquitania, for nine succes-
sive years, and left his two sons, Charles and Carloman, upon whim, by the grace
of God, the succession devolved.
614 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

The Franks, in a general assembly of the people, made them both kings [Oct
9, 786] on condition that they should divide the whole kingdom equally between
them, Charles to take and rule the part that had to belonged to their father, Pepin,
and Carloman the part which their uncle, Carloman had governed. The conditions
were accepted, and each entered into the possession of the share of the kingdom
that fell to him by this arrangement; but peace was only maintained between them
with the greatest difficulty, because many of Carloman’s party kept trying to disturb
their good understanding, and there were some even who plotted to involve them
in a war with each other. The event, however, which showed the danger to have
been rather imaginary than real, for at Carloman’s death his widow [Gerberga] fled
to Italy with her sons and her principal adherents, and without reason, despite her
husband’s brother put herself and her children under the protection of Desiderius,
King of the Lombards. Carloman had succumbed to disease after ruling two years
[in fact more than three] in common with his brother and at his death Charles was
unanimously elected King of the Franks.

6. Lombard War
After bringing this war to an end and settling matters in Aquitania (his associate in
authority had meantime departed this life), he was induced [in 773], by the prayers
and entreaties of Hadrian [I, 772–795], Bishop of the city of Rome, to wage war
on the Lombards. His father before him had undertaken this task at the request of
Pope Stephen [II or III, 752–757], but under great difficulties, for certain leading
Franks, of whom he usually took counsel, had so vehemently opposed his design
as to declare openly that they would leave the King and go home. Nevertheless, the
war against the Lombard King Astolf had been taken up and very quickly concluded
[754]. Now, although Charles seems to have had similar, or rather just the same
grounds for declaring war that his father had, the war itself differed from the preced-
ing one alike in its difficulties and its issue. Pepin, to be sure, after besieging King
Astolf a few days in Pavia, had compelled him to give hostages, to restore to the
Romans the cities and castles that he had taken, and to make oath that he would not
attempt to seize them again: but Charles did not cease, after declaring war, until he
had exhausted King Desiderius by a long siege [773], and forced him to surrender
at discretion; driven his son Adalgis, the last hope of the Lombards, not only from
his kingdom, but from all Italy [774]; restored to the Romans all that they had lost;
subdued Hruodgaus, Duke of Friuli [776], who was plotting revolution; reduced all
Italy to his power, and set his son Pepin as king over it. [781]
At this point I should describe Charles’ difficult passage over the Alps into Italy,
and the hardships that the Franks endured in climbing the trackless mountain ridges,
the heaven-aspiring cliffs and ragged peaks, if it were not my purpose in this work
to record the manner of his life rather than the incidents of the wars that he waged.
 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne | 615

Suffice it to say that this war ended with the subjection of Italy, the banishment of
King Desiderius for life, the expulsion of his son Adalgis from Italy, and the res-
toration of the conquests of the Lombard kings to Hadrian, the head of the Roman
Church.

7. Saxon War
At the conclusion of this struggle, the Saxon war, that seems to have been only laid
aside for the time, was taken up again. No war ever undertaken by the Frank nation
was carried on with such persistence and bitterness, or cost so much labor, because
the Saxons, like almost all the tribes of Germany, were a fierce people, given to the
worship of devils, and hostile to our religion, and did not consider it dishonorable
to transgress and violate all law, human and divine. Then there were peculiar cir-
cumstances that tended to cause a breach of peace every day. Except in a few places,
where large forests or mountain ridges intervened and made the bounds certain, the
line between ourselves and the Saxons passed almost in its whole extent through
an open country, so that there was no end to the murders, thefts, and arsons on both
sides. In this way the Franks became so embittered that they at last resolved to make
reprisals no longer, but to come to open war with the Saxons [772]. Accordingly war
was begun against them, and was waged for thirty-three successive years with great
fury; more, however, to the disadvantage of the Saxons than of the Franks. It could
doubtless have been brought to an end sooner, had it not been for the faithlessness of
the Saxons. It is hard to say how often they were conquered, and, humbly submitting
to the King, promised to do what was enjoined upon them, without hesitation the re-
quired hostages, gave and received the officers sent them from the King. They were
sometimes so much weakened and reduced that they promised to renounce the wor-
ship of devils, and to adopt Christianity, but they were no less ready to violate these
terms than prompt to accept them, so that it is impossible to tell which came easier
to them to do; scarcely a year passed from the beginning of the war without such
changes on their part. But the King did not suffer his high purpose and steadfast-
ness—firm alike in good and evil fortune—to be wearied by any fickleness on their
part, or to be turned from the task that he had undertaken, on the contrary, he never
allowed their faithless behavior to go unpunished, but either took the field against
them in person, or sent his counts with an army to wreak vengeance and exact righ-
teous satisfaction. At last, after conquering and subduing all who had offered resis-
tance, he took ten thousand of those that lived on the banks of the Elbe, and settled
them, with their wives and children, in many different bodies here and there in Gaul
and Germany [804]. The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by
their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their
national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments
of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people.
616 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

8. Saxon War (continued)

Charles himself fought but two pitched battles in this war, although it was long pro-
tracted one on Mount Osning [783], at the place called Detmold, and again on the
bank of the river Hase, both in the space of little more than a month. The enemy
were so routed and overthrown in these two battles that they never afterwards ven-
tured to take the offensive or to resist the attacks of the King, unless they were
protected by a strong position. A great many of the Frank as well as of the Saxon
nobility, men occupying the highest posts of honor, perished in this war, which only
came to an end after the lapse of thirty-two years [804]. So many and grievous were
the wars that were declared against the Franks in the meantime, and skillfully con-
ducted by the King, that one may reasonably question whether his fortitude or his
good fortune is to be more admired. The Saxon war began two years [772] before
the Italian war [773]; but although it went on without interruption, business else-
where was not neglected, nor was t ere any shrinking from other equally arduous
contests. The King, who excelled all the princes of his time in wisdom and greatness
of soul, did not suffer difficulty to deter him or danger to daunt him from anything
that had to be taken up or carried through, for he-had trained himself to bear and
endure whatever came, without yielding in adversity, or trusting to the deceitful
favors of fortune in prosperity.

9. Spanish Expedition
In the midst of this vigorous and almost uninterrupted struggle with the Saxons, he
covered the frontier by garrisons at the proper points, and marched over the Pyr-
enees into Spain at the head of all the forces that he could muster. All the towns and
castles that he attacked surrendered. And up to the time of his homeward march he
sustained no loss whatever; but on his return through the Pyrenees he had cause
to rue the treachery of the Gascons. That region is well adapted for ambuscades
by reason of the thick forests that cover it; and as the army was advancing in the
long line of march necessitated by the narrowness of the road, the Gascons, who
lay in ambush [778] on the top of a very high mountain, attacked the rear of the
baggage train and the rear guard in charge of it, and hurled them down to the very
bottom of the valley. In the struggle that ensued they cut them off to a man; they
then plundered the baggage, and dispersed with all speed in every direction under
cover of approaching night. The lightness of their armor and the nature of the bat-
tle ground stood the Gascons in good stead on this occasion, whereas the Franks
fought at a disadvantage in every respect, because of the weight of their armor and
the unevenness of the ground. Eggihard, the King’s steward; Anselm, Count Pala-
tine; and Roland, Governor of the March of Brittany, with very many others, fell
in this engagement. This ill turn could not be avenged for the nonce, because the
 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne | 617

enemy scattered so widely after carrying out their plan that not the least clue could
be had to their whereabouts.

18. Private Life

Thus did Charles defend and increase as well, as beautify his, kingdom, as is well
known; and here let me express my admiration of his great qualities and his ex-
traordinary constancy alike in good and evil fortune. I will now forthwith proceed
to give the details of his private and family life.

19. Private Life (continued) [Charles and the Education

of His Children]
The plan that he adopted for his children’s education was, first of all, to have both
boys and girls instructed in the liberal arts, to which he also turned his own atten-
tion. As soon as their years admitted, in accordance with the custom of the Franks,
the boys had to learn horsemanship, and to practise war and the chase, and the girls
to familiarize themselves with cloth-making, and to handle distaff and spindle, that
they might not grow indolent through idleness, and he fostered in them every vir-
tuous sentiment. He only lost three of all his children before his death, two sons
and one daughter, Charles, who was the eldest, Pepin, whom he had made King of
Italy, and Hruodrud, his oldest daughter, whom he had betrothed to Constantine
[VI, 780–802], Emperor of the Greeks. Pepin left one son, named Bernard, and five
daughters, Adelaide, Atula, Guntrada, Berthaid and Theoderada. The King gave a
striking proof of his fatherly affection at the time of Pepin’s death [810]: he ap-
pointed the grandson to succeed Pepin, and had the granddaughters brought up
with his own daughters. When his sons and his daughter died, he was not so calm
as might have been expected from his remarkably strong mind, for his affections
were no less strong, and moved him to tears. Again, when he was told of the death
of Hadrian [796], the Roman Pontiff, whom he had loved most of all his friends,
he wept as much as if he had lost a brother, or a very dear son. He was by nature
most ready to contract friendships, and not only made friends easily, but clung to
them persistently, and cherished most fondly those with whom he had formed such
ties. He was so careful of the training of his sons and daughters that he never took
his meals without them when he was at home, and never made a journey without
them; his sons would ride at his side, and his daughters follow him, while a number
of his body-guard, detailed for their protection, brought up the rear. Strange to say,
although they were very handsome women, and he loved them very dearly, he was
never willing to marry any of them to a man of their own nation or to a foreigner,
but kept them all at home until his death, saying that he could not dispense with their
society. Hence, though other-wise happy, he experienced the malignity of fortune as
618 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

far as they were concerned; yet he concealed his knowledge of the rumors current
in regard to them, and of the suspicions entertained of their honor.

22. Personal Appearance

Charles was large and strong, and of lofty stature, though not disproportionately
tall (his height is well known to have been seven times the length of his foot); the
upper part of his head was round, his eyes very large and animated, nose a little
long, hair fair, and face laughing and merry. Thus his appearance was always stately
and dignified, whether he was standing or sitting; although his neck was thick and
somewhat short, and his belly rather prominent; but the symmetry of the rest of his
body concealed these defects. His gait was firm, his whole carriage manly, and his
voice clear, but not so strong as his size led one to expect. His health was excellent,
except during the four years preceding his death, when he was subject to frequent
fevers; at the last he even limped a little with one foot. Even in those years he con-
sulted rather his own inclinations than the advice of physicians, who were almost
hateful to him, because they wanted him to give up roasts, to which he was accus-
tomed, and to eat boiled meat instead. In accordance with the national custom, he
took frequent exercise on horseback and in the chase, accomplishments in which
scarcely any people in the world can equal the Franks. He enjoyed the exhalations
from natural warm springs, and often practised swimming, in which he was such
an adept that none could surpass him; and hence it was that he built his palace at
Aix-la-Chapelle, and lived there constantly during his latter years until his death.
He used not only to invite his sons to his bath, but his nobles and friends, and now
and then a troop of his retinue or body guard, so that a hundred or more persons
sometimes bathed with him.

23. Dress
He used to wear the national, that is to say, the Frank, dress-next his skin a linen
shirt and linen breeches, and above these a tunic fringed with silk; while hose fas-
tened by bands covered his lower limbs, and shoes his feet, and he protected his
shoulders and chest in winter by a close-fitting coat of otter or marten skins. Over
all he flung a blue cloak, and he always had a sword girt about him, usually one
with a gold or silver hilt and belt; he sometimes carried a jewelled sword, but only
on great feast-days or at the reception of ambassadors from foreign nations. He
despised foreign costumes, however handsome, and never allowed himself to be
robed in them, except twice in Rome, when he donned the Roman tunic, chlamys,
and shoes; the first time at the request of Pope Hadrian, the second to gratify Leo,
Hadrian’s successor. On great feast-days he made use of embroidered clothes, and
shoes bedecked with precious stones; his cloak was fastened by a golden buckle,
 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne | 619

and he appeared crowned with a diadem of gold and gems: but on other days his
dress varied little from the common dress of the people.

24. Habits
Charles was temperate in eating, and particularly so in drinking, for he abominated
drunkenness in anybody, much more in himself and those of his household; but
he could not easily abstain from food, and often complained that fasts injured his
health. He very rarely gave entertainments, only on great feast-days, and then to
large numbers of people. His meals ordinarily consisted of four courses, not count-
ing the roast, which his huntsmen used to bring in on the spit; he was more fond
of this than of any other dish. While at table, he listened to reading or music. The
subjects of the readings were the stories and deeds of olden time: he was fond, too,
of St. Augustine’s books, and especially of the one entitled “City of God.”
He was so moderate in the use of wine and all sorts of drink that he rarely al-
lowed himself more than three cups in the course of a meal. In summer after the
midday meal, he would eat some fruit, drain a single cup, put off his clothes and
shoes, just as he did for the night, and rest for two or three hours. He was in the
habit of awaking and rising from bed four or five times during the night. While he
was dressing and putting on his shoes, he not only gave audience to his friends, but
if the Count of the Palace told him of any suit in which his judgment was neces-
sary, he had the parties brought before him forthwith, took cognizance of the case,
and gave his decision, just as if he were sitting on the Judgment-seat. This was not
the only business that he transacted at this time, but he performed any duty of the
day whatever, whether he had to attend to the matter himself, or to give commands
concerning it to his officers.

25. Studies
Charles had the gift of ready and fluent speech, and could express whatever he had
to say with the utmost clearness. He was not satisfied with command of his native
language merely, but gave attention to the study of foreign ones, and in particu-
lar was such a master of Latin that he could speak it as well as his native tongue;
but he could understand Greek better than he could speak it. He was so eloquent,
indeed, that he might have passed for a teacher of eloquence. He most zealously
cultivated the liberal arts, held those who taught them in great esteem, and con-
ferred great honors upon them. He took lessons in grammar of the deacon Peter
of Pisa, at that time an aged man. Another deacon, Albin of Britain, surnamed Al-
cuin, a man of Saxon extraction, who was the greatest scholar of the day, was his
teacher in other branches of learning. The King spent much time and labour with
him studying rhetoric, dialectics, and especially astronomy; he learned to reckon,
620 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

and used to investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies most curiously, with an
intelligent scrutiny. He also tried to write, and used to keep tablets and blanks in
bed under his pillow, that at leisure hours he might accustom his hand to form the
letters; however, as he did not begin his efforts in due season, but late in life, they
met with ill success.

28. Charlemagne Crowned Emperor

When he made his last journey thither, he also had other ends in view. The Romans
had inflicted many injuries upon the Pontiff Leo, tearing out his eyes and cutting out
his tongue, so that he had been comp lied to call upon the King for help [Nov 24,
800]. Charles accordingly went to Rome, to set in order the affairs of the Church,
which were in great confusion, and passed the whole winter there. It was then that
he received the titles of Emperor and Augustus [Dec 25, 800], to which he at first
had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church
the day that they were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have
foreseen the design of the Pope. He bore very patiently with the jealousy which
the Roman emperors showed upon his assuming these titles, for they took this step
very ill; and by dint of frequent embassies and letters, in which he addressed them
as brothers, he made their haughtiness yield to his magnanimity, a quality in which
he was unquestionably much their superior.

32. Omens of Death

Very many omens had portended his approaching end, a fact that he had recognized
as well as others. Eclipses both of the sun and moon were very frequent during the
last three years of his life, and a black spot was visible on the sun for the space of
seven days. The gallery between the basilica and the palace, which he had built at
great pains and labor, fell in sudden ruin to the ground on the day of the Ascen-
sion of our Lord. The wooden bridge over the Rhine at Mayence, which he had
caused to be constructed with admirable skill, at the cost of ten years’ hard work,
so that it seemed as if it might last forever, was so completely consumed in three
hours by an accidental fire that not a single splinter of it was left, except what was
under water. Moreover, one day in his last campaign into Saxony against Godfred,
King of the Danes, Charles himself saw a ball of fire fall suddenly from the heav-
ens with a great light, just as he was leaving camp before sunrise to set out on the
march. It rushed across the clear sky from right to left, and everybody was wonder-
ing what was the meaning of the sign, when the horse which he was riding gave
a sudden plunge, head foremost, and fell, and threw him to the ground so heavily
that his cloak buckle was broken and his sword belt shattered; and after his servants
had hastened to him and relieved him of his arms, he could not rise without their
 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne | 621

assistance. He happened to have a javelin in his hand when he was thrown, and this
was struck from his grasp with such force that it was found lying at a distance of
twenty feet or more from the spot. Again, the palace at Aix-la-Chapelle frequently
trembled, the roofs of whatever buildings he tarried in kept up a continual crack-
ling noise, the basilica in which he was afterwards buried was struck by lightning,
and the gilded ball that adorned the pinnacle of the roof was shattered by the thun-
derbolt and hurled upon the bishop’s house adjoining. In this same basilica, on the
margin of the cornice that ran around the interior, between the upper and lower tiers
of arches, a legend was inscribed in red letters, stating who was the builder of the
temple, the last words of which were Karolus Princeps. The year that he died it was
remarked by some, a few months before his decease, that the letters of the word
Princeps were so effaced as to be no longer decipherable. But Charles despised, or
affected to despise, all these omens, as having no reference whatever to him.

33. Will
It had been his intention to make a will, that he might give some share in the inheri-
tance to his daughters and the children of his concubines; but it was begun too late
and could not be finished. Three years before his death, however, he made a divi-
sion of his treasures, money, clothes, and other movable goods in the presence of his
friends and servants, and called them to witness it, that their voices might insure the
ratification of the disposition thus made. He had a summary drawn up of his wishes
regarding this distribution o his property, the terms and text of which are as follows:
“In the name of the Lord God, the Almighty Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This
is the inventory and division dictated by the most glorious and most pious Lord
Charles, Emperor Augustus, in the 811th year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in the 43d year of his reign in France and 37th in Italy, the 11th of his em-
pire, and the 4th Indiction, which considerations of piety and prudence have deter-
mined him, and the favor of God enabled him, to make of his treasures and money
ascertained this day to be in his treasure chamber. In this division he is especially
desirous to provide not only that the largess of alms which Christians usually make
of their possessions shall be made for himself in due course and order out of his
wealth, but also that his heirs shall be free from all doubt, and know clearly what
belongs to them, and be able to share their property by suitable partition without
litigation or strife. With this intention and to this end he has first divided all his
substance and movable goods ascertained to be in his treasure chamber on the day
aforesaid in gold, silver, precious stones, and royal ornaments into three lots and
has subdivided and set off two of the said lots into twenty-one parts, keeping the
third entire. The first two lots have been thus subdivided into twenty one parts be-
cause there are in his kingdom twenty-one” recognized metropolitan cities, and in
order that each archbishopric may receive by way of alms, at the hands of his heirs
622 | 13. Excerpts from Einhard’s Biography of Charlemagne

and friends, one of the said parts, and that the archbishop who shall then adminis-
ter its affairs shall take the part given to it, and share the same with his suffragans
in such manner that one third shall go to the Church, and the remaining two thirds
be divided among the suffragans. The twenty-one parts into which the first two
lots are to be distributed, according to the number of recognized metropolitan cit-
ies, have been set apart one from another, and each has been put aside by itself in
a box labeled with the name of the city for which it is destined. The names of the
cities to which this alms or largess is to be sent are as follows: Rome, Ravenna,
Milan, Friuli, Grado, Cologne, Mayence, Salzburg, Treves, Sens, Besançon, Lyons,
Rouen, Rheims, Arles, Vienne, Moutiers-en-Tarantaise, Embrun, Bordeaux, Tours,
and Bourges. The third lot, which he wishes to be kept entire, is to be bestowed as
follows: While the first two lots are to be divided into the parts aforesaid, and set
aside under seal, the third lot shall be employed for the owner’s daily needs, as prop-
erty which he shall be under no obligation to part with in order to the fulfillment
of any vow, and this as long as he shall be in the flesh, or consider it necessary for
his use. But upon his death, or voluntary-renunciation of the affairs of this world,
this said lot shall be divided into four parts, and one thereof shall be added to the
aforesaid twenty-one parts; the second shall be assigned to his sons and daughters,
and to the sons and daughters of his sons, to be distributed among them in just and
equal partition; the third, in accordance with the custom common among Chris-
tians, shall be devoted to the poor; and the fourth shall go to the support of the men
servants and maid servants on duty in the palace. It is his wish that to this said third
lot of the whole amount, which consists, as well as the rest, of gold and silver shall
be added all the vessels and utensils of brass iron and other metals together with
the arms, clothing, and other movable goods, costly and cheap, adapted to divers
uses, as hangings, coverlets, carpets, woolen stuffs leathern articles, pack-saddles,
and whatsoever shall be found in his treasure chamber and wardrobe at that time, in
order that thus the parts of the said lot may be augmented, and the alms distributed
reach more persons. He ordains that his chapel-that is to say, its church property,
as well that which he has provided and collected as that which came to him by in-
heritance from his father shall remain entire, and not be dissevered by any partition
whatever. If, however, any vessels, books or other articles be found therein which
are certainly known not to have been given by him to the said chapel, whoever wants
them shall have them on paying their value at a fair estimation. He likewise com-
mands that the books which he has collected in his library in great numbers shall be
sold for fair prices to such as want them, and the money received therefrom given
to the poor. It is well known that among his other property and treasures are three
silver tables, and one very large and massive golden one. He directs and commands
that the square silver table, upon which there is a representation of the city of Con-
stantinople, shall be sent to the Basilica of St. Peter the Apostle at Rome, with the
other gifts destined therefore; that the round one, adorned with a delineation of the
 14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge | 623

city of Rome, shall be given to the Episcopal Church at Ravenna; that the third,
which far surpasses the other two in weight and in beauty of workmanship, and is
made in three circles, showing the plan of the whole universe, drawn with skill and
delicacy, shall go, together with the golden table, fourthly above mentioned, to in-
crease that lot which is to be devoted to his heirs and to alms.
Charles’ son Louis who by the grace of God succeeded him, after examining this
summary, took pains to fulfill all its conditions most religiously as soon as possible
after his father’s death.

Source: Einhard: The Life of Charlemagne. Trans. Samuel Epes Turner. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1880.

14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

and the Conversion of Constantine

One of the major turning points in late antiquity and the rise of Byzantine and early
medieval civilization was the conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity in
312. According to his friend, the bishop Eusebius, the emperor’s conversion, as described
in the following excerpt from Eusebius’ biography of Constantine, was inspired by a
miracle. Informed of this miracle by the emperor himself, Eusebius explains that on the
eve of the battle of the Milvian Bridge, which would bring the winner control of the
Western Roman Empire, Constantine saw a sign in the sky with the words proclaiming
“Conquer by this.” The vision was confirmed by a visit from Jesus Christ while the
emperor slept that night, and on the following day he ordered his troops into battle
bearing the sign, and was victorious.

Chapter XXVII
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military
forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which
were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the
possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing
the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered,
therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance. While engaged
in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had
preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served
them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by flattering
predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met
with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the
624 | 14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

impending wrath of heaven; while one alone who had pursued an entirely opposite
course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme God dur-
ing his whole life, had formal I him to be the Saviour and Protector of his empire,
and the Giver of every good thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact
that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death,
without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial
among men: while the God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, mani-
festations of his power and very many tokens: and considering farther that those
who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field
under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for
one of them had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other,
being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of
death (4)); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed
to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing
evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his
father’s God alone.

Chapter XXVIII
ACCORDINGLY he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he
would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his
present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most
marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have
been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victori-
ous emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when
he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by
an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony
of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was
already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light
in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At
this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which
followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

Chapter XXIX
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this appari-
tion could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night
suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the
same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a like-
ness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in
all engagements with his enemies.
 14. Eusebius’ Description of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge | 625

Chapter XXX
AT dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then,
calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them,
and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it
in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an oppor-
tunity of seeing.

Chapter XXXI
Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed
the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the
whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol
of the Saviour’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its
initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters
the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the
cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse
embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly inter-
laced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This
banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of
great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his chil-
dren on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the
embroidered banner.
The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against
every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should
be carried at the head of all his armies.

Chapter XXXII
These things were done shortly afterwards. But at the time above specified, being
struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other
God save Him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted
with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and what was
intended by the sign of the vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was God, the
only begotten Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had appeared was the
symbol of immortality, and the trophy of that victory over death which He had gained
in time past when sojourning on earth. They taught him also the causes of His advent,
and explained to him the true account of His incarnation. Thus he was instructed
in these matters, and was impressed with wonder at the divine manifestation which
had been presented to his sight. Comparing, therefore, the heavenly vision with the
interpretation given, he found his judgment confirmed; and, in the persuasion that
626 | 15. Gildas’s Version of the Conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons

the knowledge of these things had been imparted to him by Divine teaching, he de-
termined thenceforth to devote himself to the reading of the Inspired writings.

Source: Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second
Series,Vol. 1. Trans. Ernest Cushing Richardson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing
Co., 1890.

15. Gildas’s Version of the Conquest of Britain by the

Anglo-Saxons

Writing in the 540s, Gildas, a monk and Briton, left a dramatic account of the conquest
of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. One of the earliest sources for the invasion of Britain,
Gildas’s work, The Ruin of Britain, describes the conquest in starkly moral terms. As the
passage below demonstrates, Gildas saw the Britons as a sinful and foolish people who
brought about their own ruin by inviting the Saxons to serve as their protectors but
were instead conquered by them. For Gildas, this was a punishment from God, and his
explanation of events helped shape Bede’s account of the conquest of Britain. Gildas’s
history also contributed to the emergence of the legend of King Arthur. Although Gildas
does not mention him by name, his account of the battle of Badon Hill would become
part of the later legend of Arthur.

§23. Then all the councilors, together with that proud tyrant Gurthrigern [Vortigern],
the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they
sealed its doom by inviting in among them (like wolves into the sheep-fold),
the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel
the invasions of the northern nations. Nothing was ever so pernicious to our
country, nothing was ever so unlucky. What palpable darkness must have
enveloped their minds—darkness desperate and cruel! Those very people
whom, when absent, they dreaded more than death itself, were invited to re-
side, as one may say, under the selfsame roof. Foolish are the princes, as it is
said, of Thafneos, giving counsel to unwise Pharaoh. A multitude of whelps
came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness, in three cyuls, as they call
them, that is, in three ships of war, with their sails wafted by the wind and
with omens and prophecies favourable, for it was foretold by a certain sooth-
sayer among them, that they should occupy the country to which they were
sailing three hundred years, and half of that time, a hundred and fifty years,
should plunder and despoil the same. They first landed on the eastern side of
 15. Gildas’s Version of the Conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons | 627

the island, by the invitation of the unlucky king, and there fixed their sharp
talons, apparently to fight in favour of the island, but alas! more truly against
it. Their mother-land, finding her first brood thus successful, sends forth a
larger company of her wolfish offspring, which sailing over, join themselves
to their bastard-born comrades. From that time the germ in iniquity and root
of contention planted their poison amongst us, as we deserved, and shot forth
into leaves and branches. The barbarians being thus introduced as soldiers into
the island, to encounter, as they falsely said, any dangers in defence of their
hospitable entertainers, obtain an allowance of provisions, which, for some
time being plentifully bestowed, stopped their doggish mouths. Yet they com-
plain that their monthly supplies are not furnished in sufficient abundance,
and they industriously aggravate each occasion of quarrel, saying that unless
more liberality is shown them, they will break the treaty and plunder the whole
island. In a short time, they follow up their threats with deeds.
§26. After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field,
to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner
these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege
of Bath-hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaugh-
ter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month
after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity. And yet
neither to this day are the cities of our country inhabited as before, but being
forsaken and overthrown, still lie desolate; our foreign wars having ceased,
but our civil troubles still remaining. For as well the remembrance of such
a terrible desolation of the island, as also of the unexpected recovery of the
same, remained in the minds of those who were eyewitnesses of the wonder-
ful events of both, and in regard thereof, kings, public magistrates, and pri-
vate persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live
orderly according to their several vocations. But when these had departed out
of this world, and a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this trouble-
some time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of
truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that no so much as a vestige
or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of
men, except among a very few who, compared with the great multitude which
were daily rushing headlong down to hell, are accounted so small a number,
that our reverend mother, the church, scarcely beholds them, her only true
children, reposing in her bosom; whose worthy lives, being a pattern to all
men, and beloved of God, inasmuch as by their holy prayers, as by certain
pillars and most profitable supporters, our infirmity is sustained up, that it
may not utterly be broken down, I would have no one suppose I intended to
reprove, if forced by the increasing multitude of offences, I have freely, aye,
628 | 16. A Letter from Pope Gregory III

with anguish, no so much declared as bewailed the wickedness of those who

are become servants, not only to their bellies, but also to the devil rather than
to Christ, who is our blessed God, world without end.

Source: Six Old English Chronicles. Trans. J.A. Giles. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1848, pp. 310–11;
313–14.

16. A Letter from Pope Gregory III to Charles Martel

Seeking Aid against the Lombards

During the sixth and seventh centuries, the papacy depended on the Byzantine emperors
for protection and support, especially against the Lombards, who sought to unify Italy
under their authority. In the eighth century, however, the Byzantine inability to protect
Rome against its enemies and Byzantine Iconclasm forced Pope Gregory III to find a
new defender. In the following letter, Gregory petitions Charles Martel, the Carolingian
mayor of the palace, for aid against the Lombards. Martel was unable to provide direct
assistance, but Gregory’s appeal enhanced the prestige of Martel’s family and was the
first step in creating a formal alliance between the papacy and the Carolingians.

Pope Gregory to his most excellent son, Charles, sub-king.

In our great affliction we have thought it necessary to write to you a second time,
believing that you are a loving son of St. Peter, the prince of apostles, and of our-
selves, and that out of reverence for him you would obey our commands to defend the
church of God and his chosen people. We can now no longer endure the persecution
of the Lombards, for they have taken from St. Peter all his possessions, even those
which were given him by you and your fathers. These Lombards hate and oppress
us because we sought protection from you; for the same reason also the church of
St. Peter is despoiled and desolated by them. But we have intrusted a more complete
account of all our woes to your faithful subject, our present messenger, and he will
relate them to you. You, oh son, will receive favor from the same prince of apostles
here and in the future life in the presence of God, according as you render speedy aid
to his church and to us, that all people may recognize the faith and love and single-
ness of purpose which you display in defending St. Peter and us and his chosen peo-
ple. For by doing this you will attain lasting fame on earth and eternal life in heaven.

Source: Oliver [Link] and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds. A Source Book for Medieval History.
Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Ages. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1905, p. 101 (#43).
 17. Gregory of Tours | 629

17. Gregory of Tours: Clovis and the Vase of Soissons

The early history of the Merovingian Franks was compiled by the bishop and historian
Gregory of Tours in the late sixth century. His account has largely shaped the modern
understanding of Clovis (d. 511) and the other early Merovingian kings, and modern
scholars are only beginning to understand and decipher Gregory’s agenda in shaping that
history. In his depiction of Clovis, Gregory portrayed a brutal but effective ruler who,
even before his conversion to Christianity, honored the church. The following passage
from Gregory’s History of the Franks, demonstrates Clovis’s respect for the church as
well as competing ideas of kingship—one in which the king is the sovereign authority
and the other in which he is first among equals.

At this time [A.D. 486] the army of Clovis pillaged many churches, for he was
still sunk in the errors of idolatry. The soldiers had borne away from a church, with
all the other ornaments of the holy ministry, a vase of marvelous size and beauty.
The bishop of this church sent messengers to the king, begging that if the church
might not recover any other of the holy vessels, at least this one might be restored.
The king, bearing these things, replied to the messenger: “Follow thou us to Sois-
sons, for there all things that have been acquired are to be divided. If the lot shall
give me this vase, I will do what the bishop desires.”
When be had reached Soissons, and all the booty had been placed in the midst
of the army, the king pointed to this vase, and said: “I ask you, O most valiant war-
riors, not to refuse to me the vase in addition to my rightful part,” Those of discern-
ing mind among his men answered, “O glorious king, all things which we see are
thine, and we ourselves are subject to thy power; now do what seems pleasing to
thee, for none is strong enough to resist thee.” When they had thus spoken one of
the soldiers, impetuous, envious, and vain, raised his battle-axe aloft and crushed
the vase with it, crying, “Thou shalt receive nothing of this unless a just lot give it
to thee.” At this all were stupefied.
The king bore his injury with the calmness of patience, and when he had received
the crushed vase he gave it to the bishop’s messenger, but be cherished a hidden
wound in his breast. When a year had passed he ordered the whole army to come
fully equipped to the Campus Martius and show their arms in brilliant array—But
when he had reviewed them all he came to the breaker of the vase, and said to him,
“No one bears his arms so clumsily as thou; for neither thy spear, nor thy sword,
nor thy ax is ready for use.” And seizing his ax, he cast it on the ground. And when
the soldier had bent a little to pick it up the king raised his hands and crushed his
head with his own ax. “Thus,” he said, “didst thou to the vase at Soissons.”

Source: From the accounts translated in J.H. Robinson. Readings in European History. Boston,
MA: Ginn, 1905, pp. 51–55.
630 | 18. Gregory of Tours

18. Gregory of Tours: The Conversion of Clovis

Along with his portrayal of Clovis as a violent and successful warrior, Gregory of Tours
describes the Frankish king’s conversion to Christianity. In the following passage, Clovis,
after several appeals from his wife Clotilda, petitioned Jesus Christ for aid in a battle
the king was losing. His victory and subsequent instruction by the bishop of Rheims,
Remigius, secured Clovis’s conversion to Christianity and the conversion of many of his
followers. Gregory’s obvious references to the conversion of the emperor Constantine
make the account suspect, and Gregory’s efforts to portray Clovis as a Catholic king
were part of the bishop’s attempt to remind the fractious kings of his own day of their
obligations to the church and to maintaining order. Moreover, most scholars now think
that Clovis converted to Arian Christianity first before accepting the Catholic faith,
which made him the first of the Catholic barbarian kings.

30
The queen did not cease to urge him to recognize the true God and cease worshipping
idols. But he could not be influenced in any way to this belief, until at last a war arose
with the Alamanni, in which he was driven by necessity to confess what before he
had of his free will denied. It came about that as the two armies were fighting fiercely,
there was much slaughter, and Clovis’s army began to be in danger of destruction. He
saw it and raised his eyes to heaven, and with remorse in his heart he burst into tears
and cried: “Jesus Christ, whom Clotilda asserts to be the son of the 1iving God, who
art said to give aid to those in distress, and to bestow victory on those who hope in
thee, I beseech the glory of thy aid, with the vow that if thou wilt grant me victory
over these enemies, and I shall know that power which she says that people dedicated
in thy name have had from thee, I will believe in thee and be baptized in thy name.
For I have invoked my own gods but, as I find, they have withdrawn from aiding me;
and therefore I believe that they possess no power, since they do not help those who
obey them. I now call upon thee, I desire to believe thee only let me be rescued from
my adversaries.” And when he said thus, the Alamanni turned their backs, and began
to disperse in flight. And when they saw that their king was killed, they submitted to
the dominion of Clovis, saying: “Let not the people perish further, we pray; we are
yours now.” And he stopped the fighting, and after encouraging his men, retired in
peace and told the queen how he had had merit to win the victory by calling on the
name of Christ. This happened in the fifteenth year of his reign.

31
Then the queen asked saint Remigius, bishop of Rheims, to summon Clovis secretly,
urging him to introduce the king to the word of salvation. And the bishop sent for him
secretly and began to urge him to believe in the true God, maker of heaven and earth,
 19. An Account of the Battle of Tours | 631

and to cease worshipping idols, which could help neither themselves nor any one else.
But the king said: “I gladly hear you, most holy father; but there remains one thing: the
people who follow me cannot endure to abandon their gods; but I shall go and speak to
them according to your words.” He met with his followers, but before he could speak
the power of God anticipated him, and all the people cried out together:/ “O pious
king, we reject our mortal gods, and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom
Remi preaches.” This was reported to the bishop, who was greatly rejoiced, and bade
them get ready the baptismal font. The squares were shaded with tapestried canopies,
the churches adorned with white curtains, the baptistery set in order, the aroma of
incense spread, candles of fragrant odor burned brightly, and the whole shrine of the
baptistery was filled with a divine fragrance: and the Lord gave such grace to those
who stood by that they thought they were placed amid the odors of paradise. And the
king was the first to ask to be baptized by the bishop. Another Constantine advanced
to the baptismal font, to terminate the disease of ancient leprosy and wash away with
fresh water the foul spots that had long been borne. And when he entered to be bap-
tized, the saint of God began with ready speech: “Gently bend your neck, Sigamber;
worship what you burned; burn what you worshipped.” The holy bishop Remi was a
man of excellent wisdom and especially trained in rhetorical studies, and of such sur-
passing holiness that he equalled the miracles of Silvester. For there is extant a book of
his life which tells that he raised a dead man. And so the king confessed all-powerful
God in the Trinity, and was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit,
and was anointed with the holy ointment with the sign of the cross of Christ. And of
his army more than 3000 were baptized. His sister also, Albofled, was baptized, who
not long after passed to the Lord. And when the king was in mourning for her, the holy
Remigius sent a letter of consolation which began in this way: “The reason of your
mourning pains me, and pains me greatly, that Albofled your sister, of good memory,
has passed away. But I can give you this comfort, that her departure from the world
was such that she ought to be envied rather than be mourned.” Another sister also was
converted, Lanthechild by name, who had fallen into the heresy of the Arians, and she
confessed that the Son and the Holy Spirit were equal to the Father, and was anointed.

Source: Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Translated by Ernest Brehaut (extended
selections). Records of Civilization 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1916,
Chapters 30–31.

19. An Account of the Battle of Tours by a Spanish Christian

Chronicler

In his chronicle written in Islamic Spain sometime after 750, Isidore of Beja reports on
the battle of Tours (also known as the battle of Poitiers) of 732. Although no longer
632 | 19. An Account of the Battle of Tours

recognized as the decisive battle between Islam and Western Christianity, the battle is
nonetheless significant. At the battle, the Carolingian mayor Charles Martel stopped a
major Muslim raiding party and established his reputation as “the Hammer.” The Muslims
managed to withdraw from their camp but their progress into France was cut short
and the contest between the Muslims and Franks was ever after limited to the southern
part of the realm. The passage also reveals the medieval Christian practice of identifying
Muslims with the derogatory labels “Saracens” or “Ishmaelites.”

Then Abdrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of
his army, crossed the Pyrenées, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the
plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks.
He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordo-
gne, and put him to flight—so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the
number of the slain and wounded. Whereupon Abdrahman set in pursuit of Eudes;
he destroyed palaces, burned churches, and imagined he could pillage the basilica
of St. Martin of Tours. It is then that he found himself face to face with the lord of
Austrasia, Charles, a mighty warrior from his youth, and trained in all the occasions
of arms.
For almost seven days the two armies watched one another, waiting anxiously
the moment for joining the struggle. Finally they made ready for combat. And in
the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like unto a sea that cannot be
moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of
ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up
in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them.
Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts [of the foe].
At last night sundered the combatants. The Franks with misgivings, lowered their
blades, and beholding the numberless tents of the Arabs, prepared themselves for
another battle the next day. Very early, when they issued from their retreat, the men
of Europe saw the Arab tents ranged still in order, in the same place where they had
set up their camp. Unaware that they were utterly empty, and fearful lest within the
phalanxes of the Saracens were drawn up for combat, they sent out spies to ascer-
tain the facts. These spies discovered that all the squadrons of the “Ishmaelites”
had vanished. In fact, during the night they had fled with the greatest silence, seek-
ing with all speed their home land. The Europeans, uncertain and fearful, lest they
were merely hidden in order to come back [to fall upon them] by ambushments,
sent scouting parties everywhere, but to their great amazement found nothing. Then
without troubling to pursue the fugitives, they contented themselves with sharing
the spoils and returned right gladly to their own country.

Source: William Stearns Davis. Readings in Ancient History. Illustrative Extracts from the Sources.
Vol II: Rome and the West. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912–1913, pp. 362–64.
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 633

20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

In the sixth century, the Goth Jordanes wrote De origine actibusque Getarum (On the
Origins and Deeds of the Getae), a history of the Gothic peoples. Commonly known
as the Getica, Jordanes’s history provides an important but flawed account of the early
history of the Goths and their impact on and assimilation into the Roman Empire.
Drawing from a wide range of classical sources, and heavily indebted to the now lost
history of the Goths by Cassiodorus, Jordanes’s work reflects Roman anthropology and
the formation of a people. The work also drew from the oral traditions of the Goths and
provides insights into how they saw themselves. Despite its flaws, the Getica provides
important information on the movement of a wide range of barbarian peoples, including
the Goths, Huns, and Franks. It also describes some of the most influential figures of late
antiquity, including Alaric, Attila the Hun, Justinian, and Theodoric.

Preface
Though it had been my wish to glide in my little boat by the shore of a peaceful
coast and, as a certain writer says, to gather little fishes from the pools of the an-
cients, you, brother Castalius, bid me set my sails toward the deep. You urge me to
leave the little work I have in hand, that is, the abbreviation of the Chronicles, and
to condense in my own style in this small book the twelve volumes of the Senator
on the origin and deeds of the Getae (i.e., the Goths) from the old days to the pres-
ent day, descending through the generations of the kings.
Truly a hard command, and imposed by one who seems unwilling to realize the
burden of the task. Nor do you note this, that my utterance is too slight to fill so mag-
nificent a trumpet of speech as his. But above every burden is the fact that I have no
access to his books that I may follow his thought. Still—and let me lie not—I have in
times past read the books a second time by his steward’s loan for a three days’ read-
ing. The words I recall not, but the sense and the deeds related I think I retain entire.
To this I have added fitting matters from some Greek and Latin histories. I have
also put in an introduction and a conclusion, and have inserted many things of my
own authorship. Wherefore reproach me not, but receive and read with gladness
what you have asked me to write. If I have omitted anything that you remember, do
you as a neighbor to our race add to it, praying for me, dearest brother. The Lord
be with you. Amen.

The United Goths

4. Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations,
the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name.
634 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they
straightway gave their name to the place. And even today it is said to be called
Gothiscandza. Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who
then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with
them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the
Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people
increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king—about the fifth
since Berig—he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should
move from that region. In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they
came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted
with the great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had
been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter
ruin, nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be sur-
rounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double obstacle
nature has made it inaccessible. And even today one may hear in that neighbor-
hood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to believe the
stories of travelers, although we must grant that they hear these things from afar.

This part of the Goths, which is said to have crossed the river and entered with
Filimer into the country of Oium, came into possession of the desired land, and
there they soon came upon the race of the Spali, joined battle with them and won
the victory. Thence the victors hastened to the farthest part of Scythia, which is near
the sea of Pontus (i.e. the Black Sea); for so the story is generally told in their early
songs, in almost historic fashion. Ablabius also, a famous chronicler of the Gothic
race, confirms this in his most trustworthy account. Some of the ancient writers
also agree with the tale. Among these we may mention Josephus, a most reliable
relator of annals, who everywhere follows the rule of truth and unravels from the
beginning the origin of causes; but why he has omitted the beginnings of the race
of the Goths, of which I have spoken, I do not know. He barely mentions Magog of
that stock, and says they were Scythians by race and were called so by name. . . .

The Huns
24. But after a short space of time, as Orosius relates, the race of the Huns, fiercer
than ferocity itself, flamed forth against the Goths. We learn from old traditions
that their origin was as follows: Filimer, King of the Goths, son of Gadaric
the Great, who was the fifth in succession to hold the rule of the Getae after
their departure from the island of Scandza—and who, as we have said, entered
the land of Scythia with his tribe—found among his people certain witches,
whom he called in his native tongue Haliurunnae. Suspecting these women,
he expelled them from the midst of his race and compelled them to wander in
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 635

solitary exile afar from his army. There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as
they wandered through the wilderness, joined them and begat this savage race,
which dwelt at first in the swamps—a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely
human, and having no language save one which bore but slight resemblance
to human speech. Such was the descent of the Huns who came to the country
of the Goths.

This cruel tribe, as Priscus the historian relates, settled on the farther bank of the
Maeotic swamp. They were fond of hunting and had no skill in any other art. After
they had grown to a nation, they disturbed the peace of neighboring races by theft and
rapine. At one time, while hunters of their tribe were as usual seeking for game on the
farthest edge of Maeotis, they saw a doe unexpectedly appear to their sight and enter
the swamp, acting as guide of the way; now advancing and again standing still. The
hunters followed and crossed on foot the Maeotic swamp, which they had supposed
was impassable as the sea. Presently the unknown land of Scythia disclosed itself and
the doe disappeared. Now in my opinion the evil spirits, from whom the Huns are
descended, did this from envy of the Scythians. And the Huns, who had been wholly
ignorant that there was another world beyond Maeotis, were now filled with admira-
tion for the Scythian land. As they were quick of mind, they believed that this path,
utterly unknown to any age of the past, had been divinely revealed to them. They
returned to their tribe, told them what had happened, praised Scythia and persuaded
the people to hasten thither along the way they had found by the guidance of the doe.
As many as they captured, when they thus entered Scythia for the first time, they sac-
rificed to Victory. The remainder they conquered and made subject to themselves.
Like a whirlwind of nations they swept across the great swamp and at once fell
upon the Alpidzuri, Alcildzuri, Itimari, Tuncarsi and Boisci, who bordered on that
part of Scythia. The Alans also, who were their equals in battle, but unlike them
in civilization, manners and appearance, they exhausted by their incessant attacks
and subdued. For by the terror of their features they inspired great fear in those
whom perhaps they did not really surpass in war. They made their foes flee in hor-
ror because their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort
of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than eyes. Their hardihood is
evident in their wild appearance, and they are beings who are cruel to their children
on the very day they are born. For they cut the cheeks of the males with a sword, so
that before they receive the nourishment of milk they must learn to endure wounds.
Hence they grow old beardless and their young men are without comeliness,
because a face furrowed by the sword spoils by its scars the natural beauty of a
beard. They are short in stature, quick in bodily movement, alert horsemen, broad
shouldered, ready in the use of bow and arrow, and have firm-set necks which are
ever erect in pride. Though they live in the form of men, they have the cruelty of
wild beasts.
636 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

The Divided Goths:Visigoths

25. The Visigoths were terrified as their kinsmen had been, and knew not how to
plan for safety against the race of the Huns. After long deliberation by common
consent they finally sent ambassadors into Romania to the Emperor Valens,
brother of Valentinian, the elder Emperor, to say that if he would give them part
of Thrace or Moesia to keep, they would submit themselves to his laws and com-
mands. That he might have greater confidence in them, they promised to become
Christians, if he would give them teachers who spoke their language. When Va-
lens learned this, he gladly and promptly granted what he had himself intended
to ask. He received the Getae into the region of Moesia and placed them there
as a wall of defense for his kingdom against other tribes. And since at that time
the Emperor Valens, who was infected with the Arian perfidy, had closed all the
churches of our party, he sent as preachers to them those who favored his sect.
They came and straightway filled a rude and ignorant people with the poison
of their heresy. Thus the Emperor Valens made the Visigoths Arians rather than
Christians. Moreover, from the love they bore them, they preached the gospel
both to the Ostrogoths and to their kinsmen the Gepidae, teaching them to rever-
ence this heresy, and they invited all people of their speech everywhere to attach
themselves to this sect. They themselves as we have said, crossed the Danube
and settled Dacia Ripensis, Moesia and Thrace by permission of the Emperor.
26. Soon famine and want came upon them, as often happens to a people not yet
well settled in a country. Their princes and the leaders who ruled them in place
of kings, that is Fritigern, Alatheus and Safrac, began to lament the plight of
their army and begged Lupicinus and Maximus, the Roman commanders, to
open a market. But to what will not the “cursed lust for gold” compel men to
assent? The generals, swayed by avarice, sold them at a high price not only the
flesh of sheep and oxen, but even the carcasses of dogs and unclean animals, so
that a slave would be bartered for a loaf of bread or ten pounds of meat. When
their goods and chattels failed, the greedy trader demanded their sons in return
for the necessities of life. And the parents consented even to this, in order to
provide for the safety of their children, arguing that it was better to lose liberty
than life; and indeed it is better that one be sold, if he will be mercifully fed,
than that he should be kept free only to die.

Now it came to pass in that troublesome time that Lupicinus, the Roman gen-
eral, invited Fritigern, a chieftain of the Goths, to a feast and, as the event revealed,
devised a plot against him. But Fritigern, thinking no evil, came to the feast with a
few followers. While he was dining in the praetorium he heard the dying cries of his
ill-fated men, for, by order of the general, the soldiers were slaying his companions
who were shut up in another part of the house. The loud cries of the dying fell upon
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 637

ears already suspicious, and Fritigern at once perceived the treacherous trick. He
drew his sword and with great courage dashed quickly from the banqueting-hall,
rescued his men from their threatening doom and incited them to slay the Romans.
Thus these valiant men gained the chance they had longed for—to be free to die in
battle rather than to perish of hunger—and immediately took arms to kill the gen-
erals Lupicinus and Maximus. Thus that day put an end to the famine of the Goths
and the safety of the Romans, for the Goths no longer as strangers and pilgrims, but
as citizens and lords, began to rule the inhabitants and to hold in their own right all
the northern country as far as the Danube.

Alaric
29. But after Theodosius, the lover of peace and of the Gothic race, had passed
from human cares, his sons began to ruin both empires by their luxurious living
and to deprive their Allies, that is to say the Goths, of the customary gifts. The
contempt of the Goths for the Romans soon increased, and for fear their valor
would be destroyed by long peace, they appointed Alaric king over them. He
was of a famous stock, and his nobility was second only to that of the Amali,
for he came from the family of the Balthi, who because of their daring valor
had long ago received among their race the name Baltha, that is, “The Bold.”
Now when this Alaric was made king, he took counsel with his men and per-
suaded them to seek a kingdom by their own exertions rather than serve oth-
ers in idleness. In the consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian he raised an army
and entered Italy, which seemed to be bare of defenders, and came through
Pannonia and Sirmium along the right side. Without meeting any resistance,
he reached the bridge of the river Candidianus at the third milestone from the
royal city of Ravenna. . . . .
30. But as I was saying, when the army of the Visigoths had come into the neigh-
borhood of this city, they sent an embassy to the Emperor Honorius, who dwelt
within. They said that if he would permit the Goths to settle peaceably in Italy,
they would so live with the Roman people that men might believe them both to
be of one race; but if not, whoever prevailed in war should drive out the other,
and the victor should henceforth rule unmolested. But the Emperor Honorius
feared to make either promise. So he took counsel with his Senate and con-
sidered how he might drive them from the Italian borders. He finally decided
that Alaric and his race, if they were able to do so, should be allowed to seize
for their own home the provinces farthest away, namely, Gaul and Spain. For
at this time he had almost lost them, and moreover they had been devastated
by the invasion of Gaiseric, King of the Vandals. The grant was confirmed by
an imperial rescript, and the Goths, consenting to the arrangement, set out for
the country given them.
638 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

When they had gone away without doing any harm in Italy, Stilicho treacher-
ously hurried to Pollentia, a city in the Cottian Alps. There he fell upon the unsus-
pecting Goths in battle, to the ruin of all Italy and his own disgrace.

The Goths enter Rome (410–411)

When the Goths suddenly beheld him, at first they were terrified. Soon regaining
their courage and arousing each other by brave shouting, as is their custom, they
turned to flight the entire army of Stilicho and almost exterminated it. Then for-
saking the journey they had undertaken, the Goths with hearts full of rage returned
again to Liguria whence they had set out. When they had plundered and spoiled it,
they also laid waste Aemilia, and then hastened toward the city of Rome along the
Flaminian Way, which runs between Picenum and Tuscia, taking as booty whatever
they found on either hand. When they finally entered Rome, by Alaric’s express
command they merely sacked it and did not set the city on fire, as wild peoples
usually do, nor did they permit serious damage to be done to the holy places. . . .

Attila the Hun

35. Now this Attila was the son of Mundiuch, and his brothers were Octar and
Ruas who are said to have ruled before Attila, though not over quite so many
tribes as he. After their death he succeeded to the throne of the Huns, together
with his brother Bleda. In order that he might first be equal to the expedition
he was preparing, he sought to increase his strength by murder. Thus he pro-
ceeded from the destruction of his own kindred to the menace of all others.
But though he increased his power by this shameful means, yet by the balance
of justice he received the hideous consequences of his own cruelty. Now when
his brother Bleda, who ruled over a great part of the Huns, had been slain by
his treachery, Attila united all the people under his own rule. Gathering also a
host of the other tribes which he then held under his sway, he sought to subdue
the foremost nations of the world—the Romans and the Visigoths. His army
is said to have numbered five hundred thousand men. He was a man born into
the world to shake the nations, the scourge of all lands, who in some way ter-
rified all mankind by the dreadful rumors noised abroad concerning him. He
was haughty in his walk, rolling his eyes hither and thither, so that the power
of his proud spirit appeared in the movement of his body. He was indeed a
lover of war, yet restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants
and lenient to those who were once received into his protection. He was short
of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard
thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion,
showing the evidences of his origin.
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 639

And though his temper was such that he always had great self-confidence, yet
his assurance was increased by finding the sword of Mars, always esteemed sacred
among the kings of the Scythians . . . .

Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, and the Huns

36. Now when Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, whom we mentioned shortly before,
learned that his mind was bent on the devastation of the world, he incited At-
tila by many gifts to make war on the Visigoths, for he was afraid that The-
odorid, King of the Visigoths, would avenge the injury done to his daughter.
She had been joined in wedlock with Huneric, the son of Gaiseric, and at first
was happy in this union. But afterwards he was cruel even to his own children,
and because of the mere suspicion that she was attempting to poison him, he
cut off her nose and mutilated her ears. He sent her back to her father in Gaul
thus despoiled of her natural charms. So the wretched girl presented a pitiable
aspect ever after, and the cruelty which would stir even strangers still more
surely incited her father to vengeance.

Attila, therefore, in his efforts to bring about the wars long ago instigated by the
bribe of Gaiseric, sent ambassadors into Italy to the Emperor Valentinian to sow
strife between the Goths and the Romans, thinking to shatter by civil discord those
whom he could not crush in battle. He declared that he was in no way violating his
friendly relations with the Empire, but that he had a quarrel with Theodorid, King
of the Visigoths. As he wished to be kindly received, he filled the rest of the let-
ter with the usual flattering salutations, striving to win credence for his falsehood.
In like manner he dispatched a message to Theodorid, King of the Visigoths, urg-
ing him to break his alliance with the Romans and reminding him of the battles to
which they had recently provoked him. Beneath his great ferocity he was a subtle
man, and fought with craft before he made war.
Then the Emperor Valentinian sent an embassy to the Visigoths and their king
Theodorid, with this message: “Bravest of nations, it is the part of prudence for
us to unite against the lord of the earth who wishes to enslave the whole world;
who requires no just cause for battle, but supposes whatever he does is right. He
measures his ambition by his might. License satisfies his pride. Despising law and
right, he shows himself an enemy to Nature herself. And thus he, who clearly is the
common foe of each, deserves the hatred of all. Pray remember—what you surely
cannot forget—that the Huns do not overthrow nations by means of war, where
there is an equal chance, but assail them by treachery, which is a greater cause for
anxiety. To say nothing about ourselves, can you suffer such insolence to go unpun-
ished? Since you are mighty in arms, give heed to your own danger and join hands
with us in common. Bear aid also to the Empire, of which you hold a part. If you
640 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

would learn how such an alliance should be sought and welcomed by us, look into
the plans of the foe.”

The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

and the Defeat of the Huns
On the side of the Romans stood the Patrician Aëtius, on whom at that time the
whole Empire of the West depended; a man of such wisdom that he had assembled
warriors from everywhere to meet them on equal terms. Now these were his aux-
iliaries: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Ripar-
ians, Olibriones (once Romans soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces), and
some other Celtic or German tribes. And so they met in the Catalaunian Plains . . .
The two hosts bravely joined battle. Nothing was done under cover, but they con-
tended in open fight. What just cause can be found for the encounter of so many
nations, or what hatred inspired them all to take arms against each other? It is proof
that the human race lives for its kings, for it is at the mad impulse of one mind a
slaughter of nations takes place, and at the whim of a haughty ruler that which na-
ture has taken ages to produce perishes in a moment. . . .

38. The armies met, as we have said, in the Catalaunian Plains. The battle field was
a plain rising by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to gain;
for advantage of position is a great help. The Huns with their forces seized the
right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began
a struggle for the yet untaken crest. Now Theodorid with the Visigoths held
the right wing and Aëtius with the Romans the left. They placed in the centre
Sangiban (who, as said before, was in command of the Alans), thus contriving
with military caution to surround by a host of faithful troops the man in whose
loyalty they had little confidence. For one who has difficulties placed in the
way of his flight readily submits to the necessity of fighting.

On the other side, however, the battle line of the Huns was arranged so that At-
tila and his bravest followers were stationed in the center. In arranging them thus
the king had chiefly his own safety in view, since by his position in the very midst
of his race he would be kept out of the way of threatening danger. The innumer-
able peoples of the different tribes, which he had subjected to his sway, formed the
wings. Amid them was conspicuous the army of the Ostrogoths under the leader-
ship of the brothers Valamir, Thiudimer and Vidimer, nobler even than the king
they served, for the might of the family of the Amali rendered them glorious. The
renowned king of the Gepidae, Ardaric, was there also with a countless host, and
because of his great loyalty to Attila, he shared his plans . . . Attila might well feel
sure that they would fight against the Visigoths, their kinsmen. Now the rest of the
crowd of kings (if we may call them so) and the leaders of various nations hung
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 641

upon Attila’s nod like slaves, and when he gave a sign even by a glance, without a
murmur each stood forth in fear and trembling, or at all events did as he was bid.
Attila alone was king of all kings over all and concerned for all.
So then the struggle began for the advantage of position we have mentioned. At-
tila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain, but was outstripped by Thoris-
mud and Aëtius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground
and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up. . . .
At dawn on the following day, when the Romans saw the fields were piled high
with bodies and that the Huns did not venture forth, they thought the victory was
theirs, but knew that Attila would not flee from the battle unless overwhelmed by
a great disaster. Yet he did nothing cowardly, like one that is overcome, but with
clash of arms sounded the trumpets and threatened an attack. He was like a lion
pierced by hunting spears, who paces to and fro before the mouth of his den and
dares not spring, but ceases not to terrify the neighborhood by his roaring. Even so
this warlike king at bay terrified his conquerors. Therefore the Goths and Romans
assembled and considered what to do with the vanquished Attila. They determined
to wear him out by a siege, because he had no supply of provisions and was hin-
dered from approaching by a shower of arrows from the bowmen placed within
the confines of the Roman camp. But it was said that the king remained supremely
brave even in this extremity and had heaped up a funeral pyre of horse trappings,
so that if the enemy should attack him, he was determined to cast himself into the
flames, that none might have the joy of wounding him and that the lord of so many
races might not fall into the hands of his foes. . . .
In this most famous war of the bravest tribes, one hundred and sixty five thousand
are said to have been slain on both sides, leaving out of account fifteen thousand of
the Gepidae and Franks, who met each other the night before the general engage-
ment and fell by wounds mutually received, the Franks fighting for the Romans and
the Gepidae for the Huns.
Now when Attila learned of the retreat of the Goths, he thought it a ruse of the
enemy—for so men are wont to believe when the unexpected happens—and re-
mained for some time in his camp. But when a long silence followed the absence of
the foe, the spirit of the mighty king was aroused to the thought of victory and the
anticipation of pleasure, and his mind turned to the old oracles of his destiny. . . .

42. But Attila took occasion from the withdrawal of the Visigoths, observing what
he had often desired—that his enemies were divided. At length feeling secure,
he moved forward his array to attack the Romans. . . .

Attila and Pope Leo the Great at Rome

Attila’s mind had been bent on going to Rome. But his followers, as the historian
Priscus relates, took him away, not out of regard for the city to which they were
642 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

hostile, but because they remembered the case of Alaric, the former king of the
Visigoths. They distrusted the good fortune of their own king, inasmuch as Alaric
did not live long after the sack of Rome, but straightway departed this life. There-
fore while Attila’s spirit was wavering in doubt between going and not going, and
he still lingered to ponder the matter, an embassy came to him from Rome to seek
peace. Pope Leo himself came to meet him in the Ambuleian district of the Veneti
at the well-traveled ford of the river Mincius. Then Attila quickly put aside his
usual fury, turned back on the way he had advanced from beyond the Danube and
departed with the promise of peace. . . .

The Death of Attila

49. Shortly before he (i.e., Attila) died, as the historian Priscus relates, he took in
marriage a very beautiful girl named Ildico, after countless other wives, as was
the custom of his race. He had given himself up to excessive joy at his wedding,
and as he lay on his back, heavy with wine and sleep, a rush of superfluous
blood, which would ordinarily have flowed from his nose, streamed in deadly
course down his throat and killed him, since it was hindered in the usual pas-
sages. Thus did drunkenness put a disgraceful end to a king renowned in war.
On the following day, when a great part of the morning was spent, the royal at-
tendants suspected some ill and, after a great uproar, broke in the doors. There
they found the death of Attila accomplished by an effusion of blood, without
any wound, and the girl with downcast face weeping beneath her veil. Then,
as is the custom of that race, they plucked out the hair of their heads and made
their faces hideous with deep wounds, that the renowned warrior might be
mourned, not by effeminate wailings and tears, but by the blood of men. . . .

The End of Attila’s Domain and the Independence

of the Ostrogoths and Others
50. After they had fulfilled these rites, a contest for the highest place arose among
Attila’s successors—for the minds of young men are wont to be inflamed by
ambition for power—and in their rash eagerness to rule they all alike destroyed
his empire. Thus kingdoms are often weighed down by a superfluity rather than
by a lack of successors. For the sons of Attila were clamoring that the nations
should be divided among them equally and that warlike kings with their peoples
should be apportioned to them by lot like a family estate. When Ardaric, king
of the Gepidae, learned this, he became enraged because so many nations were
being treated like slaves of the basest condition, and was the first to rise against
the sons of Attila. Good fortune attended him, and he effaced the disgrace of
servitude that rested upon him. For by his revolt he freed not only his own tribe,
but all the others who were equally oppressed; since all readily strive for that
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 643

which is sought for the general advantage. They took up arms against the de-
struction that menaced all and joined battle with the Huns in Pannonia, near a
river called Nedao. There an encounter took place between the various nations
Attila had held under his sway. Kingdoms with their peoples were divided, and
out of one body were made many members not responding to a common im-
pulse. Being deprived of their head, they madly strove against each other. They
never found their equals ranged against them without harming each other by
wounds mutually given. And so the bravest nations tore themselves to pieces.
For then, I think, must have occurred a most remarkable spectacle, where one
might see the Goths fighting with pikes, the Gepidae raging with the sword, the
Rugi breaking off the spears in their own wounds, the Suebi fighting on foot,
the Huns with bows, the Alans drawing up a battle-line of heavy-armed and the
Heruli of light-armed warriors. . . .

Now when the Goths saw the Gepidae defending for themselves the territory of
the Huns and the people of the Huns dwelling again in their ancient abodes, they
preferred to ask for lands from the Roman Empire, rather than invade the lands of
others with danger to themselves. So they received Pannonia, which stretches in a
long plain, being bounded on the east by Upper Moesia, on the south by Dalmatia,
on the west by Noricum and on the north by the Danube. This land is adorned with
many cities, the first of which is Sirmium and the last Vindobona. But the Sauroma-
tae, whom we call Sarmatians, and the Cemandri and certain of the Huns dwelt in
Castra Martis, a city given them in the region of Illyricum. Of this race was Blivila,
Duke of Pentapolis, and his brother Froila and also Bessa, a Patrician in our time. The
Sciri, moreover, and the Sadagarii and certain of the Alans with their leader, Candac
by name, received Scythia Minor and Lower Moesia. Paria, the father of my father
Alanoviiamuth (that is to say, my grandfather), was secretary to this Candac as long
as he lived. To his sister’s son Gunthigis, also called Baza, the Master of the Soldiery,
who was the son of Andag the son of Andela, who was descended from the stock of
the Amali, I also, Jordanes, although an unlearned man before my conversion, was
secretary. The Rugi, however, and some other races asked that they might inhabit
Bizye and Arcadiopolis. Hernac, the younger son of Attila, with his followers, chose
a home in the most distant part of Lesser Scythia. Emnetzur and Ultzindur, kinsmen
of his, won Oescus and Utus and Almus in Dacia on the bank of the Danube, and
many of the Huns, then swarming everywhere, betook themselves into Romania, and
from them the Sacromontisi and the Fossatisii of this day are said to be descended.

Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths

51. There were other Goths also, called the Lesser, a great people whose priest
and primate was Ulfilas, who is said to have taught them to write. And to-
day they are in Moesia, inhabiting the Nicopolitan region as far as the base of
644 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

Mount Haemus. They are a numerous people, but poor and unwarlike, rich in
nothing save flocks of various kinds and pasture-lands for cattle and forests for
wood. Their country is not fruitful in wheat and other sorts of grain. Certain of
them do not know that vineyards exist elsewhere, and they buy their wine from
neighboring countries. But most of them drink milk.

The Rise of Theodoric

Now after no great time King Valamir and his brothers Thiudimer and Vidimer sent
an embassy to the Emperor Marcian, because the usual gifts which they received
like a New Year’s present from the Emperor, to preserve the compact of peace, were
slow in arriving . . . From the Goths the Romans received as a hostage of peace
Theodoric, the young child of Thiudimer, whom we have mentioned above. He
had now attained the age of seven years and was entering upon his eighth. While
his father hesitated about giving him up, his uncle Valamir convinced him to do
it, hoping that peace between the Romans and the Goths might thus be assured.
Therefore Theodoric was given as a hostage by the Goths and brought to the city
of Constantinople to the Emperor Leo and, being a goodly child, deservedly gained
the imperial favor. . . .

55. After a certain time, when the wintry cold was at hand, the river Danube
was frozen over as usual. Thiudimer, King of the Goths, saw that it was fro-
zen, he led his army across the Danube and appeared unexpectedly to the
Suebi from the rear. Now this country of the Suebi has on the east the Bai-
ovari, on the west the Franks, on the south the Burgundians and on the north
the Thuringians. Into a place thus fortified King Thiudimer led his army in
the winter-time and conquered, plundered and almost subdued the race of the
Suebi as well as the Alamanni, who were mutually banded together. Thence
he returned as victor to his own home in Pannonia and joyfully received his
son Theodoric, once given as hostage to Constantinople and now sent back
by the Emperor Leo with great gifts. Now Theodoric had reached man’s es-
tate, for he was eighteen years of age and his boyhood was ended. So he sum-
moned certain of his father’s adherents and took to himself from the people
his friends and retainers—almost six thousand men. With these he crossed the
Danube, without his father’s knowledge, and marched against Babai, King
of the Sarmatians, who had just won a victory over Camundus, a general of
the Romans, and was ruling with insolent pride. Theodoric came upon him
and slew him, and taking as booty his slaves and treasure, returned victorious
to his father. Next he invaded the city of Singidunum, which the Sarmatians
themselves had seized, and did not return it to the Romans, but reduced it to
his own sway. . . .
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 645

56. Soon after these events, King Thiudimer was seized with a mortal illness in the
city of Cyrrhus. He called the Goths to himself, appointed Theodoric his son
as heir of his kingdom and presently departed this life.

Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths

57. When the Emperor Zeno heard that Theodoric had been appointed king over his
own people, he received the news with pleasure and invited him to come and
visit him in the city, appointing an escort of honor. Receiving Theodoric with
all due respect, he placed him among the princes of his palace. After some time
Zeno increased his dignity by adopting him as his son-at-arms and gave him a
triumph in the city at his expense. Theodoric was made Consul Ordinary also,
which is well known to be the supreme good and highest honor in the world.
Nor was this all, for Zeno set up before the royal palace an equestrian statue to
the glory of this great man.

Theodoric Sets Out for Rome

Now while Theodoric was in alliance by treaty with the Empire of Zeno and was
himself enjoying every comfort in the city, he heard that his tribe, dwelling as
we have said in Illyricum, was not altogether satisfied or content. So he chose
rather to seek a living by his own exertions, after the manner customary to his
race, rather than to enjoy the advantages of the Roman Empire in luxurious ease
while his tribe lived in want. After pondering these matters, he said to the Em-
peror: “Though I lack nothing in serving your Empire, yet if Your Piety deem
it worthy, be pleased to hear the desire of my heart.” And when as usual he had
been granted permission to speak freely, he said: “The western country, long ago
governed by the rule of your ancestors and predecessors, and that city which was
the head and mistress of the world—wherefore is it now shaken by the tyranny of
the Torcilingi and the Rugi? Send me there with my race. Thus if you but say the
word, you may be freed from the burden of expense here, and, if by the Lord’s
help I shall conquer, the fame of Your Piety shall be glorious there. For it is better
that I, your servant and your son, should rule that kingdom, receiving it as a gift
from you if I conquer, than that one whom you do not recognize should oppress
your Senate with his tyrannical yoke and a part of the republic with slavery. For
if I prevail, I shall retain it as your grant and gift; if I am conquered, Your Piety
will lose nothing—nay, as I have said, it will save the expense I now entail.” Al-
though the Emperor was grieved that he should go, yet when he heard this he
granted what Theodoric asked, for he was unwilling to cause him sorrow. He sent
him forth enriched by great gifts and commended to his charge the Senate and
the Roman People.
646 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

Therefore Theodoric departed from the royal city and returned to his own peo-
ple. In company with the whole tribe of the Goths, who gave him their unanimous
consent, he set out for Hesperia. He went in straight march through Sirmium to the
places bordering on Pannonia and, advancing into the territory of Venetia as far as
the bridge of the Sontius, encamped there. When he had halted there for some time
to rest the bodies of his men and pack-animals, Odoacer sent an armed force against
him, which he met on the plains of Verona and destroyed with great slaughter . . .
He frequently harassed the army of the Goths at night, sallying forth stealthily with
his men, and this not once or twice, but often; and thus he struggled for almost three
whole years. But he labored in vain, for all Italy at last called Theodoric its lord
and the Empire obeyed his nod. But Odoacer, with his few adherents and the Ro-
mans who were present, suffered daily from war and famine in Ravenna. Since he
accomplished nothing, he sent an embassy and begged for mercy. Theodoric first
granted it and afterwards deprived him of his life.

Theodoric Rules in Italy

It was in the third year after his entrance into Italy, as we have said, that Theodoric,
by advice of the Emperor Zeno, laid aside the garb of a private citizen and the dress
of his race and assumed a costume with a royal mantle, as he had now become the
ruler over both Goths and Romans. He sent an embassy to Lodoin, King of the
Franks, and asked for his daughter Audefleda in marriage. Lodoin freely and gladly
gave her, and also his sons Celdebert and Heldebert and Thiudebert, believing that
by this alliance a league would be formed and that they would be associated with
the race of the Goths. But that union was of no avail for peace and harmony, for
they fought fiercely with each other again and again for the lands of the Goths; but
never did the Goths yield to the Franks while Theodoric lived. . . .

58. Now he sent his Count Pitza, chosen from among the chief men of his king-
dom, to hold the city of Sirmium. He got possession of it by driving out its king
Thrasaric, son of Thraustila, and keeping his mother captive. Thence he came
with two thousand infantry and five hundred horsemen to aid Mundo against
Sabinian, Master of the Soldiery of Illyricum, who at that time had made ready
to fight with Mundo near the city named Margoplanum, which lies between
the Danube and Margus rivers, and destroyed the Army of Illyricum. For this
Mundo, who traced his descent from the Attilani of old, had put to flight the
tribe of the Gepidae and was roaming beyond the Danube in waste places where
no man tilled the soil. He had gathered around him many outlaws and ruffi-
ans and robbers from all sides and had seized a tower called Herta, situated on
the bank of the Danube. There he plundered his neighbors in wild license and
made himself king over his vagabonds. Now Pitza came upon him when he
 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica | 647

was nearly reduced to desperation and was already thinking of surrender. So

he rescued him from the hands of Sabinian and made him a grateful subject of
his king Theodoric. . . .

The Death of Theodoric

59. When he had reached old age and knew that he should soon depart this life,
he called together the Gothic counts and chieftains of his race and appointed
Athalaric as king. He was a boy scarce ten years old, the son of his daughter
Amalasuentha, and he had lost his father Eutharic. As though uttering his last
will and testament Theodoric adjured and commanded them to honor their
king, to love the Senate and Roman People and to make sure of the peace and
good will of the Emperor of the East, as next after God.

They kept this command fully so long as Athalaric their king and his mother
lived, and ruled in peace for almost eight years. But as the Franks put no confidence
in the rule of a child and furthermore held him in contempt, and were also plotting
war, he gave back to them those parts of Gaul which his father and grandfather
had seized. He possessed all the rest in peace and quiet. Therefore when Athalaric
was approaching the age of manhood, he entrusted to the Emperor of the East both
his own youth and his mother’s widowhood. But in a short time the ill-fated boy
was carried off by an untimely death and departed from earthly affairs. His mother
feared she might be despised by the Goths on account of the weakness of her sex.
So after much thought she decided, for the sake of relationship, to summon her
cousin Theodahad from Tuscany, where he led a retired life at home, and thus she
established him on the throne. But he was unmindful of their kinship and, after a
little time, had her taken from the palace at Ravenna to an island of the Bulsinian
Lake where he kept her in exile. . . .

The End of Gothic Rule in Italy

60. When Justinian (d. 565), the Emperor of the East, heard this, he was aroused
as if he had suffered personal injury in the death of his wards. Now at that time
he had won a triumph over the Vandals in Africa, through his most faithful Pa-
trician Belisarius. Without delay he sent his army under this leader against the
Goths at the very time when his arms were yet dripping with the blood of the
Vandals. This sagacious general believed he could not overcome the Gothic
nation, unless he should first seize Sicily. Accordingly he did so. As soon as
he entered Trinacria, the Goths, who were besieging the town of Syracuse,
found that they were not succeeding and surrendered of their own accord to
Belisarius, with their leader Sinderith. When the Roman general reached Sicily,
648 | 20. Excerpts from Jordanes’s Getica

Theodahad sought out Evermud, his son-in-law, and sent him with an army to
guard the strait which lies between Campania and Sicily and sweeps from a
bend of the Tyrrhenian Sea into the vast tide of the Adriatic. . . .

Meanwhile the Roman army crossed the strait and marched toward Campania.
They took Naples and pressed on to Rome. Now a few days before they arrived,
King Vitiges had set forth from Rome, arrived at Ravenna and married Mathesuen-
tha, the daughter of Amalasuentha and grand-daughter of Theodoric, the former
king. While he was celebrating his new marriage and holding court at Ravenna, the
imperial army advanced from Rome and attacked the strongholds in both parts of
Tuscany . . . When Vitiges heard the news, he raged like a lion and assembled all
the host of the Goths. He advanced from Ravenna and harassed the walls of Rome
with a long siege. But after fourteen months his courage was broken and he raised
the siege of the city of Rome and prepared to overwhelm Ariminum. Here he was
baffled in like manner and put to flight; and so he retreated to Ravenna. When be-
sieged there, he quickly and willingly surrendered himself to the victorious side,
together with his wife Mathesuentha and the royal treasure.
And thus a famous kingdom and most valiant race, which had long held sway,
was at last overcome in almost its two thousand and thirtieth year by that conqueror
of many nations, the Emperor Justinian, through his most faithful consul Belisar-
ius. He gave Vitiges the title of Patrician and took him to Constantinople, where
he dwelt for more than two years, bound by ties of affection to the Emperor, and
then departed this life. But his consort Mathesuentha was bestowed by the Emperor
upon the Patrician Germanus, his cousin. And of them was born a son (also called
Germanus) after the death of his father Germanus. This union of the race of the
Anicii with the stock of the Amali gives hopeful promise, under the Lord’s favor,
to both peoples.

Conclusion
And now we have recited the origin of the Goths, the noble line of the Amali and
the deeds of brave men. This glorious race yielded to a more glorious prince and
surrendered to a more valiant leader, whose fame shall be silenced by no ages or
cycles of years; for the victorious and triumphant Emperor Justinian and his con-
sul Belisarius shall be named and known as Vandalicus, Africanus and Geticus (so
named for having defeated these peoples).
You who read this, know that I have followed the writings of my ancestors, and
have culled a few flowers from their broad meadows to weave a chaplet for him who
cares to know these things. Let no one believe that to the advantage of the race of
which I have spoken—though indeed I trace my own descent from it—I have added
nothing but what I have read or learned by inquiry. Even thus I have not included
 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law | 649

all that is written or told about them, nor spoken so much to their praise as to the
glory of him who conquered them.

Source: Jordanes: The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, trans. by Charles C. Mierow, 1908. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–2, 7–9, 38–43, 45–48, 56–62, 65–67, 69, 79–86,
89–90, 92–100.

21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

Beginning in 529, the emperor Justinian, with the help of a committee of highly trained
lawyers, issued the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) the most exhaustive codification
of Roman law, and one that would reshape legal traditions and political philosophy in
the later medieval world. The Corpus was issued in Latin in three collections—Code of
Justinian, Digest or Pandects, and Institutes—with a fourth publication, the Novels or
new laws of Justinian, issued later in Greek. The Digest, excerpts of which follow, was
the second work published, appearing in 530. It is divided into 50 books, which were
then divided into chapters, laws, and paragraphs. The Digest offers a systematic approach
to the law and became the authoritative commentary on Roman law. The first of the
two passages that follow provides the introduction to the Digest, describing Justinian’s
purpose for the work, its organization and subject matter, and its authority as a legal
document. The second excerpt is a list of specific legal questions and the legal authorities
on these questions.

On the Confirmation of the Digest

Constitutio Tanta.
In the name of our Lord God Jesus Christ.
The Emperor Caeser Flavius Justinianus Alamannicus Gothicus Francicus Ger-
manicus Anticus Alanicus Vandalicus Africanus pious happy renowned conqueror
and triumpher ever Augustus to the Senate and to all peoples.
So great in our behalf is the foresight of Divine Humanity that it ever deigns to
support us with eternal acts of liberality. After the Parthian wars were hushed in
eternal peace, after the nation of the Vandals was destroyed (1), and Carthage, nay
rather all Libya, was again taken into the Roman Empire, then I contrived also that
the ancient laws, already bowed down with age, should by my care reach new
beauty and come within moderate bounds; a thing which before our command none
ever expected or deemed to be at all possible for human endeavour. It was indeed
a wondrous achievement when Roman jurisprudence from the time of the building
of the city to that of our rule, which period well-nigh reaches to one thousand and
650 | 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

four hundred years, had been shaken with intestine war and infected the Imperial
legislation with the same mischief, to bring it nevertheless into one harmonious
system, so that it should present no contradiction, no repetition and no approach to
repetition, and that nowhere should two enactments appear dealing with one ques-
tion. This was indeed proper for Heavenly Providence, but in no way possible to
the weakness of man. We therefore have after our wont fixed our eyes on the aid of
Immortality, and, calling on the Supreme Deity, we have desired that God should
be made the originator and the guardian of the whole work, and we have entrusted
the entire task to Tribonianus, a most distinguished man, Master of the Offices, ex-
quaestor of our sacred palace and ex-consul, and we have laid on him the whole
service of the enterprise described, so that with other illustrious and most learned
colleagues he might fulfil our desire. Besides this, our Majesty, ever investigating
and scrutinizing the composition of these men, whensoever anything was found
doubtful or uncertain, in reliance on the heavenly Divinity, amended it and reduced
it to suitable shape. Thus all has been done by our Lord and God Jesus Christ, who
vouchsafed the means of success both to us and to our servants herein. 1. Now the
Imperial statutes we have already placed, arranged in twelve books, in the Code
which is illuminated with our name. After this, undertaking a very great work, we
allowed the same exalted man both to collect together and to submit to certain modi-
fications the very most important works of old times, thoroughly intermixed and
broken up as they may almost be called. But in the midst of our careful researches,
it was intimated to us by the said exalted person that there were nearly two thousand
books written by the old lawyers, are more than three million lines were left us by
them, all of which it was requisite to read and carefully consider and out of them
to select whatever might be best. This by the grace of Heaven and the favour of the
Supreme Trinity, was accomplished in accordance with our instructions such as we
gave at the outset to the exalted man above mentioned, so that everything of great
importance was collected into fifty books, and all ambiguities were settled, without
any refractory passage being left. We gave these books the name of Digest or Pan-
dects, for the reason they have within them all matters of question and the legal
decision thereof, having taken to their bosom things collected from all sides, so that
they conclude the whole task in the space of about one hundred and fifty thousand
lines. We have divided the books into seven parts, not incorrectly nor without rea-
son, but in regard of the nature and use of numbers and in order to make a division
of parts in keeping therewith. 2. Accordingly, the first part of the whole frame,
which part is called (πρώτη), after the Greek word, comes by itself in four books.
3. The second link has seven books, which are called de judiciis (on trials at law).
4. In the third group we have put all that comes under the title de rebus (on things),
the same having eight books assigned to it. 5. The fourth place, which amounts to
a sort of kernel of the whole compilation, takes eight books. This contains every-
thing that relates to hypothec, so that the subject does not differ very much from
 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law | 651

the actio pigneratitia (action to redeem, etc.), and another book is inserted in the
same volume which has the Edict of the Edile and the Redhibitorian action and the
stipulation for returning double the price received, which is matter of law in case
of an evictio (recovery of property on the ground of ownership), the fact being that
these matters are connected with the subject of purchase and sale, and the aforesaid
actions were always closely attendant on those last topics. It is true that, in the
scheme of the old Edict, they wandered off into out-of-the-way places widely apart
from one another, but by our care they are put in the same group, as it is only right
that discussions on almost identical subjects should be put close together. Then an-
other book has been devised by us to follow the two first to deal with interest on
money and with trajectitia pecunia (bottomry loans), also on documents of title, on
witnesses, on proof, and therewith on presumptions, which three separate books are
placed close to the portion dealing with things. After these we have assigned a place
to the rules laid down anywhere as to betrothals, marriages, and dowries, all which
we have set forth within three volumes. On guardianship and curatorship we have
composed two books. This framework, consisting of eight books, we have set down
in the middle of the whole work, and it contains all the most practical and best ex-
pressed rules collected from all quarters. 6. We then come to the fifth article of our
Digest, to which the reader will find consigned whatsoever was said of old times
on the subject of testaments and codicils, both of ordinary persons and soldiers; this
article is called “On Testaments.” Next comes the subject of legacies and fideicom-
missa (testamentary trusts), in books five in number. 6a. And as there is nothing so
closely bound up with anything else as an account of the lex Falcidia with legacies,
or of the Senatusconsultim Trebellianum with fideicommissa, we appropriate two
books to these respective subjects, and thus complete the whole fifth part in nine
books. We have not thought proper to put anything besides the Senatusconsultim
Trebellianum, because, as to the stumbling blocks and obscurities of the Senatus-
consultim Pegasianum, which the very ancients themselves were disgusted with,
and their nice and superfluous distinctions, we desire to be rid of them, and we have
included all the law we lay down on the subject in the Trebellianum. 6b. In all this
we have said nothing about caduca (escheats), lest a head of law which, in the midst
of unprosperous courses and bad times for Rome, grew in importance with public
distress, and drew strength from civil war, should remain in our day when our reign
is strengthened by Divine favour and a flourishing peace and placed above all na-
tions in the matter of the perils of war, and thus a melancholy reminiscence should
be allowed to cast a shadow on a joyful age. 7. Next we have before us the sixth
part of the Digest, in which are placed all kinds of bonorum possessio, whether they
relate to freeborn persons or freedmen, and herein the whole law concerned with
degrees of relationship and with connexion by marriage, also statutable heritage
and succession ab intestato in general and the Senatusconsultim Trebellianum or
Orfitianum, which respectively regulate the succession of children to their mother,
652 | 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

and mothers to their children. We have assigned two books to all the varieties of
bonorum possessio and reduced the whole to a clear and compendious scheme.
7a. After this we take the things laid down by old authors as to operis novi nuntiatio
(notification of novel structure), as to the damnum infectum (apprehended mis-
chief), also for the case of the destruction of buildings or the same being threatened,
also as to the keeping off of rainwater; further we take whatever we find provided
by statute relating to publicani as well as to the making of voluntary gifts both inter
vivos and mortis causa, all which we have put in a single book. 7b. For manumis-
sions and trials as to liberty, these are the subject of another book, (7c) and again
on questions as to property and possession there are many discursive passages put
in a single volume, (7d) while a further book is assigned to the subject of persons
who have suffered judgment or have confessed in jure (in the pleadings), also of
detention of goods and sales thereof (for insolvency), and as to the preventing of
frauds on creditors. 7e. After this, Interdicts are dealt with in the lump, then come
exceptiones (pleas), and there is again a separate book embracing the subject of
lapse of time and obligations and actions; the result being that the above-mentioned
sixth part of the whole volume of the Digest is kept within eight books. 8. The sev-
enth and last division of the Digest is made up of six books, and all the law that is
met with as to stipulations or verbal obligations, as to sureties and mandatores (per-
sons who request an advance to be made to another), also novations, discharges of
debt, formal receipts and prætorian stipulations is set down in two volumes, which
it was impossible so much as to reckon among the number of ancient books. 8a.
After this we have put two terrifying books on the subject of private and extraordi-
nary offences and also of public crimes, in which are described the whole severe
treatment and awful penal measures applied to criminals, mixed with which are the
provisions which have been made as to incorrigible men who endeavour to conceal
themselves and who resist authority also the matter of penalties such as are imposed
on condemned persons or remitted and the subject of their property. 8b. Next we
have devised a separate book on appeals from judgments delivered by way of de-
ciding either civil or criminal cases, 8c. and whatever else we find devised by the
ancients and strictly laid down municipal authorities or with relation to decurions
or to public offices or public works or nundinæ (right of market), or promises or
different kinds of trials or assessments or the meaning of words,—all these are taken
into the fiftieth book, which closes the compilation. 9. The whole of the above has
been completed by the agency of the eminent man and most learned magistrate Tri-
bonianus, ex-quaestor and ex-consul, a man adorned alike with the arts of elo-
quence and of legal science, as well as distinguished in practical life, and one who
has no greater or dearer object than obedience to our commands: other brilliant and
hardworking persons have cooperated, such as Constantinus, that illustrious man,
Count of the Sacred Largesses and Master of the Office of Libels and Sacred inqui-
ries, who has long deserved our esteem from his good repute and distinction;
 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law | 653

also Theophilus, an illustrious man, a magistrate and learned in the law, who wields
admirably the best sway in the law over this brilliant city; Dorotheus, an illustrious
man, of great eloquence and quaestorian rank, whom, when he was engaged deliv-
ering the law to students in the most brilliant city of Berytus, we, moved by his great
reputation and renown, summoned to our presence and made to share in the work
in question; again, Anatolius, an illustrious person, a magistrate, who, like the last,
was invited to this work when acting as an exponent of law at Brytus, a man who
came of an ancient stock, as both his father Leontius and his grandfather Eudoxius
left behind them an excellent report in respect of legal learning; also Cratinus, an
illustrious person, Count of the Sacred Largesses, who was once a most efficient
professor of this revered city. All these were chosen for the above-mentioned work,
together with Stephanus, Mena, Prosdocius, Eutolmius, Timotheus, Leonides, Le-
ontius, Plato, Jacobus, Constantinus, Johannes, most learned men, who are of coun-
sel at the supreme seat of the Præfecture, which is at the head of the eastern prætoria,
but who derive a testimony to their excellence from all quarters and were chosen
by us for the completion of so great a work. Thus, all the above having met together
under the guidance of the eminent Tribonianus, so as to accomplish this great work
in pursuance of our commission, the whole was by Divine favour completed in fifty
books. 10. Herein we had so much respect for ancient authority that we by no means
have suffered them to consign to oblivion the names of those learned in the law;
everyone of the old lawyers who wrote on law has been mentioned in our Digest;
all that we did was to provide that if, in the rules given by them, there appeared to
be anything superfluous or imperfect or of small importance, it should be amplified
or curtailed to the requisite extent and be reduced to the most correct form; and in
many cases of repetition or contradiction what appeared to be better has been set
down instead of any other reading and included under one authority thus given to
the whole, so that whatever has now been written may appear clearly to be ours and
to be composed by our order, none being at liberty to compare the ancient text with
what our authority has introduced, as in fact there have been many very important
transformations made on the ground of practical utility. It goes as far as this, that
where an Imperial enactment is set down in the old books, we have not spared even
this, but resolved to correct it and put it in better form; leaving the very names of
the old authority, but preserving by our emendations whatever the real sense of the
statutes made suitable and necessary. Hence it came to pass that where of old there
was any matter of doubt the question has now become quite safe and undisturbed,
and no room for hesitation is left. 11. We saw however that the burden of all this
mass of knowledge is more than such men are equal to bearing as are insufficiently
educated and are standing in the vestibules of law, though on their way towards the
secrets thereof, and we therefore were of opinion that a further compendious sum-
maryshould be prepared, so that, thereby tinctured and so to speak imbued with the
first elements of the whole subject, they might proceed to the innermost recesses
654 | 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

thereof and take in with eyes undazzled the exquisite beauty of the law. We there-
fore summoned Tribonianus, that eminent man who had been chosen for the direc-
tion of the whole work, also Theophilus and Dorotheus, illustrious persons and
most eloquent professors, and commissioned them to collect one by one the books
composed by old authors in which the first principles were to be found, and there-
upon, whatever they found in them that was useful and most to the purpose and
polished in every point of view and in accordance with the practice of the present
age, all this they were to endeavour to grasp and to put it into four books, so as to
lay the first foundations and principles of education in general, and thus enable
young men, supported thereon, to be ready for weightier and more perfect rules of
law. We instructed them at the same time to bear in mind our own Constitutions as
well, which we have issued with a view to the amendment of the law, and, in com-
posing the Institutes, not to omit to insert the same improvement, so that it should
be clear both where there had been any doubt previously, and what points had been
afterwards established. The whole work, as accomplished by these men, was put
before us and read through; whereupon we received it willingly and judged it to be
not unworthy of our mind, and we ordered that the books should be equivalent to
enactments of our own, as is more plainly declared in our own address which we
have placed at the beginning of the whole. 12. The whole frame of Roman law being
thus set forth and completed in three divisions, viz. one of the Institutes, one of the
Digest or Pandects, and lastly one of the Constitutions, all being concluded in three
years, whereas when the work was first taken in hand it was not expected to be fin-
ished in ten years, we offered this work too with dutiful intent to Almighty God for
the preservation of mankind, and rendered full thanks to the Supreme Deity who
vouchsafed us successful waging of war and the enjoyment of honourable peace
and the giving of the best laws, not only for our own age, but for all time, both pres-
ent and future. Therefore we saw it to be necessary that we should make manifest
the same system of law to all men, to the end that they should recognise the endless
confusion in which the law was, and the judicious and lawful exactitude to which
it had been brought, and that they might in future have laws which were both direct
and compendious within every one’s reach, and of such a nature as to make it easy
to possess the books which contained them. Our object was that people should not
simply be able by spending a whole mass of wealth to procure volumes containing
a superfluous quantity of legal rules, but the means of purchasing at a trifling price
should be offered both to rich and poor, a great deal of learning being procurable
with a very small outlay. 13. Should it chance that here and there, in so great a col-
lection of legal rules, taken as it is from an immense number of books, some cases
of repetition should occur, this no one must be severe upon; it should rather be as-
cribed first of all to human weakness, which is part of our nature, as indeed it be-
longs rather to the Deity than to mortal man to have a memory for all things and to
come short in nothing, as indeed was said of old. It should also be borne in mind
 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law | 655

that there are some rules of exceeding brevity in which repetition may be admitted
to good purpose, and it has been practised in accordance with our deliberate intent,
the fact being that either the rule was so material that it had to be referred to under
different heads of inquiry, because the two subjects were connected together, or
else, where it was involved in other different inquiries, it was impossible to exclude
it from some passages without throwing the whole into confusion. And in these
passages, in which there were well-reasoned arguments set forth by the old writers,
it would be altogether an unlawyerlike proceeding to cut out and get rid of some-
thing that was inserted in one after another, as it would confuse the mind and sound
absurd to the ears of anyone to whom it was presented. 14. In like manner, where
any provision has been made by Imperial enactment, we have by no means allowed
it to be put in the book of the Digest, as the reading of such enactments is all that
is wanted; save where this too is done for the same reasons as those for which rep-
etition is admitted. 15. As for any contradiction occurring in this book, none such
has any claim to a place in it, nor will any be found, if we consider nicely the
grounds of diversity; some special differential feature will be discovered, however
obscure, which does away with the imputation of inconsistency, puts a different
complexion on the matter and keeps it outside the limits of discrepancy. 16. Again
should anything happen to be passed over which, among so many thousand things,
was, so to speak, placed in the depth and lying hid, and being fit to be so [placed],
[still] was covered with darkness and unavoidably was left out, who could with
reason find fault with this, considering in the first place how limited is the mind of
mortal man, and secondly the intrinsic difficulty of the case, where the passage,
being closely bound up with a number of useless ones, gave the reader no opportu-
nity of detaching it from the rest? It may be added too that it is much better that a
few valuable passages should escape notice than that people should be encumbered
with a quantity of useless matter. 17. There is one very remarkable fact which comes
to light in these books, namely, that the old books, plentiful as they were, are found
to be of smaller compass than the more compendious supply now open. The fact is
that the men who carried on actions at law in the old days, in spite of the number
of rules of law that had been laid down, still only made use of a few of them in the
course of the trial, either because of a deficient supply of books, which it was out
of their power to procure, or simply owing to their own ignorance; and cases were
decided according to the good pleasure of the judge rather than by the letter of the
law. In the present compilation, I mean in our Digest, the law is got together from
numerous volumes, the very names of which the men of old could not tell, or rather
had never heard; and the whole has been composed with an ample supply of matter
in such sort that the ancient plenty appears defective while our own compendious
collection is very rich. Of this ancient learning Tribouianus, most excellent man,
has furnished us with a very large supply of books, a number of which were un-
known even to the most erudite men; these were read through, and all the most
656 | 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

valuable passages were extracted and found their way into our own excellent work.
But the authors of this composition did not peruse those books only from which
they took the rules they have set down; they read a great deal more, in which they
found nothing of value or nothing new which they could extract and insert in our
Digest, and which accordingly they very reasonably rejected. 18. Now whatever is
divine is absolutely perfect, but the character of human law is to be constantly hur-
rying on, and no part of it is there which can abide for ever, as nature is ever eager
to produce new forms, so that we fully anticipate that emergencies may hereafter
arise which are not enclosed in the bonds of legal rules. Wherever any such case
arises, let the August remedy be sought, as in truth God set the Imperial dispensa-
tion at the head of human affairs to this end, that it should be in a position, whenever
a novel contingency, arrives to meet the same with amendment and arrangement,
and to put it under apt form and regulations. We are not the first to enunciate this,
it comes of an ancient stock; Julianus himself, that most acute framer of statutes
and of the Perpetual Edict, set down in his own writings that wherever anything
should turn out defective, the want should be supplied by Imperial legislation. In-
deed not only he but the Divine Hadrianus, in the consolidated Edict and the Sena-
tuscormdtum which followed it, laid down in the clearest terms that where anything
was not found to be set down in the Edict, later authority might meet the defect in
accordance with the rules the aims and the analogy thereof. 19. Now therefore, con-
script fathers and all men in the whole world, render fullest thanks to the Supreme
Divinity, who has kept so greatly beneficial a work for your times: in truth, that of
which those of old time were not in the Divine judgment held to be worthy has been
vouchsafed to your age. Worship therefore and keep these laws, and let the ancient
ones sleep; and let none of you so much as compare them with the former ones, nor,
if there be any discrepancy between them, ask any question, seeing that, whatsoever
is set down here, we desire that it alone should be observed. Moreover in every trial
or other contest, where rules of law have to be enforced, let no one seek to quote or
maintain any rule of law save as taken from the above mentioned Institutes or our
Digest or Ordinances such as composed and promulgated by us, unless he wish to
have to meet a charge of forgery as an adulterator, together with the judge who al-
lows such things to be heard, and to suffer most severe penalties. 20. Lest however
it should be unknown to you what those books of old lawyers are from which this
composition is taken, we have ordered that this likewise should be set down at the
beginning of our Digest, so that it may be quite clear who are the authorities and
which are the books written by them, and how many thousands of these there are
on which this temple of Roman jurisprudence has been constructed. 20a. Of legal
authorities or commentators we have chosen those who were worthy of so great a
work as this, and whom older most devoted Emperors did not scorn to admit; we
have given all of them one pinnacle of rank, and none is allowed to claim any pre-
eminence for himself. Indeed, seeing that we have laid down that the present laws
 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law | 657

themselves should be equivalent to enactments issued by us, how should any greater
or less importance be attributed to any amongst them where one rank and one au-
thority is vouchsafed to all? 21. One thing there is which, as it seemed good to us
at the very beginning, when with the Divine sanction we commissioned the execu-
tion of this work, so it seems opportune to us to command now also; this, namely,
that no man of those who either at this day are learned in the law or hereafter shall
be such shall venture to append any commentary to these laws, save so far as this,
that he may translate them into the Greek tongue with the same order and sequence
as those in which the Roman text is written, or, as the Greeks call it, κατά πόδα, or
if he likes, to make any notes for difficulties in the various titles, he may compose
what are commonly called παράτιτλα. Any further interpretations, or rather perver-
sions, of these rules of law we will not allow them to exhibit, for fear lest their long
dissertations cause such confusion as to bring some discredit on our legislation.
This happened in the case of the old commentators on the Edictum perpetuum, for,
although that work was composed in a compendious form, these men, by extending
in this way and that to divers intents, drew it out beyond all bounds so as to bring
almost all Roman law into confusion; and, if we do not put up with them, how can
we ever allow room for the vain disputes of future generations? If any should ven-
ture to do such things, they will themselves be liable to be prosecuted for forgery,
but their books will be altogether set at nought. But if, as before said, anything
should appear doubtful, this must be by the judges referred to the Imperial Majesty,
and the truth be pronounced on the Augustal authority, to which alone it belongs
both to make and to interpret laws. 22. We lay down also the same penalty on the
ground of forgery for those persons who at any future time should venture to write
down our laws by the occult means of ciphers. We desire that everything, the names
of authors as well as the titles and numbers of the books, should be plainly given
in so many letters and not by means of marks, so that anyone who gets for himself
one of these books in which there are marks used in any passage whatever of the
book or volume will have to understand that the codex which he owns is useless; if
anyone has these objectionable marks in any part of a codex such as described, we
decline to allow him to cite any passage therefrom in Court; and a clerk who should
venture to write such marks will not only be punished criminally, as already men-
tioned, but he will also have to give the owner twice the value of the book, if the
owner himself either bought such a book or ordered it to be written without notice.
This provision has already been issued by us both in a Latin enactment and in Greek
and sent to the professors of law. 23. These our laws, which we have set down in
these books, I mean the Institutes or Elements and the Digest or Pandects, we desire
should be in force from and after our third most happy Consulship, on the third day
before the Kalends of January in the present twelfth Indiction, laws which are to
hold good for all time to come, and which, while in force together with our own
ordinances, may display their own cogency in the Courts in all causes, whether they
658 | 21. Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law

arise at some future time or are still pending in the Court, because they have not
been settled by any judgment or terms of arrangement. Any cases that have been
disposed of by judicial decree or set at rest by friendly compromise we do not by
any means wish to have stirred up again. We have done well to make a point of
bringing out this body of law in our third Consulship, as that Consulship is the hap-
piest one which the favour of Almighty God and of our Lord Jesus Christ has given
to our State; in it the Parthian ware were put an end to and consigned to lasting rest,
moreover the third division of the world came under our sway, as, after Europe and
Asia, all Libya too was added to our dominions, and now a final completion is made
of the great work on our law, [so that] all the gifts of Heaven have been poured on
our third Consulship. 24. Now therefore let all our judges in their respective juris-
dictions take up this law, and both within their own provinces and in this royal city
observe and apply it, more especially that distinguished man the Prefect of this re-
vered city. It will be the duty of the three distinguished Pretorian Prefects, the Ori-
ental, the Illyrian, and the Libyan, to make the same known by the exercise of their
authority to all those who are subject to their jurisdiction.
Given on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of January in the third Consul-
ship of our Lord Justinianus.

III On Statutes, Decrees of the Senate, and Long Usage

1. Papinianus (Definitions 1) A statute (lex) is a command of general application,
a resolution on the part of learned men, a restraint of offences, committed either
voluntarily or in ignorance, a general covenant on the part of the state.
2. Marcianus (Institutes 1) The orator Demosthenes himself gives this definition:
‘A law (νόμος) is the following:—something which all men ought to obey for
many reasons, and chiefly because every law is devised and given by God, but
resolved on by intelligent men, a means of correcting offences both intentional
and unintentional, a general agreement on the part of the community by which
all those living therein ought to order their lives. We may add that Chrysippus
the philosopher, a man who professed the highest wisdom of the Stoics, begins
his book called περί νόμος (on law) as follows:—“Law is the king of all things,
both divine and human, it ought to be the controller, ruler and commander of
both the good and the bad, and thus to be a standard as to things just and unjust
and” [director of] “beings political by nature, enjoining what ought to be done
and forbidding what ought not to be done.”
3. Pomponius (on Sabinus 25) Laws ought to be laid down, as Theophrastus said,
in respect of things which happen for the most part, not which happen against
reasonable expectation.
 22. Charlemagne and a Painted Mouse Humble a Proud Bishop | 659

4. Celsus (Digest 5) Rules of law are not founded on possibilities which may
chance to come to pass on some one occasion,
5. The same (Digest 17) since law ought to be framed to meet cases which occur
frequently and easily, rather than such as very seldom happen.
6. Paulus (on Plautius 17) What occurs once or twice, as Theophrastus says, law-
givers pass by.
7. Modestinus (Rules 1) The use of a statute is as follows: to command, to pro-
hibit, to permit, to punish.
8. Ulpianus (on Sabinus 3) Rules of law are not laid down with respect to particu-
lar individuals, but for general application.
9. The same (on the Edict 16) Nobody questions that the senate can make law.
10. Julianus (Digest 59) Neither statutes nor decrees of the senate can possibly be
drawn in such terms as to comprehend every case which will ever arise; it is
enough if they embrace such as occur very often.

Source: “On the Confirmation of the Digest” and “On Statues, Decrees of the Senate, and
Long Uses.” Digest of [Link] by Charles Henry Monro. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1904, pp. xxv–xxvi, 19–23.

22. Charlemagne and a Painted Mouse Humble a

Proud Bishop

Writing in the 880s for the Carolingian ruler Charles the Fat, Notker the Stammerer
compiled the Gesta Karoli (Deeds of Charlemagne), a life of Charlemagne that was
intended to provide a model of Christian kingship for the great ruler’s descendants.
Based on tales Notker heard from one of Charlemagne’s warriors, the Gesta is often
anecdotal, with each episode providing a clear moral concerning proper kingship. As the
following passage demonstrates, a true Christian ruler was zealous to humble the proud
and ensure that his bishops upheld high moral standards.

16. As we have shown how the most wise Charles exalted the humble, let us now
show how he brought low the proud. There was a bishop who sought [81] above
measure vanities and the fame of men. The most cunning Charles heard of this
and told a certain Jewish merchant, whose custom it was to go to the land of
promise and bring from thence rare and wonderful things to the countries be-
yond the sea, to deceive or cheat this bishop in whatever way he could. So the
660 | 23. Paul the Deacon Explains the Name of the Lombard People

Jew caught an ordinary household mouse and stuffed it with various spices,
and then offered it for sale to the bishop, saying that he had brought this most
precious never-before-seen animal from Judea. The bishop was delighted with
what he thought a stroke of luck, and offered the Jew three pounds of silver
for the precious ware. Then said the Jew, “A fine price indeed for so precious
an article! I had rather throw it into the sea than let any man have it at so cheap
and shameful a price.” So the bishop, who had much wealth and never gave
anything to the poor, offered him ten pounds of silver for the incomparable trea-
sure. But the cunning rascal, with pretended indignation, replied: “The God of
Abraham forbid that I should thus lose the fruit of my labor and journeyings.”
Then our avaricious bishop, all eager for the prize, offered twenty pounds. But
the Jew in high dudgeon wrapped up the mouse in the most costly silk and
made as if he would depart. Then the bishop, as thoroughly taken in as he de-
served [82] to be, offered a full measure of silver for the priceless object. And
so at last our trader yielded to his entreaties with much show of reluctance: and,
taking the money, went to the emperor and told him everything. A few days
later the king called together all the bishops and chief men of the province to
hold discourse with him; and, after many other matters had been considered,
he ordered all that measure of silver to be brought and placed in the middle of
the palace. Then thus he spoke and said:—“Fathers and guardians, bishops of
our Church, you ought to minister to the poor, or rather to Christ in them, and
not to seek after vanities. But now you act quite contrary to this; and are vain-
glorious and avaricious beyond all other men.” Then he added: “One of you
has given a Jew all this silver for a painted mouse.” Then the bishop, who had
been so wickedly deceived, threw himself at Charles’s feet and begged pardon
for his sin. Charles upbraided him in suitable words and then allowed him to
depart in confusion.

Source: A.J. Grant, ed. and trans. Early Lives of Charlemagne by Eginhard and the Monk of
St. Gall. London: Chatto & Windus, 1926, pp. 80–82.

23. Paul the Deacon Explains the Name of the

Lombard People

One of the most popular histories of the early Middle Ages, The History of the
Lombards by Paul the Deacon provides a narrative of the history of the Lombards, or
Langobards, from their origins to the mid-eighth century. In the following passage, Paul
explains the origins of the name of the Lombard people.
 24. The Lombards Invade Italy on the Invitation of Narses | 661

It is certain, however, that the Langobards were afterwards so called on account

of the length of their beards untouched by the knife, whereas at first they had been
called Winnili; for according to their language “lang” means “long” and “bart”
“beard.” Wotan indeed, whom by adding a letter they called Godan is he who among
the Romans is called Mercury, and he is worshipped by all the peoples of Germany
as a god, though he is deemed to have existed, not about these times, but long be-
fore, and not in Germany, but in Greece.

Source: “History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon.” Trans. William Dudley Foulke. In
Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1907, Book I, Chapter IX, pp. 17–19.

24. The Lombards Invade Italy on the Invitation of Narses

One of the most important moments in the history of the Lombards, or Langobards as
they are called below, was their entry into Italy, where they would settle and establish
a kingdom that would last until 774. According to Paul the Deacon in his History of the
Lombards, the Lombards were invited into Italy by the Byzantine commander Narses
to avenge himself against insults he suffered from the people of Italy and the Byzantine
rulers. Although unlikely to have happened this way, this explanation of the arrival of the
Lombards was commonly held until modern times.

Now the whole nation of the Goths having been destroyed or overthrown, as
has been said, and those also of whom we have spoken having been in like man-
ner conquered, Narses, after he had acquired much gold and silver and riches of
other kinds, incurred the great envy of the Romans although he had labored much
for them against their enemies, and they made insinuations against him to the em-
peror Justin and his wife Sophia, in these words, saying, “It would be advantageous
for the Romans to serve the Goths rather than the Greeks wherever the eunuch
Narses rules and oppresses us with bondage, and of these things our most devout
emperor is ignorant: Either free us from his hand or surely we will betray the city of
Rome and ourselves to the heathens.” When Narses heard this he answered briefly
these words: “If I have acted badly with the Romans it will go hard with me.” Then
the emperor was so greatly moved with anger against Narses that he straightway
sent the prefect Longinus into Italy to take Narses’ place. But Narses, when he knew
these things, feared greatly, and so much was he alarmed, especially by the same
empress Sophia, that he did not dare to return again to Constantinople. Among other
things, because he was a eunuch, she is said to have sent him this message, that she
would make him portion out to the girls in the women’s chamber the daily tasks
662 | 25. Priscus’s Description of Attila the Hun and His Court

of wool. To these words Narses is said to have given this answer, that he would begin
to weave her such a web as she could not lay down as long as she lived.
Therefore, greatly racked by hate and fear, he withdrew to Neapolis (Naples), a
city of Campania, and soon sent messengers to the nation of the Langobards, urging
them to abandon the barren fields of Pannonia and come and take possession of Italy,
teeming with every sort of riches. At the same time he sends many kinds of fruits and
samples of which Italy was well supplied. The Langobards receive joyfully the glad
tidings which they themselves had also been desiring, and they form high expecta-
tions of future advantages. In Italy terrible signs were continually seen at night, that is,
fiery swords appeared in heaven gleaming with that blood which was afterwards shed.

Source: “History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon.” Trans. William Dudley Foulke. In
Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1907, Book II, Chapter V, pp. 58–61.

25. Priscus’s Description of Attila the Hun and His Court

In an influential but now mostly lost work, the historian and diplomat Priscus left a
detailed account of the events of his time, including the invasion of the empire by the
Huns. An ambassador to the court of Attila in 448, Priscus provides an eyewitness
account of the great warrior and his palace and court ritual.

Attila’s residence, which was situated here, was said to be more splendid than his
houses in other places. It was made of polished boards, and surrounded with wooden
enclosures, designed not so much for protection as for appearance sake. The house of
the chieftain Onegesius was second only to the king’s in splendor and was also encir-
cled with a wooden enclosure, but it was not adorned with towers like that of the king.
Not far from the inclosure was a large bath built by Onegesius, who was the second in
power among the Scythians. The stones for this bath had been brought from Pannonia,
for the barbarians in this district had no stones or trees, but used imported material. . . .
The next day I entered the enclosure of Attila’s palace, bearing gifts to his wife,
whose name was Kreka. She had three sons, of whom the eldest governed the Acatiri
and the other nations who dwell in Pontic Scythia. Within the inclosures were nu-
merous buildings, some of carved boards beautifully fitted together, others of straight
planed beams, without carving, fastened on round wooden blocks which rose to a
moderate height from the ground. Attila’s wife lived here; and, having been admit-
ted by the barbarians at the door, I found her reclining on a soft couch. The floor of
the room was covered with woolen mats for walking on. A number of servants stood
round her, and maids sitting on the floor in front of her embroidered with colors linen
 25. Priscus’s Description of Attila the Hun and His Court | 663

cloths intended to be placed over the Scythian dress for ornament. Having approached,
saluted her, and presented the gifts, I went out and walked to the other houses, where
Attila was, and waited for Onegesius, who, as I knew, was with Attila. . . .
I saw a number of people advancing, and a great commotion and noise, Attila’s
egress being expected. And he came forth from the house with a dignified strut,
looking round on this side and on that. He was accompanied by Onegesius, and
stood in front of the house; and many persons who had lawsuits with one another
came up and received his judgment. Then he returned into the house and received
ambassadors of barbarous peoples. . . .
[We were invited to a banquet with Attila at three o’clock] When the hour
arrived we went to the palace, along with the embassy from the western Romans, and
stood on the threshold of the hall in the presence of Attila.
The cupbearers gave us a cup, according to the national custom, that we might
pray before we sat down. Having tasted the cup, we proceeded to take our seats, all
the chairs being ranged along the walls of the room on either side. Attila sat in the
middle on a couch ; a second couch was set behind him, and from it steps led up to
his bed, which was covered with linen sheets and wrought coverlets for ornament,
such as Greeks and Romans used to deck bridal beds. The places on the right of At-
tila were held chief in honor—those on the left, where we sat, were only second. . . .
[First the king and his guests pledged one another with the wine.] When this cer-
emony was over the cupbearers retired, and tables, large enough for three or four,
or even more, to sit at, were placed next the table of Attila, so that each could take
of the food on the dishes without leaving his seat. The attendant of Attila first en-
tered with a dish of meat, and behind him came the other attendants with bread and
viands, which they laid on the tables. A luxurious meal, served on silver plate, had
been made ready for us and the barbarian guests, but Attila ate nothing but meat on
a wooden trencher. In everything else, too, he showed himself temperate—his cup
was of wood, while to the guests were given goblets of gold and silver. His dress,
too, was quite simple, affecting only to be clean. The sword he carried at his side,
the ratchets of his Scythian shoes, the bridle of his horse were not adorned, like
those of the other Scythians, with gold or gems or anything costly.
When the viands of the first course had been consumed, we all stood up, and did
not resume our seats until each one, in the order before observed, drank to the health
of Attila in the goblet of wine presented to him. We then sat down, and a second
dish was placed on each table with eatables of another kind. After this course the
same ceremony was observed as after the first. When evening fell torches were lit,
and two barbarians coming forward in front of Attila sang songs they had composed,
celebrating his victories and deeds of valor in war.

Source: From the account left by Priscus, translated in J.H. Robinson. Readings in European
History. Boston: Ginn, 1905, pp. 46–49.
664 | 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian

26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian and the

Character of the Empress Theodora

One of the most important sources of information for the reign of Justinian and
Theodora, Procopius (c. 490/507–560), a servant of the emperor, wrote several histories
of Justinian and his wars and building projects. His most famous, or perhaps infamous,
work is the Secret History, which was written c. 550 but not published until after its
author’s death. The work contains a vicious and hateful portrait of the emperor and his
wife and includes extremely harsh criticism of the two that Procopius feared to include
in his official histories. The following excerpts describe the abuses of power by Justinian
and, possibly the most notorious passages from the work, the life and rise to power of
Theodora.

7. Outrages of the Blues

The people had since long previous time been divided, as I have explained else-
where, into two factions, the Blues and the Greens. Justinian, by joining the for-
mer party, which had already shown favor to him, was able to bring everything into
confusion and turmoil, and by its power to sink the Roman state to its knees before
him. Not all the Blues were willing to follow his leadership, but there were plenty
who were eager for civil war. Yet even these, as the trouble spread, seemed the most
prudent of men, for their crimes were less awful than was in their power to commit.
Nor did the Green partisans remain quiet, but showed their resentment as violently
as they could, though one by one they were continually punished; which, indeed,
urged them each time to further recklessness. For men who are wronged are likely
to become desperate.
Then it was that Justinian, fanning the flame and openly inciting the Blues to fight,
made the whole Roman Empire shake on its foundation, as if an earthquake or a
cataclysm had stricken it, or every city within its confines had been taken by the foe.
Everything everywhere was uprooted: nothing was left undisturbed by him. Law and
order, throughout the State, overwhelmed by distraction, were turned upside down.
First the rebels revolutionized the style of wearing their hair. For they had it
cut differently from the rest of the Romans: not molesting the mustache or beard,
which they allowed to keep on growing as long as it would, as the Persians do, but
clipping the hair short on the front of the head down to the temples, and letting it
hang down in great length and disorder in the back, as the Massageti do. This weird
combination they called the Hun haircut.
Next they decided to wear the purple stripe on their togas, and swaggered about
in a dress indicating a rank above their station: for it was only by ill-gotten money
they were able to buy this finery. And the sleeves of their tunics were cut tight about
the wrists, while from there to the shoulders they were of an ineffable fullness; thus,
 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian | 665

whenever they moved their hands, as when applauding at the theater or encouraging
a driver in the hippodrome, these immense sleeves fluttered conspicuously, display-
ing to the simple public what beautiful and well-developed physiques were these
that required such large garments to cover them. They did not consider that by the
exaggeration of this dress the meagerness of their stunted bodies appeared all the
more noticeable. Their cloaks, trousers, and boots were also different: and these too
were called the Hun style, which they imitated.
Almost all of them carried steel openly from the first, while by day they con-
cealed their two-edged daggers along the thigh under their cloaks. Collecting in
gangs as soon as dusk fell, they robbed their betters in the open Forum and in the
narrow alleys, snatching from passersby their mantles, belts, gold brooches, and
whatever they had in their hands. Some they killed after robbing them, so they could
not inform anyone of the assault.
These outrages brought the enmity of everybody on them, especially that of the
Blue partisans who had not taken active part in the discord. When even the latter
were molested, they began to wear brass belts and brooches and cheaper cloaks
than most of them were privileged to display, lest their elegance should lead to
their deaths; and even before the sun went down they went home to hide. But the
evil progressed; and as no punishment came to the criminals from those in charge
of the public peace, their boldness increased more and more. For when crime finds
itself licensed, there are no limits to its abuses; since even when it is punished, it
is never quite suppressed, most men being by nature easily turned to error. Such,
then, was the conduct of the Blues.
Some of the opposite party joined this faction so as to get even with the people
of their original side who had ill-treated them; others fled in secret to other lands,
but many were captured before they could get away, and perished either at the
hands of their foes or by sentence of the State. And many other young men offered
themselves to this society who had never before taken any interest in the quarrel,
but were now induced by the power and possibility of insolence they could thus
acquire. For there is no villainy to which men give a name that was not committed
during this time, and remained unpunished.
Now at first they killed only their opponents. But as matters progressed, they
also murdered men who had done nothing against them. And there were many who
bribed them with money, pointing out personal enemies, whom the Blues straight-
way dispatched, declaring these victims were Greens, when as a matter of fact they
were utter strangers. And all this went on not any longer at dark and by stealth, but
in every hour of the day, everywhere in the city: before the eyes of the most notable
men of the government, if they happened to be bystanders. For they did not need to
conceal their crimes, having no fear of punishment, but considered it rather to the
advantage of their reputation, as proving their strength and manhood, to kill with
one stroke of the dagger any unarmed man who happened to be passing by.
666 | 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian

No one could hope to live very long under this state of affairs, for everybody
suspected he would be the next to be killed. No place was safe, no time of day of-
fered any pledge of security, since these murders went on in the holiest of sanctuar-
ies even during divine services. No confidence was left in one’s friends or relatives,
for many died by conspiracy of members of their own households. Nor was there
any investigation after these deeds, but the blow would fall unexpectedly, and none
avenged the victim. No longer was there left any force in law or contract, because,
of this disorder, but everything was settled by violence. The State might as well
have been a tyranny: not one, however, that had been established, but one that was
being overturned daily and ever recommencing.
The magistrates seemed to have been driven from their senses, and their wits en-
slaved by the fear of one man. The judges, when deciding cases that came up before
them, cast their votes not according to what they thought right or lawful, but accord-
ing as either of the disputants was an enemy or friend of the faction in power. For
a judge who disregarded its instruction was sentencing himself to death. And many
creditors were forced to receipt the bills they had sent to their debtors without being
paid what was due them; and many thus against their will had to free their slaves.
And they say that certain ladies were forced by their own slaves to do what they did
not want to do; and the sons of notable men, getting mixed up with these young bandits,
compelled their fathers, among other acts against their will, to hand over their proper-
ties to them. Many boys were constrained, with their fathers’ knowledge, to serve the
unnatural desires of the Blues; and happily married women met the same misfortune.
It is told that a woman of no undue beauty was ferrying with her husband to the
suburb opposite the mainland; when some men of this party met them on the water,
and jumping into her boat, dragged her abusively from her husband and made her
enter their vessel. She had whispered to her spouse to trust her and have no fear of
any reproach, for she would not allow herself to be dishonored. Then, as he looked
at her in great grief, she threw her body into the Bosphorus and forthwith vanished
from the world of men. Such were the deeds this party dared to commit at that time
in Constantinople.
Yet all of this disturbed people less than Justinian’s offenses against the State.
For those who suffer the most grievously from evildoers are relieved of the greater
part of their anguish by the expectation they will sometime be avenged by law and
authority. Men who are confident of the future can bear more easily and less pain-
fully their present troubles; but when they are outraged even by the government
what befalls them is naturally all the more grievous, and by the failing of all hope
of redress they are turned to utter despair. And Justinian’s crime was that he was not
only unwilling to protect the injured, but saw no reason why he should not be the
open head of the guilty faction; he gave great sums of money to these young men,
and surrounded himself with them: and some he even went so far as to appoint to
high office and other posts of honor.
 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian | 667

9. How Theodora, Most Depraved of all Courtesans,

Won His Love
He took a wife: and in what manner she was born and bred, and, wedded to this
man, tore up the Roman Empire by the very roots, I shall now relate.
Acacius was the keeper of wild beasts used in the amphitheater in Constantinople;
he belonged to the Green faction and was nicknamed the Bearkeeper. This man, dur-
ing the rule of Anastasius, fell sick and died, leaving three daughters named Comito,
Theodora and Anastasia: of whom the eldest was not yet seven years old. His widow
took a second husband, who with her undertook to keep up Acacius’s family and pro-
fession. But Asterius, the dancing master of the Greens, on being bribed by another
removed this office from them and assigned it to the man who gave him the money.
For the dancing masters had the power of distributing such positions as they wished.
When this woman saw the populace assembled in the amphitheater, she placed
laurel wreaths on her daughters’ heads and in their hands, and sent them out to sit
on the ground in the attitude of suppliants. The Greens eyed this mute appeal with
indifference; but the Blues were moved to bestow on the children an equal office,
since their own animal-keeper had just died.
When these children reached the age of girlhood, their mother put them on the
local stage, for they were fair to look upon; she sent them forth, however, not all at
the same time, but as each one seemed to her to have reached a suitable age. Co-
mito, indeed, had already become one of the leading hetaerae [high class prosti-
tutes] of the day.
Theodora, the second sister, dressed in a little tunic with sleeves, like a slave girl,
waited on Comito and used to follow her about carrying on her shoulders the bench
on which her favored sister was wont to sit at public gatherings. Now Theodora was
still too young to know the normal relation of man with maid, but consented to the
unnatural violence of villainous slaves who, following their masters to the theater,
employed their leisure in this infamous manner. And for some time in a brothel she
suffered such misuse.
But as soon as she arrived at the age of youth, and was now ready for the world,
her mother put her on the stage. Forthwith, she became a courtesan, and such as
the ancient Greeks used to call a common one, at that: for she was not a flute or
harp player, nor was she even trained to dance, but only gave her youth to anyone
she met, in utter abandonment. Her general favors included, of course, the actors
in the theater; and in their productions she took part in the low comedy scenes. For
she was very funny and a good mimic, and immediately became popular in this art.
There was no shame in the girl, and no one ever saw her dismayed: no role was too
scandalous for her to, accept without a blush.
She was the kind of comedienne who delights the audience by letting herself be
cuffed and slapped on the cheeks, and makes them guffaw by raising her skirts to
668 | 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian

reveal to the spectators those feminine secrets here and there which custom veils
from the eyes of the opposite sex. With pretended laziness she mocked her lovers,
and coquettishly adopting ever new ways of embracing, was able to keep in a con-
stant turmoil the hearts of the sophisticated. And she did not wait to be asked by
anyone she met, but on the contrary, with inviting jests and a comic flaunting of her
skirts herself tempted all men who passed by, especially those who were adolescent.
On the field of pleasure she was never defeated. Often she would go picnick-
ing with ten young men or more, in the flower of their strength and virility, and
dallied with them all, the whole night through. When they wearied of the sport,
she would approach their servants, perhaps thirty in number, and fight a duel with
each of these; and even thus found no allayment of her craving. Once, visiting the
house of an illustrious gentleman, they say she mounted the projecting corner of
her dining couch, pulled up the front of her dress, without a blush, and thus care-
lessly showed her wantonness. And though she flung wide three gates to the ambas-
sadors of Cupid, she lamented that nature had not similarly unlocked the straits of
her bosom, that she might there have contrived a further welcome to his emissaries.
Frequently, she conceived but as she employed every artifice immediately, a mis-
carriage was straightway effected. Often, even in the theater, in the sight of all the
people, she removed her costume and stood nude in their midst, except for a girdle
about the groin: not that she was abashed at revealing that, too, to the audience, but
because there was a law against appearing altogether naked on the stage, without
at least this much of a fig-leaf. Covered thus with a ribbon, she would sink down
to the stage floor and recline on her back. Slaves to whom the duty was entrusted
would then scatter grains of barley from above into the calyx of this passion flower,
whence geese, trained for the purpose, would next pick the grains one by one with
their bills and eat. When she rose, it was not with a blush, but she seemed rather to
glory in the performance. For she was not only impudent herself, but endeavored
to make everybody else as audacious. Often when she was alone with other actors
she would undress in their midst and arch her back provocatively, advertising like
a peacock both to those who had experience of her and to those who had not yet
had that privilege her trained suppleness.
So perverse was her wantonness that she should have hid not only the customary
part of her person, as other women do, but her face as well. Thus those who were
intimate with her were straightway recognized from that very fact to be perverts,
and any more respectable man who chanced upon her in the Forum avoided her
and withdrew in haste, lest the hem of his mantle, touching such a creature, might
be thought to share in her pollution. For to those who saw her, especially at dawn,
she was a bird of ill omen. And toward her fellow actresses she was as savage as a
scorpion: for she was very malicious.
Later, she followed Hecebolus, a Tyrian who had been made governor of Pen-
tapolis, serving him in the basest of ways; but finally she quarreled with him and
 26. Procopius Describes the Excesses of Justinian | 669

was sent summarily away. Consequently, she found herself destitute of the means
of life, which she proceeded to earn by prostitution, as she had done before this ad-
venture. She came thus to Alexandria, and then traversing all the East, worked her
way to Constantinople; in every city plying a trade (which it is safer, I fancy, in the
sight of God not to name too clearly) as if the Devil were determined there be no
land on earth that should not know the sins of Theodora.
Thus was this woman born and bred, and her name was a byword beyond that of
other common wenches on the tongues of all men.
But when she came back to Constantinople, Justinian fell violently in love with
her. At first he kept her only as a mistress, though he raised her to patrician rank.
Through him Theodora was able immediately to acquire an unholy power and ex-
ceedingly great riches. She seemed to him the sweetest thing in the world, and like
all lovers, he desired to please his charmer with every possible favor and requite
her with all his wealth. The extravagance added fuel to the flames of passion. With
her now to help spend his money he plundered the people more than ever, not only
in the capital, but throughout the Roman Empire. As both of them had for a long
time been of the Blue party, they gave this faction almost complete control of the
affairs of state. It was long afterward that the worst of this evil was checked in the
following manner.
Justinian had been ill for several days, and during this illness was in such peril
of his life that it was even said he had died; and the Blues, who had been commit-
ting such crimes as I have mentioned, went so far as to kill Hypatius, a gentleman
of no mean importance, in broad daylight in the Church of St. Sophia. The cry of
horror at this crime came to the Emperor’s ears, and everyone about him seized
the opportunity of pointing out the enormity of what was going on in Justinian’s
absence from public affairs; and they enumerated from the beginning how many
crimes had been committed. The Emperor then ordered the Prefect of the city to
punish these offenses. This man was one Theodotus, nicknamed the Pumpkin. He
made a thorough investigation and was able to apprehend many of the guilty and
sentence them to death, though many others were not found out, and escaped. They
were destined to perish later, together with the Roman Empire.
Justinian, unexpectedly restored to health, straightway undertook to put Theodo-
tus to death as a poisoner and a magician. But since he had no proof on which to
condemn the man, he tortured friends of his until they were compelled to say the
words that would wrongfully ruin him. When everyone else stood to one side and
only in silence lamented the plot against Theodotus, one man, Proclus the Quaestor,
dared to say openly that the man was innocent of the charge against him, and in no
way merited death. Thanks to him, Theodotus was permitted by the Emperor to be
exiled to Jerusalem. But learning there that men were being sent to do away with
him, he hid himself in the church for the rest of his life until he died. And this was
the fate of Theodotus.
670 | 27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian

But after this, the Blues became the most prudent of men. For they ventured no
longer to continue their offenses, even though they might have transgressed more
fearlessly than before. And the proof of this is, that when a few of them later showed
such courage, no punishment at all befell them. For those who had the power to
punish, always gave these gangsters time to escape, tacitly encouraging the rest to
trample upon the laws.

Source: Procopius: Secret History, trans. by Richard Atwater. Chicago: P. Covici, 1927; New
York: Covici Friede, 1927. [Reprinted, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1961,
with indication that copyright had expired on the text of the translation].

27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian

The Nika Revolt in 532 was one of the great turning points in the reign of Justinian.
The revolt was a massive rebellion against the emperor that nearly drove him into exile
and threatened his very life. Evolving out of the common violence that often occurred
in Constantinople between the factions that supported rival competitors in the arena,
the revolt quickly turned against Justinian and led to the election of a new emperor.
In his History of the Wars, Procopius, an eyewitness to the events, describes the chaos
and destruction of the revolt as well as its bloody suppression. He also provides a very
different picture of Theodora than he did in his Secret History. Here, Theodora inspires
her husband to fight back.

XXIV
[Jan. 1, 532] At this same time an insurrection broke out unexpectedly in Byzantium
among the populace, and, contrary to expectation, it proved to be a very serious
affair, and ended in great harm to the people and to the senate, as the following ac-
count will show. In every city the population has been divided for a long time past
into the Blue and the Green factions; but within comparatively recent times it has
come about that, for the sake of these names and the seats which the rival factions
occupy in watching the games, they spend their money and abandon their bodies
to the most cruel tortures, and even do not think it unworthy to die a most shameful
death. And they fight against their opponents knowing not for what end they imperil
themselves, but knowing well that, even if they overcome their enemy in the fight,
the conclusion of the matter for them will be to be carried off straightway to the
prison, and finally, after suffering extreme torture, to be destroyed. So there grows
up in them against their fellow men a hostility which has no cause, and at no time
does it cease or disappear, for it gives place neither to the ties of marriage nor of
 27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian | 671

relationship nor of friendship, and the case is the same even though those who differ
with respect to these colors be brothers or any other kin. They care neither for things
divine nor human in comparison with conquering in these struggles; and it matter
not whether a sacrilege is committed by anyone at all against God, or whether the
laws and the constitution are violated by friend or by foe; nay even when they are
perhaps ill supplied with the necessities of life, and when their fatherland is in the
most pressing need and suffering unjustly, they pay no heed if only it is likely to go
well with their “faction”; for so they name the bands of partisans. And even women
join with them in this unholy strife, and they not only follow the men, but even re-
sist them if opportunity offers, although they neither go to the public exhibitions at
all, nor are they impelled by any other cause; so that I, for my part, am unable to
call this anything except a disease of the soul. This, then, is pretty well how matters
stand among the people of each and every city.
But at this time the officers of the city administration in Byzantium were leading
away to death some of the rioters. But the members of the two factions, conspir-
ing together and declaring a truce with each other, seized the prisoners and then
straightway entered the prison and released all those who were in confinement
there, whether they had been condemned on a charge of stirring up sedition, or
for any other unlawful act. And all the attendants in the service of the city govern-
ment were killed indiscriminately; meanwhile, all of the citizens who were sane-
minded were fleeing to the opposite mainland, and fire was applied to the city as
if it had fallen under the hand of an enemy. The sanctuary of Sophia and the baths
of Zeuxippus, and the portion of the imperial residence from the propylaea as far
as the so-called House of Ares were destroyed by fire, and besides these both the
great colonnades which extended as far as the market place which bears the name
of Constantine, in addition to many houses of wealthy men and a vast amount of
treasure. During this time the emperor and his consort with a few members of the
senate shut themselves up in the palace and remained quietly there. Now the watch-
word which the populace passed around to one another was Nika and the insurrec-
tion has been called by this name up to the present time.
The praetorian prefect at that time was John the Cappadocian, and Tribunianus,
a Pamphylian by birth, was counselor to the emperor; this person the Romans call
“quaestor.” One of these two men, John, was entirely without the advantages of a
liberal education; for he learned nothing while attending the elementary school ex-
cept his letters, and these, too, poorly enough; but by his natural ability he became
the most powerful man of whom we know. For he was most capable in deciding
upon what was needful and in finding a solution for difficulties But he became the
basest of all men and employed his natural power to further his low designs; nei-
ther consideration for God nor any shame before man entered into his mind, but to
destroy the lives of many men for the sake of gain and to wreck whole cities was
his constant concern. So within a short time indeed he had acquired vast sums of
672 | 27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian

money, and he flung himself completely into the sordid life of a drunken scoundrel;
for up to the time of lunch each day he would plunder the property of his subjects,
and for the rest of the day occupy himself with drinking and with wanton deeds of
lust. And he was utterly unable to control himself, for he ate food until he vomited,
and he was always ready to steal money and more ready to bring it out and spend it.
Such a man then was John. Tribunianus, on the other hand, both possessed natural
ability and in educational attainments was inferior to none of his contemporaries;
but he was extraordinarily fond of the pursuit of money and always ready to sell jus-
tice for gain; therefore every day, as a rule, he was repealing some laws and propos-
ing others, selling off to those who requested it either favour according to their need.
Now as long as the people were waging this war with each other in behalf of the
names of the colours, no attention was paid to the offences of these men against
the constitution; but when the factions came to a mutual understanding, as has been
said, and so began the sedition, then openly throughout the whole city they began
to abuse the two and went about seeking them to kill. Accordingly the emperor,
wishing to win the people to his side, instantly dismissed both these men from of-
fice. And Phocas, a patrician, he appointed praetorian prefect, a man of the greatest
discretion and fitted by nature to be a guardian of justice; Basilides he commanded
to fill the office of quaestor, a man known among the patricians for his agreeable
qualities and a notable besides.
However, the insurrection continued no less violently under them. Now on the
fifth day of the insurrection in the late afternoon the Emperor Justinian gave orders
to Hypatius and Pompeius, nephews of the late emperor, Anastasius, to go home as
quickly as possible, either because he suspected that some plot was being matured
by them against his own person, or, it may be, because destiny brought them to this.
But they feared that the people would force them to the throne (as in fact fell out),
and they said that they would be doing wrong if they should abandon their sover-
eign when he found himself in such danger. When the Emperor Justinian heard this,
he inclined still more to his suspicion, and he bade them quit the palace instantly.
Thus, then, these two men betook themselves to their homes, and, as long as it was
night, they remained there quietly.
But on the following day at sunrise it became known to the people that both men
had quit the palace where they had been staying. So the whole population ran to
them, and they declared Hypatius emperor and prepared to lead him to the market-
place to assume the power. But the wife of Hypatius, Mary, a discreet woman, who
had the greatest reputation for prudence, laid hold of her husband and would not let
go, but cried out with loud lamentation and with entreaties to all her kinsmen that
the people were leading him on the road to death. But since the throng overpowered
her, she unwillingly released her husband, and he by no will of his own came to the
Forum of Constantine, where they summoned him to the throne; then since they
had neither diadem nor anything else with which it is customary for a king to be
 27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian | 673

clothed, they placed a golden necklace upon his head and proclaimed him Emperor
of the Romans. By this time the members of the senate were assembling,—as many
of them as had not been left in the emperor’s residence,—and many expressed the
opinion that they should go to the palace to fight. But Origenes, a man of the sen-
ate, came forward and spoke as follows: “Fellow Romans, it is impossible that the
situation which is upon us be solved in any way except by war. Now war and royal
power are agreed to be the greatest of all things in the world. But when action in-
volves great issues, it refuses to be brought to a successful conclusion by the brief
crisis of a moment, but this is accomplished only by wisdom of thought and energy
of action, which men display for a length of time. Therefore if we should go out
against the enemy, our cause will hang in the balance, and we shall be taking a risk
which will decided everything in a brief space of time; and, as regards the conse-
quences of such action, we shall either fall down and worship Fortune or reproach
her altogether. For those things whose issue is most quickly decided, fall, as a rule,
under the sway of fortune. But if we handle the present situation more deliberately,
not even if we wish shall we be able to take Justinian in the palace, but he will very
speedily be thankful if he is allowed to flee; for authority which is ignored always
loses its power, since its strength ebbs away with each day. Moreover we have other
palaces, both Placillianae and the palace named from Helen, which this emperor
should make his headquarters and from there he should carry on the war and attend
to the ordering of all other matters in the best possibly way.” So spoke Origenes.
But the rest, as a crowd is accustomed to do, insisted more excitedly and though
that the present moment was opportune, and not least of all Hypatius (for it was
fated that evil should befall him) bade them lead the way to the hippodrome. But
some say that he came there purposely, being well-disposed toward the emperor.
Now the emperor and his court were deliberating as to whether it would be better
for them if they remained or if they took to flight in the ships. And many opinions
were expressed favouring either course. And the Empress Theodora also spoke to
the following effect: “As to the belief that a woman out not to be daring among men
or to assert herself boldly among those who are holding back from fear, I consider
that he present crisis most certainly does not permit us to discuss whether the mat-
ter should be regarded in this or in some other way. For in the case of those whose
interests have come into the greatest danger nothing else seems best except to settle
the issue immediately before them in the best possible way. My opinion then is that
the present time, above all others, is inorpportune for flight, even though it bring
safety. For while it is impossible for a man who has seen the light not also to die,
for one who has been an emperor it is unendurable to be a fugitive. May I never be
separated from this purple, and may I not live that day on which those who meet me
shall not address me as mistress. If, now, it is your wish to save yourself, O Emperor,
there is no difficulty. For we have much money, and there is the sea, here the boats.
However consider whether it will not come about after you have been saved that you
674 | 27. Rebellion against the Emperor Justinian

would gladly exchange that safety to death. For as for myself, I approve a certain
ancient saying that royalty is a good burial-shroud.” When the queen had spoken
thus, all were filled with boldness, and, turning their thoughts towards resistance,
they began to consider how they might be able to defend themselves if any hostile
forces should come against them. Now the soldiers as a body, including those who
were stationed about the emperor’s court, were neither well disposed to the emperor
nor willing openly to take an active part in fighting, but were waiting for what the
future would bring forth. All the hopes of the emperor were centered upon Belisar-
ius and Mundus, of whom the former, Belisarius, had recently returned from the
Persian war bringing with him a following which was both powerful and imposing,
and in particular he had a great number of spearmen and guards who had received
their training in battles and the perils of warfare. Mundus had been appointed gen-
eral of the Illyrians, and by mere chance had happened to come under summons to
Byzantium on some necessary errand, bringing with him Erulian barbarians.
When Hypatius reached the hippodrome, he went up immediately to where the
emperor is accustomed to take his place and seated himself on the royal throne
from which the emperor was always accustomed to view the equestrian and athletic
contests. And from the palace Mundus went out through the gate which, from the
circling descent, has been given the name of the Snail. Belisarius meanwhile began
at first to go straight up toward Hypatius himself and the royal throne, and when he
came to the adjoining structure where there has been a guard of soldiers from of old,
he cried out to the soldiers commanding them to open the door for him as quickly as
possible, in order that he might go against the tyrant. But since the soldiers had de-
cided to support neither side, until one of them should be manifestly victorious, they
pretended not to hear at all and thus put him off. So Belisarius returned to the em-
peror and declared that the day was lost for them, for the soldiers who guarded the
palace were rebelling against him. The emperor therefore commanded him to go to
the so-called Bronze Gate and the propylaea there. So Belisarius, with difficulty and
not without danger and great exertion, made his way over ground covered by ruins
and half-burned buildings, and ascended to the stadium. And when he had reached
the Blue Colonnade which is on the right of the emperor’s throne, he purposed to
go against Hypatius himself first; but since there was a small door there which had
been closed and was guarded by the soldiers of Hypatius who were inside, he feared
lest while he was struggling in the narrow space the populace should fall upon him,
and after destroying both himself and all his followers, should proceed with less
trouble and difficulty against the emperor. Concluding, therefore, that he must go
against the populace who had taken their stand in the hippodrome—a vast multi-
tude crowding each other in great disorder—he drew his sword from its sheath and,
commanding the others to do likewise, with a should he advanced upon them at a
run. But the populace, who were standing in a mass and not in order, at the sight
of armoured soldiers who had a great reputation for bravery and experience in war,
 28. Procopius’s Description of the Hagia Sophia | 675

and seeing that they struck out with their swords unsparingly, beat a hasty retreat.
Then a great outcry arose, as was natural, and Mundus, who was standing not far
away, was eager to join in the fight—for he was a daring and energetic fellow—but
he was at a loss as to what he should do under the circumstances; when, however,
he observed that Belisarius was in the struggle, he straightway made a sally into
the hippodrome through the entrance which they call the Gate of Death. Then in-
deed from both sides the partisans of Hypatius were assailed with might and main
and destroyed. When the rout had become complete and there had already been
great slaughter of the populace, Boraedes and Justus, nephews of the Emperor Jus-
tinian, without anyone daring to lift a hand against them, dragged Hypatius down
from the throne, and, leading him in, handed him over together with Pompeius to
the emperor. And there perished among the populace on that day more than thirty
thousand. But the emperor commanded the two prisoners to be kept in severe con-
finement. Then, while Pompeius was weeping and uttering pitiable words (for the
man was wholly inexperienced in such misfortunes), Hypatius reproached him at
length and said that those who were about to die unjustly should not lament. For in
the beginning they had been forced by the people against their will, and afterwards
they had come to the hippodrome with no thought of harming the emperor. And the
soldiers killed both of them on the following day and threw their bodies into the sea.
The emperor confiscated all their property for the public treasury, and also that, of
all the other members of the senate who had sided with them. Later, however, he
restored to the children of Hypatius and Pompeius and to all others the titles which
had formerly held, and as much of their property as he had not happened to bestow
upon his friends. This was the end of the insurrection in Byzantium.

Source: History of the Wars. Trans. H.B. Dewing. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1914,
Book I, Chapter xxiv, pp. 53–57.

28. Procopius’s Description of the Hagia Sophia Following

Its Reconstruction by Justinian

Following the Nika Revolt, Justinian was faced with the enormous task of rebuilding
much of the city of Constantinople. The greatest monument of that construction
program is the church of the Hagia Sophia, which remained the most important church
of the empire until its conquest in 1453. The historian Procopius offers a moving
description of the church from his work On Buildings.

The emperor, thinking not of cost of any kind, pressed on the work, and collected
together workmen from every land. Anthemius of Tralles, the most skilled in the
676 | 28. Procopius’s Description of the Hagia Sophia

builder’s art, not only of his own but of all former times, carried forward the king’s
zealous intentions, organized the labors of the workmen, and prepared models of
the future construction. Associated with him was another architect [mechanopoios]
named Isidorus, a Milesian by birth, a man of intelligence, and worthy to carry out the
plans of the Emperor Justinian. It is indeed a proof of the esteem with which God re-
garded the emperor, that he furnished him with men who would be so useful in effect-
ing his designs, and we are compelled to admire the wisdom of the emperor, in being
able to choose the most suitable of mankind to execute the noblest of his works. . . .
[The Church] is distinguished by indescribable beauty, excelling both in its size,
and in the harmony of its measures, having no part excessive and none deficient;
being more magnificent than ordinary buildings, and much more elegant than those
which are not of so just a proportion. The church is singularly full of light and sun-
shine; you would declare that the place is not lighted by the sun from without, but
that the rays are produced within itself, such an abundance of light is poured into
this church. . . .
Now above the arches is raised a circular building of a curved form through which
the light of day first shines; for the building, which I imagine overtops the whole
country, has small openings left on purpose, so that the places where these intervals
occur may serve for the light to come through. Thus far I imagine the building is
not incapable of being described, even by a weak and feeble tongue. As the arches
are arranged in a quadrangular figure, the stone-work between them takes the shape
of a triangle, the lower angle of each triangle, being compressed where the arches
unite, is slender, while the upper part becomes wider as it rises in the space between
them, and ends against the circle which rests upon them, forming there its remain-
ing angles. A spherical-shaped dome standing upon this circle makes it exceedingly
beautiful; from the lightness of the building, it does not appear to rest upon a solid
foundation, but to cover the place beneath as though it were suspended from heaven
by the fabled golden chain. All these parts surprisingly joined to one another in the
air, suspended one from another, and resting only on that which is next to them, form
the work into one admirably harmonious whole, which spectators do not dwell upon
for long in the mass, as each individual part attracts the eye to itself.
No one ever became weary of this spectacle, but those who are in the church
delight in what they see, and, when they leave, magnify it in their talk. Moreover it
is impossible accurately to describe the gold, and silver, and gems, presented by the
Emperor Justinian, but by the description of one part, I leave the rest to be inferred.
That part of the church which is especially sacred, and where the priests alone are
allowed to enter, which is called the Sanctuary, contains forty thousand pounds’
weight of silver.

Source: Translated by W. Lethabv and H. Swainson from Procopius. De Aedificiis, in The

Church of St. Sophia Constantinople. New York: MacMillan and Company, 1894, pp. 24–28.
 29. Martin of Tours Gives His Cloak to a Poor Beggar | 677

29. Martin of Tours Gives His Cloak to a Poor Beggar

Bishop of Tours and an active preacher and advocate of monasticism, St. Martin was
one of the key figures in the early history of Christianity in Gaul. His tomb became
one of the great pilgrimage sites in Gaul, and his relics, especially his cloak, were highly
venerated sacred objects. One of the most celebrated moments in his life was when he
gave part of his cloak to a poor man and then received a vision of Christ who praised
Martin for his good deed. This episode was recorded by the historian and hagiographer,
Sulpicius Severus (c. 363–425) in his Life of St. Martin, one of the most popular and
influential of early medieval saints’ lives.

Chapter III
Christ appears to St. Martin
ACCORDINGLY, at a certain period, when he had nothing except his arms and
his simple military dress, in the middle of winter, a winter which had shown itself
more severe than ordinary, so that the extreme cold was proving fatal to many, he
happened to meet at the gate of the city of Amiens a poor man destitute of clothing.
He was entreating those that passed by to have compassion upon him, but all passed
the wretched man without notice, when Martin, that man full of God, recognized
that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet,
what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he
had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, there-
fore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts,
and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remain-
der. Upon this, some of the by-standers laughed, because he was now an unsightly
object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder
understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar.
They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could
have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness. In the fol-
lowing night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ
arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He con-
templated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe
which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multi-
tude of angels standing round—“Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed me
with this robe.” The Lord, truly mindful of his own words (who had said when on
earth—“Inasmuch as ye have done these things to one of the least of these, ye have
done them unto me”), declared that he himself had been clothed in that poor man;
and to confirm the testimony he bore to so good a deed, he condescended to show
him himself in that very dress which the poor man had received. After this vision
678 | 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

the sainted man was not puffed up with human glory, but, acknowledging the good-
ness of God in what had been done, and being now of the age of twenty years, he
hastened to receive baptism. He did not, however, all at once, retire from military
service, yielding to the entreaties of his tribune, whom he admitted to be his famil-
iar tent-companion. For the tribune promised that, after the period of his office had
expired, he too would retire from the world. Martin, kept back by the expectation
of this event, continued, although but in name, to act the part of a soldier, for nearly
two years after he had received baptism.

Source: Sulpicius Severus on the Life of St. Martin. Translation and Notes by Alexander Roberts.
From A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series,
Volume 11. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1894.

30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

One of the most important of the Anglo-Saxon saints and martyrs, Boniface (c. 675–754)
was also a key figure in the reform of the Frankish church and the evangelization of
the Saxons on the continent. The Life of Boniface by Willibald offers an overview of
the ecclesiastical career and missionary activity of Boniface. Written at the request of
Boniface’s many friends, the life describes the saint’s dedication to God and the faith but
lacks the focus on the miraculous commonly found in early medieval hagiography.

Chapter I
How in Childhood He Began to Serve God
The illustrious and truly blessed life of Saint Boniface the archbishop, and his
character, consecrated particularly by imitation of the saints, as I have learned them
from the narratives of pious men, who, having zealously attended upon his daily
conversation and the way of his piety, handed down to posterity as an example those
things which they heard or saw: this life and character I seek, hindered as I am by
the darkness of knowledge, to interweave in the meagre warp of this work and to
present concisely in the plain garb of history; and from the beginning even unto
the end, with the most thorough investigation in my power, to reveal the sanctity of
his divine contemplation.
When, in the first bloom of boyhood, his mother had weaned and reared him with
a mother’s wonted great and anxious care, his father took exceeding great delight
in his companionship, and loved him above his brothers. But when he was about
four or five years old, it was his passion to enter God’s service and to study and
 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint | 679

toil over the monastic life continually, and his soul panted after that life every day;
for already he had subdued unto his spirit all that is transitory and determined to
meditate upon the things of eternity rather than those of the present. Indeed, when
certain priests, or clerks, had gone out to the lay folk to preach unto them, as is the
custom in those countries, and had come to the town and house of the saint’s father,
presently, so far as the weakness of his tender years permitted, the child began to
talk with them of heavenly things, and to ask what would help him and his infir-
mity for the future.
When thus in protracted meditation he had thought long of heavenly things, and
his whole being was straining forward to the future and upward to the things which
are on high, at last he laid bare his heart to his father, and asked him to take his de-
sire in good part. His father, astounded at the tidings, rebuked him most vehemently;
and, on the one hand, forbade him with threats to abandon him; on the other, incited
him with blandishments to the care of worldly business; that he might subdue him to
the temporal gain of a transitory inheritance, and, when his own death came, leave
him guardian, or rather heir, of his earthly goods. Using the deceitful subtlety of
human cunning, he strove in long talks to turn aside the young heart from the ful-
fillment of the purpose it had formed, and promised, with many a flattering word,
that this active life would be more tolerable to the child’s tender years than the con-
templative life of the monastic warfare: that so he might restrain the boy from the
attempt to carry out this purpose; and incite him to the voluptuousness of mundane
luxury. But the saint was already in his boyhood filled with God’s spirit; and the
more his father held him back, the more he took stout heart, and anxiously panted
to provide himself a treasure in heaven, and to join himself to the sacred study of
letters. And it happened in wondrous wise, as ever the divine compassion is wont
to act, that God in his foresight bestowed upon his young soldier consolation in his
undertaking and an increase of anxious desire, and a hasty change of mind in the
obstinate father: so that at one and the same instant of time sudden sickness crept
upon the father, whom the unexpected moment of death already threatened; and
the boy’s pious desire, long balked, increased most swiftly, and, with the aid of the
Lord God, was fulfilled and perfected in its increase.
For the saint’s father according to the flesh, when by the wonderful judgment of
the dispensation of God great sickness had seized upon him, quickly put away his
former obstinacy of heart, made an assembly of the kindred, and of his own free
will, but moved by the Lord, directed the boy to the monastery which is called by a
name of the ancients Ad-Escancastre, and committed him to an embassy of trusty
messengers to deliver to the faithful Wulfhard, who was abbot of that monastery.
The little boy, his friends standing beside him, addressed Wulfhard discreetly, and,
making his request intelligently, as his parents had taught him aforetime, declared
that he had long desired to submit himself to the monastic rule. Forthwith the fa-
ther of the monastery, after taking counsel with the brethren and receiving their
680 | 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

benediction, as the order of the regular life demanded, granted his consent and the
fulfillment of the boy’s wish. And so the man of God, bereaved of his father ac-
cording to the flesh, followed the adoptive father of our redemption, and, renounc-
ing the earthly gains of the world, strove to acquire the merchandise of an eternal
inheritance: that, according to the veridical voice of truth, by forsaking father, or
mother, or lands, or the other things which are of this world, he should receive a
hundredfold, and should inherit everlasting life.

Chapter VIII
How Through His Whole Life He Preached Zealously; And with
What End He Left This World
Four synodal councils were held, where there gathered together bishops and
priests, deacons and clerics, and all ecclesiastical ranks, whom Duke Carloman of
illustrious memory caused to be summoned under the sovereignty of his kingdom.
At these, Boniface, archbishop; ruler of the bishopric of the city of Magontia by
the consent and gift of Carloman himself; legate of the Roman church and of the
apostolic see, sent first by the holy and venerable bishop of that see, Gregory the
Younger, or the Second, to count from the First; then by the honorable Gregory who
was the Younger, counting from the Second, or the Third, to count from the First;
Boniface, I say, urged that numerous canons and ordinances of the four principal
early councils be preserved for the wholesome increase of the heavenly doctrine:
in order that, as in the Nicene council, when Constantine Augustus administered
the empire of the world, the falsehood of the Arian blasphemy was overthrown; as
the assembly of a hundred and fifty fathers, when Theodosius the Elder ruled Con-
stantinople, condemned one Macedonius, who denied that the Holy Spirit is God;
as the union of two hundred bishops, assembled at the city of Ephesus under Theo-
dosius the Younger, separated from the Catholic church, with a righteous curse of
excommunication, Nestorius, who declared that there are two persons in Christ;
and as the council of Chalcedon, an assembly of six hundred and thirty priests, in
accordance with the predetermined decision of the fathers bestowed the curse of ex-
communication upon Eutyches, abbot of the city of Constantinople, and Dioscurus
his champion, rebels against the citadel of the Catholic faith: so indeed in Francia,
when all the falsehood of the heretics was utterly rooted out and the conspiracy of
the wicked destroyed, the power of the divine law might be increased; the synodal
canons of the general councils might be received; while at the same time a synodal
assembly of bishops of spiritual understanding might meet in accordance with the
predetermined prescription of the authentic constitution.
The constant expectation of war, and the hostility and insurrections of the sur-
rounding barbarian tribes, with the attendant attempts of alien robber nations with-
out to destroy the Frankish realm by violence, had prevented the holding of synodal
assemblies, or even had caused them to be so wholly forgotten that they were utterly
 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint | 681

obliterated from present memory and unknown. For it is the nature of the world, that
even if it be recruited, it daily suffers damage and decrease within itself; while if it
is not thoroughly renewed, it expends itself and vanishes away, and hurries breath-
lessly to its predestined end. Wherefore in the pilgrimage of this mortal life, if for
healing spiritual leaders have ascertained any matters for the common profit of the
weak in this world, even if at times these matters have been introduced into the minds
of men, they ought to be preserved and most strongly defended by Catholics, and
held with minds determined and immovable: lest human oblivion steal upon them,
or the enticing delight of worldly enjoyment impede at the instigation of the devil.
For this reason our holy bishop of the Lord, moved by sharpest anxiety in this regard,
sought to deliver the folk from the baleful beguiling of the crooked serpent, and very
often urged Duke Carloman to assemble the synodal meeting: that both to men then
living and to later generations the wisdom of spiritual learning might be disclosed
and the knowledge of Christianity come, while the snaring of souls was averted.
After he placed a mirror (as it were) of canonical rectitude before all ranks for
a pattern of right living, and the way of truth became clearly visible to all, Boni-
face, being old, weak, and decrepit, presented a plan wholesome for himself and
his feebleness, and in accordance with the rule of ecclesiastical management pro-
vided a pastoral magistracy for the peoples: that, whether he lived or died, the
folk might not lack pastors and their healing care. He promoted to the episcopal
order two men of good diligence, Willibald and Burchard, and divided unto them
the churches committed to his charge in the innermost parts of the East Franks
and the confines of the Bavarians. To Willibald he entrusted the government of
his diocese in the place named Haegsted. To Burchard he delegated rank and of-
fice in the place called Wirzaburch, and allotted to his province the churches in
the borders of the Franks and Saxons and Slavs. And even unto the glorious day
of his death he opened without ceasing the narrow way of the heavenly kingdom
unto the multitudes.
Pippin, fortunate successor of his brother Carloman, by the grace of God re-
ceived the royal kingdom of the Franks, and there being now a slight lull in the dis-
order of the peoples, was raised to the rank of king. Then he began solicitously to
fulfill the vows he had sworn unto the Lord, and to restore without delay the synodal
ordinances, and to renew the canonical mysteries which his brother in accordance
with the exhortation of Saint Boniface the archbishop had faithfully commenced,
and to prefer Boniface in friendship and honor, and to obey his precepts in the Lord.
But because the saint, oppressed by bodily weakness, was not altogether able to at-
tend the synodal assemblies, he now determined, with the approval and advice of
the glorious king, to set a proper minister over his flock. He appointed Lul, his able
disciple, to teach the multitude of the great church, and advanced and ordained him
to the episcopal rank, and committed to him the inheritance which he had won in
Christ by earnest labor. Lul was the trusty comrade in the Lord of his pilgrimage,
and was witness both of the suffering and of the consolation.
682 | 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

Now when the Lord wished to deliver his servant from the temptation of this
world and to raise him up from the tribulations of the temporal life, then it was de-
termined by the ordinance of the Lord, that, accompanied by the servants of God,
he should come to Frisia, which aforetime he had left in body, not in mind: in order
that where first he entered upon his active preaching and his profits and rewards
began, there also, leaving the world, he might receive the charge of recompense.
He foretold the coming day of his death to Bishop Lul by a marvellous and in
a way prophetic forecast, and made known to him with what end he was at last to
leave the world, and set before him in order his plans for the building of churches
and the teaching of the people. “I desire,” said he, “to fulfill the journey set before
me. I shall not be able to call myself back from the welcome departing journey. For
now the day of my departure is at hand, and the time of my death approaches; now
I shall put aside the prison of the body, and return to the prize of the eternal rec-
ompense. But do thou, dearest son, conduct to completion the building of churches
which I have commenced in Thuringia. Do thou most earnestly recall the people
from the trackless waste of error. And do thou complete the construction of the ba-
silica already begun at Fulda, and bring thither my body aged by many hastening
years.” And having made an end of this discourse, he added to it more words of the
following sort, saying: “Son, provide by thy most prudent counsel everything which
must be joined to our use in this our journey; but also lay in the chest of my books
a linen cloth, wherein my decrepit body may be wrapped.”
At this sad speech Bishop Lul could not restrain his sobs, but forthwith wept
unrestrainedly. Then Saint Boniface made an end of the conversation and turned
to other matters. He did not draw back from the journey which he had undertaken,
but,1 after a few days’ interval, took travelling companions and went on board ship,
and pushed down the Rhine, seeking haven at night time, until he entered the moist
fields of the Frisians, and passed in safety across the lake which in their tongue is
called Aelmere, and made a round of inspection along shores barren of the divine
seed. And after escaping peril and hazard of rivers and the sea and of the great wa-
ters, he went safely into danger, and visited the pagan nation of the Frisians, whose
land is divided by the intervening waters into many territories and districts, yet in
such wise that the different names indicate the property of a single nation. But since
it would be tedious to repeat the districts in order, we desire to mention by name
only those which are veraciously cited to afford connection to our narrative: that
place and language may equally transmit our story of the saint’s piety, and disclose
the end with which he left this world.
So he traversed all Frisia, and removed the pagan worship and overthrew the er-
roneous way of heathenism, and earnestly preached the word of God; and, having
destroyed the divinity of the heathen temples, he built churches with great zeal.
And now he baptized many thousand persons, men and women and little ones,
being aided by his fellow soldier and suffragan bishop Eoba, whom he summoned
 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint | 683

to Frisia to aid the feebleness of his old age, charging him with the bishopric in
the city which is called Trecht; and by priests and deacons, of whom these are the
names: Wintrung and Walthere and Ethelhere, endowed with the sacerdotal office
of the priesthood; Hamund, Scirbald, and Bosa, assigned to the service of Levites;
Wacchar and Gundaecer, Illehere and Hathovulf, raised to the conventual order of
monks. These with Saint Boniface published widely through the people the seed
of eternal life, and, supported by the Lord God, made it known to such an extent,
that even as in accordance with the pattern of the apostolic custom they were of
one heart and one soul, so they had one and the same martyr’s crown, one and the
same reward of victory.
After the splendor of faith of which we have spoken dawned through Frisia, and
the happy end of our saint’s life approached, then, accompanied only by a num-
ber of his personal followers, he pitched his tents by the bank of the river which is
called Bordne, which is upon the limits of the districts which in the country tongue
are called Ostor- and Westeraeche. But because he had appointed unto the people,
already scattered far and wide, a holiday of confirmation of the neophytes, and of
the laying on of hands by the bishop upon the newly baptized and of their confir-
mation, every man went unto his own house, that in accordance with the precise
command of the holy bishop all might be presented together on the day set for their
confirmation.
Wholly opposite was the event. When the appointed day had dawned, and the
morning light was breaking after the rising of the sun, then came enemies instead of
friends, new lictors instead of new worshippers of the faith; and a vast multitude of
foes, armed with spears and shields, rushed with glittering weapons into the camp.
Then hastily the attendants sprang forth against them from the camp, and betook
themselves to arms on either side, and were eager to defend against the crazy host
of the mad folk the sainted martyrs that were to be. But when the man of God heard
the onset of the tumultuous throng, immediately he called to his side the band of
clerics, and, taking the saints’ relics which he was wont to have always with him,
came out of the tent. And at once, rebuking the attendants, he forbade combat and
battle, saying: “Stop fighting, lads! Give up the battle! For we are taught by the
trusty witness of Scripture, that we render not evil for evil, but contrariwise good for
evil. Already the long desired day is at hand, and the voluntary time of our depar-
ture is near. Therefore be ye comforted in the Lord, and suffer with joy the grace of
his permission. Trust on him, and he will release your souls.” But also with fatherly
speech he incited those standing near, priests and deacons and men of lower rank,
trained to God’s service, saying: “Men and brethren, be of stout heart, and fear not
them who kill the body, since they are not able to slay the soul, which continues
without end; but rejoice in the Lord, and fasten to God the anchor of your hope.
For straightway he shall render you the reward of perpetual recompense, and shall
give you an abode in his heavenly palace with the angels who dwell on high. Do not
684 | 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

enslave yourselves to the empty pleasures of this world; be not seduced by the vain
flatteries of the Gentiles; but endure firmly here the sudden moment of death, that
ye may be able to reign with Christ for all time.” While with such exhortation of
doctrine he was kindly inciting the disciples to the crown of martyrdom, quickly
the mad tumult of pagans rushed in upon them with swords and all the equipment
of war, and stained the saints’ bodies with propitious gore.
Having worked their will on the mortal flesh of the just, the exultant throng of hea-
thens at once seized the spoils of victory, the fruit of their damnation, and, wasting
the camp, shared and plundered the booty. But also they stole the chests, in which
were many volumes of books, and the boxes of relics; and, believing themselves
enriched by a great abundance of gold and silver, carried away the cases, locked as
they were, to the ships. Now in the ships was the daily sustenance of the clerics and
attendants, and some wine still left of the same supply. And when they found the be-
loved drink, the heathens hastily commenced to sate their thirsty maws and to make
their stomachs drunken with wine; and at length, through the wonderful direction
of almighty God, they took counsel, and began to discuss concerning the booty and
spoils that they had taken, and to deliberate how they might mutually share the gold
or silver which they had not even seen. While they held wordy discussion over the
riches they reckoned so great, again and again dispute and quarrels sprang up; and
finally there began such enmity and discord, that insane frenzy divided the raging
throng into two factions, and at last they turned the weapons, with which earlier they
had murdered the holy martyrs, against each other in merciless strife.
After the most part of the raging throng had been laid low, the survivors ran re-
joicing to the wealth gained by the loss of souls and life, while the rivals who op-
posed them respecting the passionately coveted treasure lay dead. Having broken
open the boxes of books, they found volumes instead of gold, and for silver, leaves
of divine learning. Thus deprived of the precious reward of gold and silver, they
scattered over the meadow some of the books which they found; others they threw
away, casting some into the reed thickets of the marshes, hiding the rest each in a
different place. But by the grace of almighty God and through the prayers of Saint
Boniface the archbishop and martyr, the books were found a long time after, sound
and unharmed, and returned by the several discoverers to the house in which even
unto this day they are of use for the salvation of souls.
Sad at the loss of the wealth on which they had reckoned, the murderers returned
home. After three days’ respite, they experienced in their own possessions a greater
loss, and also paid life for life in retribution. For the omnipotent Author and Re-
former of the world wished to avenge himself on his enemies, and with the zeal of
his wonted compassion to take revenge for the blood of saints shed for his sake.
Deeply moved by the recent act of mad wickedness, he wished to show openly his
wrath, too long deferred, against the idolaters. And as the unexpected tidings of the
temporal slaughter of the sainted martyrs flew through the districts and villages and
 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint | 685

the whole province, and the Christians learned of the corporeal death of the martyrs,
they at once collected a very large expeditionary force, and, being warriors prepared
to take speedy vengeance, hurried to the boundary. After the lapse of the three days’
period mentioned above, they entered the land of the infidels as unharmed but un-
friendly guests, and overthrew with prodigious carnage the pagans who came up
against them. The pagans were unable to withstand the first onset of the Christian
folk, and consequently betook themselves to flight and were slaughtered in great
numbers. Fleeing, they lost their lives and household goods and children. But the
Christians took as spoil the wives and little ones of the superstitious folk, their
menservants also and maidservants, and returned to their own land. And it came
to pass in wondrous wise, that the neighboring heathen that survived, shattered by
present misfortune, were enlightened by the glory of faith and preferred to shun
eternal torment; and, thoroughly terrified by the administration of the divine rebuke,
accepted, upon the death of Bishop Boniface, the proof of his doctrine which they
rejected while he lived.
With swelling sails and favorable breezes, the body of the sainted bishop, and
also those of the other martyrs, were brought after not many days across the sea
which is called Aelmere to the above named city of Trecht. There they were de-
posited and interred, until religious and faithful brethren in the Lord arrived from
Magontia, sent by ship by Bishop Lul, the successor of our holy bishop and martyr
of Christ, to bring the corpse of the saint to the monastery which he had built dur-
ing his life, and which is situate on the banks of the river Fulda. Of these brethren
there was one, Hadda by name, the promoter of the journey and organizer of the
party, who led a life of singular sanctity and peculiar chastity and continence. To
him especially, with the brethren who went with him, Bishop Lul entrusted the per-
formance of this embassy and the bringing of the sacred body: that greater honor of
devotion might be paid to the venerable saint, and that the witness of many might
prevail more in those matters which they heard or saw.
When the honorable brethren of this holy company came to the city of Trecht, a
small crowd of the people gathered to oppose them. When the crowd heard how an
edict had been issued by glorious King Pippin, the count of the city proclaimed an
interdict, and forbade that the body of Bishop Boniface should be removed thence.
But the strength of the Almighty is stronger than men’s strength. Wherefore im-
mediately, in the presence of all, a marvellous and memorable miracle was heard,
wrought through angelic rather than human understanding. The bell of the church,
untouched by human hands, was rung, as a token of the admonition of the sacred
body; so that all, smitten by sudden fear and terror, were stupefied, and trembled
exceedingly, and cried out that the body of this righteous man must be given up.
And so at once the body was yielded, and was honorably removed by the aforesaid
brethren of sacred memory, and without labor of towers was brought on the thirtieth
day after the saint’s decease to the abovementioned city of Magontia.
686 | 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint

The wonderful providence of almighty God brought it to pass, that on one and
the same day, though the time had not been beforehand set and appointed, there
assembled unto the funeral of this great man, as if the day had been set and prede-
termined, not only the ambassadors who brought the sacred body, but also many
faithful men and women from distant and widely scattered countries. Moreover the
saint’s successor in his venerable office, Lul, bishop of the Lord, who at that time
was present in the king’s palace, came to the city of Magontia as it were at the same
hour and moment, though he was altogether ignorant of the occasion, and knew not
of the arrival of the sacred body.
And all, strangers and citizens, were oppressed by sorrow and grief, yet rejoiced
abundantly and were glad. For in viewing the temporal and bodily death of this great
bishop, they grieved, on the one hand, for the loss of his corporeal presence, while on
the other hand they believed that he would be protector to them and theirs for all time to
come. Wherefore, their hearts torn by these conflicting emotions, the people, with the
priests and deacons and every ecclesiastical rank, carried the dead saint to that place
which he had determined upon while alive. They prepared a new sarcophagus in the
church, and placed the body there with the customary rites of sepulture. And when all
was duly performed, they returned to their homes, comforted by the power of faith.
But in the place where they interred the sacred body there was an abundant
succession of divine blessings. Through the prayers of the saint, those who came
thither possessed by divers infirmities obtained healing remedy of body and mind.
Some already moribund in the whole body and almost completely lifeless, at the
last breath, were restored to their pristine health. Others, whose eyes were veiled
by blindness, received their sight. Yet others, bound fast in the snares of the devil,
out of their senses and mad, afterward regained soundness of mind, and, restored
to pristine health, gave praise and glorified God: who deigned to adorn and enrich
and honor his servant with this great gift, and to glorify him by dazzling miracles
made manifest to present and future times and ages, when the fortieth year of his
pilgrimage had passed: which year also is reckoned of the incarnation of the Lord
the seven hundred and fifty-fifth, and the eighth indiction. Moreover he sat in the
episcopacy thirty-six years six months and six days. And so in the manner described
above, on the fifth of June, rewarded with the triumph of martyrdom, he departed
to the Lord: to whom is honor and glory unto ages of ages. Amen.

Chapter IX
How in the Place Where the Blood of Martyrs Was Shed, A Living Fountain
Appeared to Those Who Were Inspecting the Preparations for a Church
Having recounted the saint’s distinguished deeds in childhood, boyhood, youth,
and the prime of life, and even in old age, let us return to those wonders that by the
help of the Lord were wrought to declare to mortals the sanctity of the saint’s life,
 30. Boniface: An Early Medieval Missionary and Saint | 687

after this world’s race was run and that life was happily ended; and recall to memory
a miracle for folk to remember and repeat. Venerable Bishop Lul told us the story
of the miracle even as he learned it from glorious King Pippin, who in turn heard
it from eyewitnesses. As Lul related it to us, it was as follows.
In the place where of yore the precious blood of the holy martyr was shed, the
church and a great part of the Frisian folk planned to rear high upon a deep foun-
dation an earthen mound. This was because of the vast irruptions of the neap and
spring tides, which in alternation disturb the tides of sea and ocean, the lessening of
the waters and the floods. On the mound they proposed to raise a church—as was
done later—and to erect a habitation of the servants of God in the same place. But
when now the mound was wholly finished and the entire work of its erection com-
pleted, the residents and inhabitants of that place, having returned home, had some
discussion among themselves in regard to the want of fresh water, which throughout
almost all Frisia occasions the greatest difficulty both to men and to beasts. Then at
length, through the Lord’s compassion, a certain man, Abba by name, who in accor-
dance with the edict of glorious King Pippin administered the office of count over
that district and place and was director of the work in question, taking comrades
with him, mounted, and rode round the hill, and inspected the mound. Suddenly and
unexpectedly the steed of an attendant, while merely stamping on the ground, felt it
sinking and giving way altogether, and wallowed, its fore legs held fast in the soil,
until those who were more active and skillful jumped down very hurriedly from
their steeds, and pulled out the horse that was stuck fast in the earth. But at once
a miracle stupendous and worthy to behold was made manifest to those who were
present. A fountain, exceeding clear beyond the manner of that country, and won-
drous sweet and pleasant to the taste, came busting out, and, penetrating through
unknown channels, flowed forth, so that it seemed already a very large brook. As-
tounded by this miracle, they returned home with rejoicing and gladness, and made
known to the churches those matters which they had seen.

Source: Robinson, George W., trans. The Life of Saint Boniface by Willibald. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1916, pp. 27–30, 74–93.
Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval
Europe

Anglo-Saxon Kings of Wessex Edward the Elder (899–924)

and England Æthelstan (924–939, first king of
England)
Cerdic (519–534)
Edmund I (939–946)
Cynric (534–560)
Eadred (946–955)
Ceawlin (560–591)
Eadwig (955–959)
Ceol (591–597)
Edgar (959–975)
Ceolwulf (597–611)
Edward the Martyr (975–978)
Cynegils (611–643)
Æthelred the Unready (978–1013)
Cenwelh (643–674)
Seaxburh (674–676)
Centwine (676–685) Byzantine Emperors
Caedwalla (685–688) Zeno (474–491)
Ine (688–726) Anastasius I (491–518)
Aethelherd (726–740) Justin I (518–527)
Cuthred (740–756) Justinian I (527–565)
Sigeberht (756–757) Justin II (565–578)
Cynewulf (757–786) Tiberius II (578–582)
Brihtric (786–802) Maurice (582–602)
Egbert (802–839) Phocas (602–610)
Æthelwulf (839–858) Heraclius (610–641)
Æthelbald (858–860) Constantine III (641)
Aethelberht (860–865) Constans II (641–668)
Æthelred (865–871) Constantine IV (668–685)
Alfred the Great (871–899) Justinian II (685–695, banished)

689
690 | Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe

Leontius (695–698) Out of power (657–680)

Tiberius III (698–705) Pippin II (mayor of the palace,
Justinian II (restored, 705–711) 680–714)
Philippicus Bardanes (711–713) Charles Martel (mayor of the palace,
714–741)
Anastasius II (713–716)
Carloman (mayor of the palace,
Theodosius III (716–717)
741–747)
Leo III, the Isaurian (717–741)
Pippin (mayor of the palace, 741–751;
Constantine V Copronymus (741–775) king, 751–768)
Leo IV (775–780) Carloman (king, 768–771)
Constantine VI (780–797) Charlemagne (king, 771–800; emperor,
Irene (797–802) 800–814)
Nicephorus I (802–811) Louis the Pious (emperor,
814–840)
Stauracius (811)
Lothar (emperor, 840–855)
Michael I Rhangabe (811–813)
Louis II (emperor, 855–875)
Leo V (813–820)
Michael II (820–829)
Theophilus (829–842) West Frankish Kingdom
Michael III (842–867) Charles the Bald (840–875; emperor,
Basil I (867–886) 875–877)

Leo VI (886–912) Louis the Stammerer (877–879)

Alexander (912–913) Louis III (879–882)

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus

(913–959) East Frankish Kingdom
Romanus I Lecapenus (919–944) Louis the German (840–876)
Romanus II (959–963) Charles the Fat (876–887; emperor,
Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969) 884–887)
John I Tzimisces (969–976) Carloman (879–884)
Basil II, the Bulgar slayer (976–1025) Arnulf (887–899)
Louis the Child (899–911)
Carolingian Rulers of the Charles the Fat (884–887, deposed)
Franks Odo (not a Carolingian, 888–898)
Pippin I (614–628, 640) Charles the Simple (898–922)
Grimoald (640–657) Robert I (brother of Odo, 922–923)
 Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe | 691

Ralph (son-in-law of Robert I, Childebert I (511–558)

923–936) Theodebert (533–548)
Louis IV, called d’Outremer (936–954) Chilperic I (561–584, Soissons [later,
Lothar (954–986) Neustria])
Louis V (986–987) Sigebert I (561–575, Austrasia)
Childebert II (575–595)
Lombard Kings of Italy Theodebert II (595–612)
Alboin (560/561–572) Theuderic II (612–613)
Cleph (572–574) Sigebert II (613)
Interregnum (574–584) Chlotar II (584–613, Neustria;
613–629, entire kingdom)
Authari (584–590)
Dagobert (629–639)
Agilulf (590–616)
Clovis II (637–657, Neustria) Sigebert
Adaloald (616–626)
III (632–656)
Ariold (626–636)
Chlotar III (655–673)
Rothari (636–652)
Childeric II (662–675)
Aripert I (653–661)
Theuderic III (673–690/91, Neustria)
Grimoald (662–671)
Dagobert (675–679, Austrasia)
Perctarit (671–688)
Clovis III (691–694)
Cuncipert (680–688 coruler, 688–700)
Childebert III (694–711)
Aripert II (700–712)
Dagobert III (711–715)
Liutprand (712–744)
Chilperic II (715–721, Neustria)
Ratchis (744–749)
Chlotar IV (717–719, Austrasia)
Aistulf (749–756)
Theuderic IV (721–737)
Desiderius (757–774)
Interregnum (737–743)
Childeric III (743–751)
Merovingian Rulers of
the Franks
Merovech (d. 456) Popes and Antipopes
Childeric I (456–481) Sylvester I (314–335)
Clovis (481–511) Mark (336)
Chlotar I (511–561) Julius I (337–352)
Chlodomer (511–524) Liberius (352–366)
Theuderic (511–533) Felix II (antipope, 355–358)
692 | Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe

Damasus I (366–384) Gregory I (590–604)

Ursinus (antipope, 366–367) Sabinian (604–606)
Siricius (384–399) Boniface III (607)
Anastasius I (399–401) Boniface IV (608–615)
Innocent I (401–417) Deusdedit, later
Zosimus (417–418) Adeodatus I (615–618)

Boniface I (418–422) Boniface V (619–625)

Eulalius (antipope, 418–419) Honorius I (625–638)

Celestine I (422–432) Severinus (640)

Sixtus III (432–440) John IV (640–642)

Leo I (440–461) Theodore I (642–649)

Hilary (461–468) Martin I (649–653)

Simplicius (468–483) Eugenius I (654–657)

Felix III (II) (483–492) Vitalian (657–672)

Gelasius I (492–496) Adeodatus II (672–676)

Anastasius II (496–498) Donus (676–678)

Symmachus (498–514) Agatho (678–681)

Lawrence (antipope, 498, 501–506, Leo II (682–683)

died 507 or 508) Benedict II (684–685)
Hormisdas (514–523) John V (685–686)
John I (523–526) Conon (686–687)
Felix IV (III) (526–530) Theodore (687)
Dioscorus (antipope, 530) Paschal (687)
Boniface II (530–532) Sergius I (687–701)
John II (533–535) John VI (701–705)
Agapetus I (535–536) John VII (705–707)
Silverius (536–537) Sisinnius (708)
Vigilius (537–555) Constantine (708–715)
Pelagius I (556–561) Gregory II (715–731)
John III (561–574) Gregory III (731–741)
Benedict I (575–579) Zachary (741–752)
Pelagius II (579–590) Stephen (II) (752)
 Appendix: Rulers of Early Medieval Europe | 693

Stephen II (III) (752–757) Theodore II (897)

Paul I (757–767) John IX (898–900)
Constantine (antipope, 767–768) Benedict IV (900–903)
Philip (antipope, 768) Leo V (903–904)
Stephen III (IV) (768–772) Christopher (antipope, 903–904)
Hadrian I (772–795) Sergius III (904–911)
Leo III (795–816) Anastasius III (911–913)
Stephen IV (V) (816–817) Lando (913–914)
Paschal I (817–824) John X (914–928, died 929)
Eugenius II (824–827) Leo VI (928)
Valentine (827) Stephen VII (VIII) (929–931)
Gregory IV (827–844) John XI (931–935)
John (antipope, 844) Leo VII (936–939)
Sergius II (844–847) Stephen VIII (IX) (939–942)
Leo IV (847–855) Marinus II (942–946)
Benedict III (855–858) Agapetus II ((946–955)
Anastasius the Librarian John XII (955–964)
(antipope, 855) Leo VIII (963–965)
Nicholas I (858–867) Benedict V (964, died 966)
Hadrian II (867–872) John XIII (965–972)
John VIII (872–882) Benedict VI (973–974)
Marinus I (882–884) Boniface VII (antipope, 974)
Adrian III (884–885) Benedict VII (974–983)
Stephen V (VI) (885–891) John XIV (983–984)
Formosus (891–896) John XV (985–996)
Boniface VI (896) Gregory V (996–999)
Stephen VI (VII) (896–897) John XVI (antipope, 997–998)
Romanus (897) Sylvester II (999–1003)
Bibliography

Primary Sources in Translation

Adomnan. Adomnan’s Life of Columba. Ed. and trans. Alan O. Anderson and
Marjorie O. Anderson. London: T. Nelson, 1961.
Alexander, Michael, trans. Beowulf. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983.
Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Trans. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1971–1972.
Amt, Emilie, ed. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Attenborough, Frederick L., ed. and trans. The Laws of the Earliest English Kings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Augustine. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Trans. Henry Bettenson.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Augustine. Confessions: Books I–XIII. Trans. Francis J. Sheed. Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett, 1993.
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. Trans. Donald W. Robertson, Jr. New York:
Macmillan, 1958.
Bachrach, Bernard S., trans. Liber historiae Francorum. Lawrence, KS: Coronado,
1973.
Bede. Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. Lawrence Martin. Kalamazoo,
MI: Cistercian Publications, 1989.
Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-
Price. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Classics, 1968.
Birks, Peter, and Grant Mcleod, trans. Justinian’s Institutes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1987.
Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. Douglas C. Langston. New
York:W. W. Norton &Company, 2009.
Cabaniss, Allen, trans. Son of Charlemagne: A Contemporary Life of Louis the
Pious. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1961.
Caesarius of Arles: Sermons. Trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller. 3 Vols. New York:
Fathers of the Church, 1956–1973.

695
696 | Bibliography

Cassiodorus. The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. Trans. S.J.B. Barnish.

Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Claudian. Claudian’s Fourth Panegyric on the Fourth Consulate of Honorius. Ed.
and trans. William Barr. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1981.
Colgrave, Bertram, ed. and trans. The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great, by an
Anonymous Monk of Whitby. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1968.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis):
The Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from A.D. 715 to A.D. 817. Liverpool,
UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Dhuoda. Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman’s Counsel for Her Son. Ed.
and trans. Carol Neel. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press,
1999.
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Burgundian Code: The Book of Constitutions
or Law of Gundobad and Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Drew, Katherine Fisher, trans. The Lombard Laws. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1973.
Dutton, Paul Edward, ed. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, ON:
Broadview, 1993.
Einhard. The Translation and Miracles of the Saints Marcellinus and Peter. In
Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Trans. Paul Edward Dutton. Peterborough,
ON: Broadview, 1993, pp. 198–246.
Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis
Thorpe. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981.
Emerton, Ephraim, ed. and trans. The Letters of Saint Boniface. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2000.
Fisher Drew, Katherine, trans. The Burgundian Code: Book of Constitutions of
Gundobad; Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1972.
Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and
Hagiography, 640–720. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press, 1996.
Fry, Timothy, ed. and trans. RB 1980: The Rule of Benedict in Latin and English
with Notes. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Gildas. The Ruin of Britain and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom.
London: Phillimore, 1978.
Giles, J. A. ed. Six Old English Chronicles, of which Two are Now First Trans-
lated from the Monkish Latin Originals: Ethelwerd’s Chronicle; Asser’s Life of
Alfred; Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British History; Gildas; Nennius; and Richard
of Cirencester. London: H. G. Bohn, 1848.
 Bibliography | 697

Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Confessors. Trans. Raymond

Van Dam. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Martyrs. Trans. Raymond
Van Dam. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1988.
Gregory of Tours. Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers. 2nd ed. Trans. Edward
James. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1991.
Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Harmond-
sworth, UK: Penguin, 1974.
Gregory the Great. Life and Miracles of St. Benedict (Book Two of the Dialogues).
Trans. Odo J. Zimmerman and Benedict Avery. Collegeville, MN: St. John’s
Abbey Press, 1949.
Head, Thomas, ed. Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. New York: Garland Pub-
lishing, Inc., 2000.
Heaney, Seamus, trans. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar Straus
and Giroux, 2000.
Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi.
2nd rev. ed. Trans. Guido Donini and Gordon B. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Jordanes. The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Version. Trans. Charles C.
Mierow. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1985.
Keynes, Simon, and Michael Lapidge, trans. Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of
King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources. Harmondsworth, UK: Pen-
guin, 1983.
Kratz, Denis, ed. and trans. “Waltharius” and “Ruodlieb.” New York: Garland,
1984.
Larrington, Carolyne. Women and Writing in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New
York: Routledge, 1995.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., ed., and Wolfe Liebeschuetz, trans. Ambrose of Milan:
Political Letters and Speeches. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press,
2010.
Loyn, Henry R., and John Percival. The Reign of Charlemagne: Documents on
Carolingian Government and Administration. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1975.
Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur. Ed. Norma Lorre Goodrich. New York:
Washington Square Press, 1966.
Marcus, Jacob R. The Jews in the Medieval World a Source Book: 315–1791.
Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union Press, 1999.
McCarthy, Maria Caritas. The Rule for Nuns of St. Caesarius of Arles: A Translation
with Critical Introduction. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1960.
McNamara, Jo Ann, John E. Holberg, and Gordon Whatley, eds. Sainted Women of
the Dark Ages. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.
698 | Bibliography

Murphy, G. Roland, trans. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1992
Nelson, Janet, trans. The Annals of St. Bertin: Ninth Century Histories. Manchester,
UK: University of Manchester Press, 1991.
Nennius. Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals. Ed. John Morris. Totowa,
NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
Noble, Thomas F. X. ed. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: Lives by Einhard,
Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer. University Park, PA: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Noble, Thomas F. X. and Thomas Head, eds. Soldiers of Christ: Saints and
Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. William Dudley Foulke. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
Pharr, Clyde, Theresa Sherrer Davidson, and Mary Brown Pharr, eds. The Theo-
dosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutsions. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1952.
Procopius. The History of the Wars; Secret History. 4 Vols. Ed. and trans. Henry B.
Dewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1940.
Procopius. Procopius, Vol 7: On Buildings. Trans. H. B. Dewing and Glanville
Downey. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1940.
Procopius. Secret History, ed. and trans. Henry B. Dewing. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1914–1940.
Reuter, Timothy, trans. The Annals of Fulda: Ninth Century Histories. Manchester,
UK: University of Manchester Press, 1992.
Rivers, Theodore J, trans. Laws of the Alamans and Bavarians. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1977.
Rivers, Theodore, J, trans. The Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks. New York:
AMS, 1986.
Russel, Norman, trans. The Lives of the Desert Fathers: Historia Monachorum in
Aegypto. Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2006.
Silvas, Anna M. The Asketikon of St. Basil the Great. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
Scholz, Bernhard Walter, trans. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish
Annals and Nithard’s History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1972.
Sulpicius Severus. “Life of Saint Martin of Tours.” In Soldiers of Christ: Saints and
Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Eds. Thomas F. X.
Noble and Thomas Head. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1995, pp. 1–29.
 Bibliography | 699

Tacitus. The Agricola and the Germania. Trans. H. Mattingly, rev. trans. S. A.
Handford. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1982.
Theodulf of Orléans. The Poetry of Theodulf of Orleans: A Translation and Criti-
cal Study. Ed. and trans. Nikolai A. Alexandro. Ann Arbor: University Micro-
films, 1970.
Thiébaux, Marcelle, ed. and trans. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology.
2nd ed. New York: Garland, 1994.
Tilley, Maureen. Donastist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in North Africa.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1997.
Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution. Trans. John Moorhead. Liverpool,
UK: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M., ed. and trans. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Frede-
gar with Its Continuations. London: Nelson, 1960.
Watson, Alan. The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1997.
Whitelock, Dorothy, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Westport, CT: Greenwood,
1986.
Zosimus. New History. Trans. Ronald T. Ridley. Canberra: Australian Association
for Byzantine Studies, 1982.

Art and Culture

Backhouse, Janet. The Lindisfarne Gospels. Oxford: Phaidon, 1981.
Baker, Peter S., ed. Beowulf: Basic Readings. New York: Garland, 1995.
Beckwith, John. Early Medieval Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Beckwith, John. Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England. London: Harvey
Miller, 1972.
Bjork, Robert E., and John D. Niles, eds. A Beowulf Handbook. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 1997.
Brown, George Hardin. Bede the Venerable. Boston: Twayne, 1987.
Brown, Giles. “Introduction: the Carolingian Renaissance.” In Carolingian Cul-
ture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 1–51.
Brown, Michelle. The Lindisfarne Gospels and the Early Medieval World. London:
British Library, 2010.
Brown, Michelle. The Lindisfarne Gospels: Society, Spirituality, and the Scribe.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1967.
Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London: Routledge, 1996.
700 | Bibliography

Chadwick, Henry. Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Phi-
losophy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.
Chambers, Raymond. W. Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a
Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn. 3rd ed., supplement by C. L. Wrenn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Contreni, John J. “The Carolingian Renaissance: Education and Literary Culture.”
In The New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 2. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 709–57.
Cribiore, Raffaella. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2007.
Crocker, Richard. The Early Medieval Sequence. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1976.
Crosby, Sumner McKnight. The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis from Its Beginnings to
the Death of Abbot Suger, 475–1151. Ed. Pamela Z. Blum. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1987.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans.
Willard R. Trask. 1953. Reprint, with a new epilogue by Peter Goodman,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Davis-Weyer, Caecilia. Early Medieval Art, 300–1150. Toronto: Toronto Univer-
sity Press, 1986.
Deane, Herbert. The Political and Social Ideas of Saint Augustine. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1964.
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars. New York: Macmillan,
1947.
Evans, James A. S. Procopius. New York: Twayne, 1972.
Farr, Carol Ann. The Book of Kells: Its Function and Audience. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1997.
Freeman, Ann. “Theodulf of Orléans and the Libri Carolini.” Speculum 32 (1957):
664–705.
Ganz, David. “Humour as History in Notkers’s Gesta Karoli Magni.” In Monks,
Nuns, and Friars in Medieval Society. Eds. E. King, J. Schaefer, and W. Wadley.
Sewanee, TN: University of the South Press, 1989, pp. 171–83.
Gibson, Margaret, ed. Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Influence. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1981.
Grabar, André. Early Medieval Painting from the Fourth to the Eleventh Century.
Lausanne: Skira, 1957.
Hasenfratz, Robert J. Beowulf Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979–
1990. New York: Garland, 1993.
Henderson, George. “Emulation and Invention in Carolingian Art.” In The New
Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 248–73.
 Bibliography | 701

Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. The Carolingian Renais-
sance. New York: George Braziller, 1970.
Hubert, Jean, Jean Porcher, and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach. Europe in the Dark Ages.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Hunt, David, and Jan Willem Drijvers, eds. The Late Roman World and its Histo-
rian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus. London: Routledge, 1999.
Innes, Matthew, and Rosamond McKitterick. “The Writing of History.” In
Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 193–220.
Kornbluth, Genevra A. Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
Lasko, Peter. Ars Sacra 800–1200. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1994.
Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: Northwest Europe before Charlemagne.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Lobbedey, U. “Carolingian Royal Palaces: The State of Research from an Archi-
tectural Historian’s Viewpoint.” In Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages:
The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2003, pp. 129–54.
Marenbon, John. “Carolingian Thought.” In Carolingian Culture: Emulation and
Innovation. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994, pp. 171–92.
Mayvaert, Paul. “The Authorship of the ‘Libri Carolini’: Observations Prompted
by a Recent Book.” Revue bénédictine 89 (1979): 29–57.
McKitterick, Rosamond, ed. Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
McKitterick, Rosamond, ed. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Meehan, Bernard. The Book of Kells: An Illustrated Introduction to the Manuscript
in Trinity College Dublin. London: Thames and Hudson, 1994.
Mütherich, Florentine, and Joachim E. Gaehde. Carolingian Painting. New York:
George Braziller, 1976.
Nie, Giselle de. Views from a Many-Windowed Tower: Studies of Imagination in
the Works of Gregory of Tours. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987.
Neese, Lawrence. Justinian to Charlemagne: European Art, 565–787: An Anno-
tated Bibliography. Boston: Hall, 1987.
O’Donnell, James J. Augustine. Boston: Twayne, 1985.
O’Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1979.
Pulliam, Heather. Word and Image in the Book of Kells. Dublin: Four Courts Press,
2006.
702 | Bibliography

Randall, Richard H., Jr. Masterpieces of Ivory from the Walters Art Gallery. New
York: Hudson Hills, 1985.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth to the
Eighth Century. Trans. John Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1978.
Ross, Marvin, and Philippe Verdier. Arts of the Migration Period in the Walters Art
Gallery. Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery, 1961.
Snyder, James. Medieval Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, 4th–14th Century.
New York: Harry Abrams, 1989.
Tolkien, J. R. R. “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.” Proceedings of the British
Academy 22 (1936): 245–295.
Van Riel, Gerd, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy, eds. Iohannes Scottus Eriugena:
The Bible and Hermeneutics. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.
Wallach, Luitpold. Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and
Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1959.
Wills, Gary. Saint Augustine. New York: Penguin, 1999.

England and the Continent in the Early Middle Ages

Arnold, Christopher J. Roman Britain to Saxon Shore. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, 1984.
Bachrach, Bernard. Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Bassett, Steven, ed. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press, 1989.
Blair, Peter Hunter. The World of Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.
Blumenthal, Uta-Renata, ed. Carolingian Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in
Early Christian Studies. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1983.
Boussard, Jacques. The Civilization of Charlemagne. Trans. Frances Partridge.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968.
Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell, 1996.
Bullough, Donald. “Europae Pater: Charlemagne and His Achievement in
the Light of Recent Scholarship.” English Historical Review 75 (1970):
59–105.
Cabaniss, Allen. Agobard of Lyons: Churchman and Critic. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1953.
Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
 Bibliography | 703

Collins, Roger. Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. New York:
Longman, 1983.
Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain 409–711. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
Daly, William M. “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?” Speculum 69 (1994):
619–64.
De Jong, Mayke. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis
the Pious, 814–840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Dill, Samuel. Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age. 1926. Reprint.
London: Allen and Unwin, 1966.
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne: His World and His Work.
New York: Macmillan, 1951.
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962.
Dutton, Paul Edward. The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Farmer, David H. The Age of Bede. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1998.
Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press, 1979.
Fouracre, Paul. The Age of Charles Martel. New York: Longman, 2000.
Ganshof, François L. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in
Carolingian History. Trans. Janet L. Sondheimer. London: Longman, 1971.
Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of
the Merovingian World. Oxford: 1988.
Gerberding, Richard, A. The Rise of the Carolingians and the “Liber Historiae
Francorum.” Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Godman, Peter, and Roger Collins, eds. Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on
the Reign of Louis the Pious. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Goldberg, Eric. Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German,
817–876. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.
Halphen, Louis. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Trans. Giselle de Nie.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.
Hawkes, Jane, and Susan Mills. Northumbria’s Golden Age. Stroud, UK: Sutton
Publishing, Ltd., 1999.
James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
James, Edward, ed. Visigothic Spain: New Approaches. Oxford: Clarendon,
1980.
Keynes, Simon. “The British Isles: England, 700–900.” In The New Cambridge
Medieval History. Vol. 2. Ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995, pp. 18–42.
704 | Bibliography

King, P. D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1972.
Kirby, David P. The Earliest English Kings. London: Unwin Hyman, 1991.
Lapidge, Michael. Bede and His World: The Jarrow Lectures, 1958–1993. 2 Vols.
Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1994.
Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
Llewellyn, Peter. Rome in the Dark Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Loyn, Henry R. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. 2nd ed. London:
Longman, 1991.
MaClean, Simon. Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat
and the End of the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987.
London: Longman, 1983.
Myres, John N. L. The English Settlements. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
Nelson, Janet. Charles the Bald. London: Longman, 1992.
Neuman de Vegvar, Carol. The Northumbrian Renaissance: A Study in the Trans-
mission of Style. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1987.
Noble, Thomas F. X. Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State,
680–825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056. London: Long-
man, 1991.
Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. Michael
Idomir Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Sawyer, Peter. H. From Roman Britain to Norman England. 2nd ed. London and
New York, 1998.
Smyth, Alfred P. King Alfred the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Sturdy, David J. Alfred the Great. London: Constable, 1995.
Sullivan, Richard. Aix-La-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne. Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press, 1974.
Sullivan, Richard E. “The Carolingian Age: Reflections on Its Place in the History
of the Middle Ages.” Speculum 64 (1989): 257–306.
Wallace-Hadrill, John. M. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: Toronto University
Press, 1982.
Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
 Bibliography | 705

Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994.

Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London:
Seaby, 1990.

Late Antiquity and the Migration Period

Alcock, Leslie. Arthur’s Britain: History and Archeology, A.D. 367–634. Harmond-
sworth, UK: Penguin, 1971.
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Bachrach, Bernard S. “The Alans in Gaul.” Traditio 23 (1967): 476–89.
Bachrach, Bernard S. A History of the Alans in the West, from Their First Appear-
ance in the Sources of Classical Antiquity through the Early Middle Ages.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973.
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972.
Barker, John W. Justinian and the Later Roman Empire. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1960.
Barnes, Timothy D. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical
Reality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Barnes, Timothy. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1981.
Bassett, Steven, ed. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press, 1989.
Baüml, Franz H., and Marianna. Birnbaum. Attila: The Man and His Image.
Budapest: Corvina, 1993.
Brown, Peter. Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Brown, Peter. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1982.
Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity, A.D. 150–750. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1971.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Burckhardt, Jacob. The Age of Constantine the Great. Trans. Moses Hadas. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
Burns, Thomas S. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military
Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington: University of Indi-
ana Press, 1994.
Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1984.
Bursche, Aleksander. Later Roman-Barbarian Contacts in Central Europe:
Numismatic Evidence. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1996.
706 | Bibliography

Bury, John B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I
to the Death of Justinian. Vol. 1. 1923. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1959.
Bury, John B. The Invasions of Europe by the Barbarians. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1967.
Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, A.D. 395–600. New
York: Routledge, 1993.
Cameron, Averil, and Peter Garnsey, eds. The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425.
Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
Clover, Frank M. The Late Roman West and the Vandals. London: Variorum, 1993.
Freeman, Charles. A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic
State. New York: Overlook Press, 2009.
Friell, Gerard, and Stephen Williams. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. New York:
Routledge, 1998.
Goffart, Walter. Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accom-
modation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Grant, Michael. Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1994.
Halsall, Guy. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Heather, Peter. “Goths and Huns, c. 320–425.” In The Late Empire, A.D. 337–
425, vol. 13, The Cambridge Ancient History. Eds. Averil Cameron and Peter
Garnsey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 487–537.
Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Hodgkin, Thomas. Theodoric the Goth: The Barbarian Champion of Civilization.
New York: G. P. Putnam, 1983.
Honoré, Tony. Justinian’s Digest: Character and Compilation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Howe, Nicholas. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Jones, Arnold H. M. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social Economic
and Administrative Survey. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1986.
King, Peter. D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1972.
Klingshirn, William E. Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community
in Late Antique Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle
Ages. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
 Bibliography | 707

Matthews, John. The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Matthews, John. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998.
McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Metzger, Ernest, ed. A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1999.
Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. New
York: Longman, 1999.
Moorhead, John. Theodoric in Italy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Murray, Alexander, ed. After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medi-
eval History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Obolensky, Dmitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1543.
New York: Praeger, 1971.
Radding, Charles and Antonio Ciaralli. The Corpus Iuris Civilis in the Middle Ages.
Brill: Leiden, 2006.
Randers-Pehrson, Justine Davis. Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of
Europe, A.D. 400–700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.
Reynolds, Susan. “Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the Historiog-
raphy of the Age of Migrations.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources
of Early Medieval History. Ed. Alexander Callander Murray. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press, 1999, pp. 17–36.
Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims in Medieval Spain. Leiden: Brill Aca-
demic Publishers, 1994.
Rutgers, L. V. The Jews of Late Ancient Rome. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers,
1995.
Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Jews,
Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2004.
Sullivan, Richard. Heirs of the Roman Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1974.
Thompson, Edward A. A History of Attila and the Huns. Oxford: Clarendon, 1948.
Thompson, Edward A. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Treadgold, Warren. The History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1997.
Ure, Percy N. Justinian and His Age. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1951.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Barbarian West, A.D. 400–1000. New York: Harper
and Row, 1962.
Wessel, Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of Rome. Leiden: Brill
Academic Publishers, 2008.
708 | Bibliography

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1988.
Wolfram, Herwig. The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Trans. Thomas J.
Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Van Dam, Raymond. Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1985.

Military History
Bachrach, Bernard S. “Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup,
and Feudalism.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 7 (1970):
47–75.
Bachrach, Bernard S. Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Trans. Michael Jones. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1984.
Coupland, Simon. “Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century.” Viator:
Medieval and Renaissance Studies 21 (1990): 29–50.
DeVries, Kelly. Medieval Military Technology. Peterborough, ON: Broadview,
1992.
Ferrill, Arthur. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. New York:
Thames and Hudson, 1986.
Hughes, Ian. Belisarius: The Last Roman General. Yardley, PA: Westholme Pub-
lishing, 1996.
Le Bohec, Yann. The Imperial Roman Army. Trans. Raphael Bate. New York:
Routledge, 2000.
Luttwak, Edward. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1974.
Martin, Paul. Arms and Armour from the 9th to the 17th Century. Trans. René North.
Rutland: Tuttle, 1968.
Southern, Pat and Karen Ramsey Dixon. The Late Roman Army. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1996.
Verbruggen, Jan. F. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages:
From the Eighth Century to 1340. 2nd ed. Trans. Sumner Willard and S.C.M.
Southern. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1997.

Regional Studies
Bloch, Herbert. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 3 Vols. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1988.
 Bibliography | 709

Brown, Michelle, and Carol Ann Farr, eds. Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in
Europe. London: Continuum, 2001.
Clover, F. M. “Felix Karthago.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986): 1–16.
Cunliffe, Barry. Wessex to A.D. 1000. London: Longman, 1993.
Deliyannis, Deborah M. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab
Conquest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Freely, John, and Ahmet S. Cakmak. Byzantine Monuments of Constantinople.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Hallenback, Jan T. Pavia and Rome: The Lombard Monarchy and the Papacy in the
Eighth Century. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1982.
Harris, Jonathan. Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Oxford: Continuum
Books, 2007.
Holum, Kenneth G., Avner Raban, Robert L. Hohlfelder, and Robert J. Bull. King
Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1988.
Huskinson, Janet, and Isabella Sandwell, eds. Culture and Society in Later Roman
Antioch. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003.
Kondoloeon, Christine, ed. Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2000.
Krautheimer, Richard. Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
La Rocca, Cristina. Italy in the Early Middle Ages: 476–1000. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Levine, Lee. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later
Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Raban, Avner, and Kenneth G. Holum, eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Restrospective
after Two Millenia. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Sherrard, Philip. Constantinople: Iconography of a Sacred City. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1965.
Trumbull, Stephen. The Walls of Constantinople AD 324–1453. Oxford: Osprey
Publishing, 2004.
Velay, Phiippe. From Lutetia to Paris: The Island and the Two Banks. Paris: CNRS,
1992.

Religion
Barber, Charles. Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
710 | Bibliography

Brown, Peter.. Relics and Social Status in the Age of Gregory of Tours. Reading,
UK: University of Reading, 1977.
Brown, Peter.. Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine. New York: Harper and
Row, 1972.
Bullough, Donald. “Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven: Liturgy, Theology, and
the Carolingian Age.” In Carolingian Essays. Ed. Uta-Renate Blumenthal.
Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1983, pp. 1–69.
Cavadini, J. C. The Last Christology of the West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul,
785–820. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Chazelle, Celia. The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era: Theology and Art of
Christ’s Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Clarke, Howard B., and Mary Brennen, eds. Columban and Merovingian Monasti-
cism. Oxford: British Archeological Reports, 1981.
Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christian-
ity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Dumézil, Georges. Gods of the Ancient Northmen. Trans. Einer Haugen. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1973.
Dunn, Marilyn. Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early
Middle Ages. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2003.
Evans, Gillian R. The Thought of Gregory the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1988.
Farmer, David Hugh, ed. Benedict’s Disciples. Leominster, UK: Fowler Wright, 1980.
Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1987.
Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Juda-
ism. New York: Doubleday Religion, 2008.
Frend, W.H.C. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North
Africa. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Geary, Patrick. Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. Rev. ed.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Grimm, Jakob. Teutonic Mythology. 4 Vols. Trans. James Stevens Stallybrass.
London: Routledge, 1999.
Hanson, Richard P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian
Controversy, 318–381. Edinburgh: Baker Academic, 1988.
Harmless, J. William. “Monasticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian
Studies. Eds. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008, pp. 493–517.
Higham, Nicholas J. The Convert Kings: Power and Religious Affiliation in Early
Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1997.
Hildebrand, Stephen M. The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthe-
sis of Greek Thought and Biblical Faith. Washington, DC: Catholic University
Press of America, 2009.
 Bibliography | 711

Jolly, Karen Louise. Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Con-
text. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Knowles, David. Christian Monasticism. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969.
Lawrence, Clifford H. Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western
Europe in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1989.
Markus, Robert A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1998.
Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.
McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–
895. London: Longman, 1977.
Meyvaert, Paul. Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others. London: Variorum Reprints,
1977.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Vol. 2 of The Christian
Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1978.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300). Vol. 3 of The
Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1978.
Polomé, Edgar C. Essays on Germanic Religion. Washington, DC: Institute for the
Study of Man, 1989.
Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea; Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transfor-
mation of Divine Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Reuter, Timothy, ed. The Greatest Englishman: Essays on St. Boniface and the
Church at Crediton. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980.
Richards, Jeffrey. Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.
Rousseau, Philip. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Russell, James C. The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Socio-
historical Approach to Religious Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Russell, Jeffery Burton. Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1965.
Straw, Carol. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1991.
Sullivan, Richard. “What Was Carolingian Monasticism? The Plan of St. Gall and
the History of Monasticism.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of
Early Medieval History. Ed. Alexander Callander Murray. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1998, pp. 251–87.
Turville-Petre, Edward O. G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of An-
cient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964.
712 | Bibliography

Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London:
Methuen, 1972.
Van Dam, Raymond. Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Wallace-Hadrill, John M. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Williams, Daniel H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflict.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Social and Economic History

Blackburn, Mark A. S., ed. Anglo-Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of
Michael Dolley. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1986.
Bloch, Marc. French Rural History: An Essay on Its Basic Characteristics. Trans.
Janet Sondheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
Bloch, Marc. Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages. Trans. William R. Beer.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Bonnassie, Pierre. From Slavery to Feudalism in South-Western Europe. Trans. Jean
Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Bruce-Mitford, Rupert L. S. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. 3 Vols. London: British
Museum, 1975–1983.
Carver, Martin. The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1992.
Carver, Martin. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1998.
Dockès, Pierre. Medieval Slavery and Liberation. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Dolley, Reginald H. Michael, ed. Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies Presented to F. M.
Stenton. London: Methuen, 1961.
Duby, Georges, ed. A History of Private Life. Vol. 2, Revelations of the Medieval
World. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1988.
Duby, Georges. The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peas-
ants from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1979.
Duby, Georges. Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Trans.
Cynthia Postan. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968.
Evans, Angela Care. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. London: British Museum,
1986.
Finberg, Herbert P. R., ed. Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. 1.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Ganshof, François Louis. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Trans. Bryce
Lyon and Mary Lyon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1968.
 Bibliography | 713

Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. New
York: Harper and Row, 1987.
Gladitz, Charles. Horse Breeding in the Medieval World. Dublin: Four Courts Press,
1997.
Goody, Jack. The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Grierson, Philip, and Mark Blackburn. Medieval European Coinage. Vol. 1, The
Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
Harvey, John. Mediaeval Gardens. Beaverton, OR: Timber, 1981.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1985.
Hodges, Richard. The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archeology and the Beginnings
of English Society. London: Duckworth, 1989.
King, Peter D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1972.
Lewit, Tamara. Agricultural Production in the Roman Economy, A.D. 200–400.
Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1991.
Lyon, Bryce. A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England. 2nd ed.
New York: Norton, 1980.
Morrison, Karl F., and Henry Grunthal. Carolingian Coinage. New York: American
Numismatic Society, 1967.
Munz, Peter. Life in the Age of Charlemagne. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
1971.
Odegaard, Charles E. Vassi et Fideles in the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1945.
Pirenne, Henri. Mohammed and Charlemagne. Trans. Bernard Miall. New York:
Barnes and Noble, 1992.
Pollock, Frederick, and Frederic W. Maitland. The History of English Law before
the Time of Edward I. 2nd ed. 2 Vols. London: Cambridge University Press,
1968.
Reynolds, Philip. L. Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Mar-
riage. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Riché, Pierre. Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne. Trans. Jo Ann McNamara.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Shahar, Shulamith. Growing Old in the Middle Ages: ‘Winter clothes us in shadow
and pain.’ Trans. Yael Lotan. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Slicher van Bath, Bernard H. The Agrarian History of Western Europe: A.D.
500–1850. Trans. Olive Ordish. London: Arnold, 1963.
Todd, Malcolm. Everyday Life of the Barbarians: Goths, Franks, and Vandals.
London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1972.
714 | Bibliography

Veyne, Paul. A History of Private Life. Vol. 1, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium.
Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1964.
Wormald, Patrick. “Lex Scripta and Verbum Regis: Legislation and Germanic
Kingship from Euric to Cnut.” In Early Medieval Kingship. Eds. Peter Sawyer
and Ian N. Wood. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds Press, 1977, pp. 105–38.

Women
Blamires, Alcuin. Women Defamed, Women Defended. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1990.
Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993.
Damico, Helen, and A. Hennessy, eds. New Readings on Women in Old English
Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Dronke, Peter. Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from
Perpetua (d. 203) to Marguerite Porete (d. 1310). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1984.
Ferrante, Joan M. “Women’s Role in Latin Letters from the Fourth to the Early
Twelfth Century.” In The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Ed. June Hall
McCash. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996, pp. 73–105.
Hollum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in
Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Jewell, Helen. Women in Medieval England. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univer-
sity Press, 1996.
Kirshner, Julius, and Suzanne Wemple, eds. Women of the Medieval World. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Leyser, Henrietta. Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England,
450–1500. New York: St. Martin’s, 1995.
McCash, June Hall, ed. The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Athens: Uni-
versity of Georgia Press, 1996.
Nelson, Janet L. “Queens as Jezebels: The Careers of Brunhild and Balthild
in Merovingian History.” In Medieval Women. Ed. Derek Baker. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1978, pp. 31–77.
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, ca.
500–1100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Shahar, Shulamith. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages.
New York: Routledge, 1990.
Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines, and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the
Early Middle Ages. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983.
 Bibliography | 715

Stuard, Susan Mosher, ed. Women in Medieval Society. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1976.
Ward, Elizabeth. “Caesar’s Wife: The Career of the Empress Judith, 819–829.”
In Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious.
Eds. Peter Godman and Roger Collins. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990, pp. 205–27.
Wemple, Suzanne. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to
900. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Index

Items in bold refer to main entries.

Aachen. See Aix-la-Chapelle peasants and, 448

Ad Carolum regem (To Charles the King) poem slave labor and, 493 – 496
(Angilbert), 49 – 50, 524 three-field rotation system, 14
Admonitio Generalis, 1 – 2, 49, 157, 173, 240, See also animal husbandry; animals; diet and
404, 523 nutrition
Adoptionism, 2 – 3, 173, 303 Aistulf, 16 – 19, 146 – 147, 232 – 233, 385, 457
adultery, 117, 251, 368, 397, 401, 403 – 404 Aix-la-Chapelle, 20 – 23
Aelfric. See Anglo-Saxons Charlemagne’s palace complex in, 20 – 22,
Aethelberht I of Kent (English king), 3 – 5, 32 50, 85, 160
Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, 5 – 6, 406 Felix’s debate with Alcuin at, 3
Æthelwulf, 37 – 39, 51 Inde monastery in, 108
Aëtius, 7 – 9 Lothar’s capture of, 154, 389
Alans association with, 23 – 24 Louis the Pious’s crowning in, 394, 434
attack on Burgundians, 133 monastery at, 108
Attila’s setbacks from, 322 Alans, 23 – 25, 167
escape of Attila and, 167 – 168 Attila the Hun’s alliance with, 76
Galla Placidia’s conflict with, 548 co-conquest of Spain, 539
Galswintha’s rivalry with, 269 Gaiseric’s rule of, 265 – 267
Huns’ assistance for, 321 Huns conquest of, 319 – 320
Ricimer’s service with, 470 Ricimer’s protection of Italy from, 470
troops commanded by, 76 Sangiban’s command of, 640
See also Catalaunian Plains, Battle of Alaric, 25 – 28, 348, 474, 633, 637 – 638, 642,
Agapetus I, Pope, 166 647
Agobard of Lyons, St., 10 – 11, 397 Alaric II, 29 – 30, 126, 140, 248, 362, 548, 555
Agricola (Tacitus), 243 Alboin, 30 – 31, 382 – 383, 422
agriculture, 12 – 16 Alcuin of York, 31 – 34
in Anglo-Saxon England, 58 admiration of Bede by, 98
in Aquitaine, 457 Augustine of Hippo’s influence on, 81
Capitulare de Villis and, 142 Caroline miniscule created by, 147
Etymologies coverage of, 332 Carolingian court joined by, 158
grain cultivation, 13, 15 Opus Carolis Regis of, 377 – 378
importance to Visigoths, 546 poetry of, 33
involvement of Jews with, 344 role in Carolingian renaissance, 33, 55, 426,
new technique development, 230 495
in North Africa, 162 service to Charlemagne, 32 – 33, 174, 619

717
718 | Index

slaves of, 496 missionary work to, 78, 80, 83, 122 – 123,
writings against Adoptionism, 3 145 – 146, 150, 170
Alemanni, 35 – 37, 365 Northumbrian Renaissance in, 426
Charles defeat of, 178 Offa’s rule of, 406, 431 – 433
Clovis’s victory against, 199 – 200, 297 origins of, 52
codification of laws of, 365 peasant militia of, 39 – 40
Constantine’s border wars with, 213 peasants of, 448
Gundobad’s conflict with, 297 Penna’s importance to, 450
raid of northern Italy, 566 purchase of slaves, 493
Stilicho’s treaties with, 498 Sutton Hoo burial mounds, 378, 500 – 502,
threat of the Franks by, 297 531
See also Tolbiac, Battle of Wessex kingdom, 561 – 563
Alfred the Great, 37 – 42, 51, 53, 361 – 362, 432, whalebone/walrus tusk carvings, 333
508 See also Alcuin of York; Alfred the Great;
al-Rahman II, Abd, 117 Bede; bretwalda; heptarchy; Mercia
Amalaswintha, 42 – 44, 103, 279, 353, 514 – 515, animal husbandry, 12 – 13, 15, 58, 252
518, 520 animals, 57 – 59
Ambrose of Milan, 45 – 47, 100 in barbarian art, 92 – 93
conversion to Christianity, 81 in barbarian jewelry, 339
excommunication of Theodosius by, 580 – 581 in capitularies, 142
inspirational sermons, lectures by, 413 clothing uses of, 196
relations with the Jews, 343 Etymologies coverage of, 332
Theodosius’s conflicts with, 521 – 522 horseflesh as food prohibition, 57
Ammianus Marcellinus, 36, 47 – 48, 48, 133, peasant ownership of, 448
158, 235, 318, 342, 582 – 587 religious sacrifices of, 273
Anastasius I, 439, 502 as trade for other food stuff, 636
Angilbert, St., 49 – 50, 425 wartime uses, 58
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38, 50 – 51, 449, 508, Annales regni Francorum (Royal Frankish
553 – 554, 561 Annals), 69, 118, 124, 144, 349, 369, 478,
Anglo-Saxons, 51 – 56 481 – 482
Aethelberht’s rule of, 3 – 5 Annals of Fulda, 482
Æthelflæd’s importance to, 6 Annals of Metz, 66 – 67
Benedict Biscop’s legacy to, 104 – 105 Annals of St. Bertin, 482
Beowulf (epic poem), 55, 113 – 115, 508 Antioch, 59 – 61, 231, 337 – 338, 513, 535
Britons defense of England from, 358 Antony, St., 416
coinage history, 203 – 205 Aquitaine, 390, 392
conquest of England, by Bede, 593 – 595 Charibert rule of, 221 – 222
conquest of Mercia, 406 Eude’s rule of, 246 – 247
conversions to Christianity, 80, 276, 283, Louis the Pious’s rule of, 394, 396
285 – 286 Muslim raids into, 533
Gildas’s history of invasions by, 277 – 278, Neustria’s alliance with, 424
626 – 628 Pippin III’s conquest of, 457
heptarchy formed by, 53, 308 – 309 Pippin II’s rule of, 425, 454, 543 – 544
horses used by, 58 Waltharius poem about, 557
importance of Penda’s reign, 450 Arbogast, 61 – 62
ivory carvers, 335 defeat by Theodosius, 62, 522
laws and legal codes, 4 – 5, 361 – 365 master of horse title, 61
minting of coins by, 203 – 204 master of the soldiers title, 62
 Index | 719

minting of coins by, 62 Caesarius’s introduction of ideas of, 139

Stilicho’s role in defeat of, 497 Circumcellion’s and, 194
Arianism, 63 – 66 City of God by, 28, 81 – 83, 547, 589
Basil’s opposition to, 96 Columban’s study of works of, 207
Burgundians, Vandals acceptance of, 65, 163 conversion experience of, 591 – 593
Catholic Christian conversions from, 198, Gottschalk’s interpretations of, 159 – 160, 281
200, 278, 284, 296, 331, 379, 491, 545 inspiration from Ambrose of Milan, 45, 47
Clovis’s sympathies with, 66, 198, 200 opposition to Donatism, 234 – 235
Constantine’s denouncement of, 212 preservation of works of, 159
Constantinus’ adoption of, 64 Radegund’s studies of, 463
description/origins, 63 – 64 religious community establishment, 417
Huneric’s imposition of, 317 – 318 slavery practices accepted by, 493
Justina’s attempts at imposing, 46 St. Columbans reading of, 207
Leovigild’s imposition of, 528 studies in Carthage, 162
Merovingian Franks and, 65 true commonwealth definition of, 589 – 591
Rothari’s support for, 383, 479 Augustulus. See Romulus Augustulus
Ulfilas’s missionary work, 64, 546 Austrasia, 84 – 85, 149, 410 – 411, 453, 507
armor and weapons, 546, 558 – 560 aristocratic factions in, 66
Arnulf of Metz, St., 66 – 67, 148, 450 – 451 Avars’ attack of, 86
Arthur, King. See King Arthur Balthild’s role in reunification of, 90
Æsc (Kent king), 307 – 308 Charlemagne’s capital in, 85
Asser, 38, 51, 56, 68 – 69 Childeric II’s reign over, 237
See also Life of Alfred Chlotar’s subkingdom in, 192
Astronomer, The, 69 – 70 Dagobert’s subkingdom in, 221 – 223, 451
Athalaric. See Ostrogoths Eboin’s near unification of, 238
Athanaric, 71 – 73 Grimoald’s mayoralty in, 294
Fritigern’s rivalry with, 64, 73, 262 – 263, 537 as “new land,” 424
Ulfilas’s opposition to, 536 opposition to Brunhilde, 130
Attila the Hun, 73 – 77, 429, 435 Pippin I’s leadership, 411, 450 – 451
Alans’ conflicts with, 24 Sigebert III’s rule of, 223
capture of slaves by, 494 Theuderic III’s rule of, 238
Cassiodorus’s visit to, 166 war with Neustria, 507
composition of army of, 167 See also Aix-la-Chapelle
Getica information on, 348, 633, 638 – 643, Avars, 85 – 87
646 Albion’s alliance with, 382
invasion of Italy, 322, 366 – 367, 414, 446 Alcuin’s alliance with, 31
Jordanes’ description of, 73 – 74 Balkans overtaken by, 216
Leo I’s, defense of Rome against, 588 – 589 challenges to Constantinople, 215
Orestes’ service to, 435 conflicts with Franks, 85 – 87
Pavia attacked by, 446 eviction from Italy, 384
Priscus’s description of, 662 – 663 Grimoald’s escape from, 446
threats to Paris, 272, 443 Lombard relations with, 381 – 382
Waltharius poem and, 557 Notker’s defeat of, 428
See also Catalaunian Plains, Battle of; Huns Sigebert’s alliance with, 298
Augustine of Canterbury, St., 3 – 4, 54, 78 – 80, Tassilo’s negotiations with, 506
285, 503
Augustine of Hippo, St, 81 – 83 Badon Hill, Battle of, 89, 423, 626
Bede’s borrowings from, 100 Balthild, St., 90 – 91, 237, 411, 495, 571
720 | Index

barbarian art, 92 – 95 Biblical commentaries of, 100

animal styles, 92 – 93 borrowings from Augustine of Hippo, 100
ivory carvings, 92, 94, 160, 215, 333 – 335, on Caedwalla, 137
559 Carolingian Renaissance influenced by, 100
manuscript illuminations, 92, 94, 157, 201, on Hengist and Horsa, 306 – 307
334, 357 History of the English Church and People,
metalwork, 37, 92 – 93, 334, 338 – 339 41, 51, 78, 98 – 101, 426
precious gems, 93 – 94 on life and works, of Gregory I, 595 – 600
See also jewelry and gems on Penda’s march against Oswy, 450
Basil the Great, St., 46, 96 – 97, 416, 417 preservation of works of, 158
The Battle of Brunanburh (literary work), purchase of slaves by, 493
55 – 56 Rule of Benedict influence on, 418
The Battle of Maldon (literary work), 55 – 56 belagines (written laws), 362
battles Belisarius, 102 – 104
Badon Hill, 89, 423, 626 aid in ending Nika Revolt, 421
Busta Gallorum, 422, 441, 530 Carthage captured by, 163
Cannae, 48, 305 conflicts with Totila, 103, 280
Catalaunian Plains, 9, 24, 76, 133, 167 – 168, conquest of Sicily by, 279
256, 516, 640 – 641 defeat of Alans, 25
Chalons, 588 invasion of Italy with Justinian, 441
Cirencester, 449 Milan seized by, 413
Eddington, 562 North Africa invaded by, 278
Ellendum, 562 Pavia’s resistance to, 447
Fontenoy, 154, 181, 254 – 255, 389, 391, 425, Procopius’s legal advisory to, 461
500, 543 Benedict Biscop, 104 – 106, 418, 426
Hadrianople, 263, 521 – 522, 537, 582 – 587 Benedict of Aniane, 3, 107 – 109, 396, 419
Hastings, 508 Benedict of Nursia, St., 107, 109 – 112, 164,
Hatfield Chase, 241 194, 418, 419, 445
Maserfelth, 449 See also Monte Cassino; Rule of Benedict of
Milvian Bridge, 473, 623 – 626 Nursia
Nedao, 322, 437 – 438 Beowulf (epic poem), 55, 113 – 115, 508
Poetovio, 522 Bernard Hairyfeet, 116
Roncesvalles, 152, 477 – 478 Bernard of Septimania, 116, 117, 226, 350, 388,
Second Jewish War, 138 391, 396 – 397
Tertry, 149, 411, 424, 452 – 453, 506 – 507 Bertrada (wife of Pippin the Short), 117 – 119
Tolbiac, 199, 526 – 527 Bible of Ulfilas, 362
Tours, 150, 177, 247, 533 – 534, 631 – 632 The Bishops, Knights, and Saints of York poem
Vouillé, 30, 548, 555 – 556 (Alcuin), 33
Winwaed, 450 Bleda. See Attila the Hun
Baugulf of Fulda, 157, 375 – 376 Body of Civil Law (Justinian), 342
Bavarian law codes, 365 Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus, 119 – 121
Bede, 98 – 101 Asser’s/Alfred’s translations of, 68
account of the Synod of Whitby, 600 – 605 Consolation of Philosophy by, 41, 56,
on Aethelberht I, 4 120 – 121
Alcuin’s admiration for, 98 contributions to education, 239
on the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England, imprisonment, execution of, 43, 121, 440,
593 – 595 519
Bernicia struggles recorded by, 423 Theodoric’s patronage of, 439, 515, 518
 Index | 721

Boniface, St., 122 – 124, 418 Aëtius campaigns against, 8

biography of, 678 – 687 Arian Christianity acceptance by, 65
Carloman’s support of, 124, 145 – 146 arrival in Roman Empire, 131
Carolingian support for, 151 in Attila the Hun’s army, 74
challenge to Aëtius, 8 Clotilda’s call for war against, 198 – 199
Charles Martel’s support of, 150, 177, 179 Clovis’s victory against, 199
Constantinople’s overthrow efforts, 265 – 266 Eboin’s near unification of, 238
conversions of Germanic people, 276 Gundobad’s rule of, 296 – 297
horseflesh consumption prohibition, 57 law codes, 362 – 363
importance of, 193 marriage customs, 402
mission to Germany, 57 Merovingian Franks invasion of, 43
Pope Gregory II’s relationship to, 287 burial sites
rule of efforts of, 265 Sutton Hoo burial mounds, 378, 500 – 502,
Stephen II’s martyrdom of, 194 531
Book of Constitutions (Liber constitutionem), Tournai, 408, 531
131, 363, 491 – 492 Busta Gallorum, Battle of, 422, 441, 530
Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis), 17, 51, Byzantine Empire
367 – 368 alliance with Lombards, 383
bretwalda, 3, 125 – 126 jewelry and gems, 339
See also Aethelberht I of Kent; Cealwin; law codes, 363
Edwin legacy of Leo III, 372
Breviary of Alaric, 30, 126 – 128, 363 Leovigild’s campaigns against, 373
Britain Second Council of Nicaea and, 376 – 377
Anglo-Saxons conquest of, 52, 626 – 628 seizure of Milan, 413
Bede’s historical writings about, 101
coins and coinage, 203 – 204 Caedwalla (Wessex king), 137 – 138, 562
Constantine’s appearance in, 27 Caesar Augustus, 138
Hengist’s/Horsa’s invasion of, 307 – 308 Caesarea, 138 – 139
historical writings about Britain, 101 Basil the Great’s studies at, 96
Roman withdrawal from, 307 commercial importance, 138
slavery in, 285 Herod the Great’s building of, 138
Stilicho’s troop withdrawal, 315 religious/cultural importance, 139
Vortigern’s rule of, 553 – 554, 626 Caesarius of Arles, 81, 139 – 141, 418
See also bretwalda; Roman Britain Cannae, Battle of, 48, 305
Brunhilde, 128 – 130 Capetian dynasty, 444
assassination attempts, 410 Capitulare de Villis, 57, 141 – 142, 143, 229
Columban’s criticisms of, 208 Capitulare Saxonicum, 489
domination of Frankish kingdoms, 129 – 130 capitularies, 142 – 143
Fredegund’s rivalry with, 67, 188 – 189, 221, Admonitio Generalis, 1 – 2, 49, 157, 173, 240,
252, 259 – 260, 407, 570 404, 523
hostility towards Columban, 571 Alcuin’s influences, 34
missionary visits to, 79 animal evidence revealed by, 57, 59
overthrow of, 84, 130, 149, 190 – 191, 259, Carloman’s issuance of, 143
450 – 451 Charlemagne’s issuance of, 22, 143, 153, 175
support of mission to England, 285 Charles the Bald’s issuance of, 143
Burchard of Würzburg, 456 of the Council of Quierzy, 184
Burgundian code, 131 – 132, 133 – 134, 362 – 363 defined, 142 – 143
Burgundians, 132 – 134 Louis the Pious issuance of, 143
722 | Index

Ordinatio Imperii, 10 – 11, 153, 387 – 388, role of Louis the Pious in, 396
394, 433 – 434 Rome/pope’s alliance with, 475
Pippin the Short’s issuance of, 143 royal/imperial coronation customs, 148
Capitulary of Herstal, 143 slavery/slave trade in, 495 – 496
Capitulatio de Partibus Saxoniae, 488 – 489, St. Denis Abbey’s support of, 486
608 – 612 support for Boniface, 151
Cappadocian Fathers, 96 Theodulf of Orléans service to, 524
Carloman, 143 – 144, 392, 420, 455 – 456, 458 toleration of Jews, 344 – 345
issuance of capitularies, 143 Treaty of Verdun and, 544
monasticism of, 124 weapons used by, 559
refusal to help Charlemagne, 118, 144, 151 women’s clothing styles, 197
support of Boniface, 124, 145 – 146 See also Lothar
Carloman (Mayor of the Palace), 145 – 147, 412, Carolingian Franks, 372, 446, 573
420, 455 – 456, 482, 505 Carolingian Renaissance, 156 – 160, 393, 426,
Caroline Books. See Libri Carolini 428, 458, 533
Caroline miniscule, 147 – 148 Admonitio Generalis establishment of, 1,
Carolingian dynasty, 148 – 155 143, 157 – 158
Abbey of Saint-Denis relations with, 485 Alcuin’s importance to, 32 – 33
Adoptionism interests, 3 artistic achievements of, 160
Agobard’s religious leadership, 10 Augustine of Hippo’s influences, 83
Charlemagne’s governmental innovation, Bede’s influences, 100
152 – 153, 172 – 173 Benedict Biscop’s influences, 104 – 105
Christian beliefs of, 404 – 405 Charles the Bald’s revival efforts, 38
civil strife in, 150 literary achievements of, 158 – 160
control of Frankish kingdom by, 444 Paul the Deacon’s influences, 157 – 158
importance of missi dominici, 414 – 415 poetry of Ermoldus Nigellus, 245 – 246
inventory of a royal estate, 607 – 608 religious works copied by scribe, 158 – 159
ivory carvings, 334 St. Angilbert’s importance to, 49 – 50
jewelry and gems, 341 Carthage, 161 – 163
law codes, 364 – 365 defeat in Punic War, 162
length of rule by, 148 Donatist schism origins in, 162 – 164,
Lombard alliance with, 386 – 387 235 – 236
marriage reforms, 404 Gaiseric’s capture of, 163, 265 – 266, 540
Merovingian dynasty replaced by, 407, 410, Cassian, St. John (c. 360–435), 163 – 165
411 – 412 Cassiodorus, 165 – 166, 239, 417
Milan absorbed by, 413 influence on Isidore of Seville, 332
minting of coins by, 204 preservation of works of, 158 – 159
origins of, 148 – 149 seven liberal arts system of, 33
Pavia city controlled by, 447 Theodoric’s patronage of, 439
Pippin I’s co-founding of, 450 Catalaunian Plains, Battle of (451), 9, 24, 76,
Pippin the Short’s rule of, 151, 364, 385, 391, 133, 167 – 168, 256, 516, 640 – 641
398, 410 Catholic Christianity
reign of Charlemagne, 368 – 370 Ambrose of Milan and, 46
relations with Rome, 387, 395 – 396, 398, Arian Christians conversions to, 198, 200,
454 – 455, 475 278, 284, 296, 331, 379, 491, 545
role of Bernard of Septimania, 117 Clovis’s conversion to, 200, 201
role of Bertrada, 117 – 119 Donatist’s rejection of, 194 – 195
role of Lothar in, 387 – 389 England’s restoration of, 503
 Index | 723

Euric’s hostility for, 249 as “greatest ruler of Christendom,” 477

Hermenegild’s conversion to, 373 – 374, 468 imperial dignity reestablished by, 153
Lombard conversions to, 379, 382, 384 incorporation of Lombard kingdom, 368,
pagan conversions to, 408 385, 413
Reccared’s conversion to, 373 – 374, 468, 549 intellectual/cultural reform programs, 375
Sigismund’s conversion to, 491 Jews in the court of, 345
Spanish conversions to, 373 – 375 legal reforms of, 364 – 365
St. Clotilda’s faith, 198 letter imposing Christianity on Saxons,
Theodosian Code and, 362, 521 – 522 488 – 489, 608 – 612
Visigoths’ conversions to, 468, 535 letter promoting learning, 605 – 606
Cealwin, 562 Letter to Baugulf by, 2, 157, 240, 375 – 376,
Celestine I, Pope, 366 605 – 606
Celtic church, 206, 503 – 504, 600 Lombard’s conquered by, 172
See also Synod of Whitby Neustria subkingdom establishment, 424
Celts Notker’s biography of, 427
Lindisfarne Gospels and, 377 Offa’s correspondence with, 433
Milan founded by, 413 physical description of, 169
monastic traditions, 418 Pope Leo III coronation of, 152, 369
Ceolwulf II, 406 role in conversions of Germanic people,
Cerdic (Wessex ruler), 51, 561 – 562 276
Chalons, Battle of, 588 Saxony defeated by, 170 – 172
Charibert, 221 – 222 scabini ( judges) appointed by, 173
Charlemagne, 168 – 176 Spanish March created by, 171 – 172
Adoptionism denounced by, 173 visit to Spain, 477 – 478
Agilolfing family rivalry with, 505 – 506 Widukind’s rebellion against, 563 – 564
Aix-la-Chapelle palace complex, 20 – 21, 50, See also Admonitio Generalis; capitularies;
85, 160 Gesta Karoli Magni; Vita Karoli
Angilbert’s importance to, 49 – 50 Charles Martel, 177 – 180
armor used by, 559 Aquitaine taken over by, 178 – 179
Asser inspired by, 69 Battle of Tours fought by, 177, 533 – 534,
Bavaria annexed by, 171 631 – 632
belief in self as Josiah, 1 coverage in Royal Frankish Annals, 482
capitularies issued by, 22, 143, 153, 175 defeat of Muslims, 532 – 533
coinage reformed by, 204 – 205 division of kingdom to sons, 455
concubinage practice of, 404 Gregory III’s letter to, 628
conflict with Carloman, 118, 144, 170 Liutprand’s alliance with, 380
coronation of, as emperor, 174 – 176 mayor of Merovingian palace, 177, 411
De litteris colendis to Baugulf of Fulda, 157 military successes of, 150
Desiderius defeated by, 172, 447, 614 Plectrude’s imprisonment of, 150
education supported by, 156 – 157, 375 – 376, Pope Gregory III’s alliance with, 385
605 – 606, 617 – 618 request for aid from, 372
Einhard’s biography of, 70, 428, 472, rivalry within family of, 178
552 – 553, 612 – 623 support for Boniface, 150, 177, 179
Fastrada’s marriage to, 253 – 254 Charles the Bald, 180 – 184, 386 – 387, 399
Gesta Karoli on, 427 – 428, 659 – 660 Aquitaine ruled by, 117
Gottschalk’s poetry of praise for, 282 the Astronomer’s defense of, 70
governmental innovation by, 152 – 153, Battle of Fontenoy, 154, 181, 254 – 255, 389,
172 – 173 391, 425, 500, 543
724 | Index

capitularies issued by, 143 Charlemagne’s help in spreading, 1 – 2,

granting of Neustria to, 424 488 – 489, 608 – 612
issuance of new laws, 365 Edict of Milan and, 413
John Scottus in the court of, 346 Franks’ conversions, 276
missi dominici and, 414 Fritigern’s conversion, 72
Nithard’s chronicling of, 425 Islam’s conflicts with, 477, 632
Oath of Strasbourg and, 499 – 500 Leo III’s iconoclasm policies, 370 – 371
support for the arts, 160 Lindisfarne Gospels, 377 – 379
Treaty of Verdun and, 543 – 544 Martin’s conversion, 404 – 405
warfare with Louis the German, 390 – 391, Mercia’s introduction of, 406
425 monastic tradition, 404 – 405, 415 – 420, 677
West Frankish kingdom ruled by, 117 Northmen’s conversions, 185
Charles III, the Fat, 184 – 185, 392, 427 – 428 Northumbrian Renaissance influence, 426
Charles III, the Simple, 186 Ostrogoths’ conversions, 276
Childebert I, 201 Paris arrival of, 443
Childebert III, 453 Pippin III’s church reforms, 457 – 458
Childeric III, 187 – 188 Pope Leo III’s contributions, 367 – 370
deposition from king position, 146, 231 Pope Leo I’s contributions, 366 – 367
“do-nothing king” status, 187, 574 Procopius’s belief in, 461
restoration as Merovingian king, 150, 412, triumph of, in England, 595 – 600
455, 472 Visigoth conversions, 276, 535
Chilperic I, 129, 188 – 190, 364, 410, 469 See also Ambrose of Milan; Arianism; Bede;
Gregory of Tours conflict with, 292 Catholic Christianity; monasticism; Synod
invasion of Sigebert’s territory, 189 – 190 of Whitby
marriage to, murder of Galswintha, 129, 189, Chrodegang of Metz, 124, 193 – 194, 458
269, 403, 410 Chrysostom, John, 164, 343
Salic law expansion by, 364 Cicero, 158, 239, 243, 589 – 590
support for Ragamfred, 178 Circumcellions, 194 – 195, 234 – 235
warfare during reign of, 188 – 189 Cirencester, Battle of, 449
Chlodomer, 201 City of God (St. Augustine of Hippo), 28,
Chlotar I, 364, 403, 407, 410 81 – 83, 547, 589
Chlotar II, 190 – 192, 410, 450 civil wars
Brunhilde overthrown by, 67 Anglo-Saxon England, 431
Fredegund’s admiration for, 259 Carolingian Dynasty, 386, 389 – 391, 398,
peace/prosperity established by, 191 – 192 425, 543
Pippin’s aid to, 149 Germanic kingdom, 429, 471
suspicious paternity of, 299 Merovingian Dynasty, 408 – 410
Chlotar III, 90 clothing, 195 – 197
Christianity of Attila the Hun, 74
Adoptionism teaching, 2 – 3, 173, 303 barbarian-designed ornamentation, 92
Aethelberht I’s conversion to, 4 Bathild’s donation of, 74
Albert the Great’s translations, 40 – 41 at finds at Duraton, 481
Anglo-Saxon conversions, 80, 276 jewelry ornamentation for, 339
Antioch conversions, 60 material from animals for, 57, 59
Athanaric’s opposition to, 72 Tacitus’s description, 195 – 196
barbarian conversions, 273 Visigoth trading of, 546
Carthage community of, 162 Clotilda, St., 197 – 199, 491 – 492, 570, 630
Celtic church, 503 – 504, 600 Clovis, 199 – 201
 Index | 725

Alaric II attacked by, 29 – 30 Avars threats to, 215

Constantine’s recognition of, 200 – 201 Belisarius’s presence in, 102
conversion to Catholic Christianity, 200, 201 Blue and Green factions in, 510, 512
founding of Merovingian dynasty, 199 Chrysostom’s patriarchal role, 164
kingdom unification by, 407 Council of Chalcedon and, 366
law codes of, 363 – 364 efforts at control of Italy, 467
Clovis II, 90, 223, 411, 479 Gothic attempt at taking, 27
Clovis IV, 453 Muslim siege of, 371
Code of Justinian, 126, 218 – 219, 353, 362, 649 Odovacar’s recognition of authority of, 429
Codex Amiatinus, 426 Ostrogoth’s strained relations with, 492
Codex Euricianus (Code of Euric), 126, 131, Rome’s split with, 16
248 – 249, 362 siege of, 371
Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code), 127, Theodoric’s rule of, 439, 517 – 518
362, 521 – 522 Valens rule in, 537
coins and coinage, 202 – 205 Zeno’s rule of, 435, 438, 476, 575 – 576
Arbogast’s minting of, 62 Constitutio Romana (Roman Constitution), 387,
Germanic people’s minting of, 203 395
Ostrogoth’s minting of, 203 Constitutum Constantini (Donation of Constan-
Theodohad’s minting of, 44 tine), 16, 18, 230 – 232, 475
Columba, St., 206, 417, 503 – 504, 604 Corpus Iuris Civilis, 218 – 219, 342, 353, 649
Columban, St., 207 – 208, 303, 417, 525 See also Code of Justinian; Digest; Institutes
Benedict’s shared influence with, 418 Council of Aachen, 194
Brunhilde’s hostility for, 571 Council of Agde, 30
Chlotar III’s contact with, 191 Council of Antioch, 342
exile of, 130 Council of Attigny, 458
missionary work of, 36, 206 Council of Chalcedon, 366
monasteries established by, 91 Council of Elvira, 342
Pope Gregory’s patronage of, 383 Council of Ephesus (Robber Council), 366
Comitatus, 209 Council of Frankfurt (794), 433
concubinage, 403 Council of Gentilly, 458
Conferences (Cassian), 416 Council of Laodicea, 342
Confessions (St. Augustine of Hippo), 81 – 82 Council of Nicaea, 342
Consolation of Philosophy (Boethius), 41, 56, Council of Ver, 458
120 – 121 Council of Verberie, 458
Constantine, 210 – 213
Alemanni’s border wars with, 36, 213 Dagobert, 221 – 223, 403, 407, 410 – 411, 450
conversion to Christianity, 527 Dagobert III, 453, 460
Edict of Milan issued by, 413 Damasus, Pope, 378
Jerome’s visit to, 337 Danish Vikings, 562
Milvian Bridge victory of, 473, 623 – 626 Denis, St., 443
objection to icons, 371 Desert Fathers, 164
recognition of Clovis, 200 – 201 Desiderius, 223 – 226, 445, 447
treatment of Jews by, 342 Bertrada’s meeting with, 119
use of Comitatus (term), 209 Brunhilde’s conflicts with, 130
Vandals petition to, 539 Charlemagne’s defeat of, 172, 447, 614
Constantine V, 371 – 372 good relations with Carolingians, 384 – 385
Constantinople, 214 – 217 Tassilo’s marriage alliance with, 505 – 506
Athanaric’s welcome in, 71 Dhuoda, 116, 117, 226 – 228, 570
726 | Index

Dialogues (Gregory I), 41, 56, 283 Theodoric’s support for, 518
diet and nutrition, 228 – 230 Theodulf’s support for, 523
menus for nobility, 229 – 230 Edwin, 54 – 55, 241 – 242, 449
in Northern Europe, 58 – 59 Edwin (Northumbrian king), 449
of peasants, 13, 228 – 230 Egbert (Wessex king), 125
Rule of Benedict as source for, 229 Einhard, 243 – 245
Digest, 218 – 219, 353, 649 – 659 aid in building Aix-la-Chapelle, 160
Diocletian, 202 – 203, 210, 234 – 235, 413 on Basque treachery in battle, 478
Dionysio-Hadriana (canon laws collection), 1 comments on Bertrada, 118 – 119
Disposition for the Empire (Ordinatio imperii), description of Alcuin, 32
387 – 388, 394, 433 – 434 description of Avar nobility, 87
De divisione naturae (On the Division of description of barbarian clothing, 196 – 197
Nature) (John Scottus), 347 description of Carloman, 146
divorce, 403 description of Childeric III, 187
Donation of Constantine, 16, 18, 230 – 232, 475 excerpts from Vita Karoli, 612 – 623
Donation of Pippin, 151, 232 – 233, 302, 457, on Hadrian’s death, 303
475 on meat preparation, 229
Donatism, 234 – 236 negative remarks about Fastrada, 253 – 254
Circumcellions alliance with, 194 – 195, 235 Royal Frankish Annals revisions by, 482
debate with Augustine, 236 See also Vita Karoli
in North Africa, 162, 235 Ellendum, Battle of, 562
do-nothing kings (rois fainéants), 187, 223, England
407, 453, 472 – 473, 507 Battle of Badon Hill, 89, 423, 508, 626
double predestination, doctrine of, 60 Battle of Hastings, 508
dowry customs, 402 – 403 Bede on triumph of Christianity in, 595 – 600
The Dream of the Rood (religious poetry), 56 Historia Brittonum inclusion of, 423
Irish monastic communities, 417
East Anglia, 405, 449, 500 – 501, 562 – 563 jewelry and gems, 340
East Frankish kingdom, 185, 186, 427 laws and law codes, 361 – 365
Ebroin, 149, 237 – 238, 424, 453, 507 missionary work in, 4, 78 – 79, 206
Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius), 51 Offa’s influences in, 433
Ecgberht (West Saxon king), 562 restoration of Catholic Christianity, 503
Eddington, Battle of, 562 Erigena, John Scottus, 160
Edict of Milan, 211, 413 Ermoldus Nigellus, 245 – 246
Edictum Theodorici (Edict of Theodoric), 362 Etymologies (Isidore of Seville), 331 – 332, 490
Edictus Rothari (Edict of Rothari), 363 – 364, Eudes of Aquitaine, 246 – 247, 632
479 Eugenius, 62, 522
education and learning, 239 – 240 Euric, 29, 126, 247 – 249, 548
Admonitio Generalis and, 1, 240 See also Codex Euricianus
Alcuin’s support for, 33, 147 Eusebius of Caesarea
Angilbert’s support for, 49 – 50 Battle of Milvan Bridge, description,
Carloman’s support for, 146 623 – 626
of Carolingians, 83 canon tables of, 378
in Carthage, 162 Columban’s study of works of, 207
Charlemagne’s support for, 156 – 157, consecration of Ulfilas by, 535
375 – 376, 605 – 606, 617 – 618 conversion of Constantine, description,
Notker’s support for, 428 623 – 626
in Rome, 164 Ecclesiastical History of, 51
 Index | 727

Jerome’s translations of, 338 Muslim threats to, 380

role as Constantine’s historian, 139, 210, 527 Neustrian Franks, 424, 460
Oath of Strasbourg and, 499
family, 251 – 253 Ordinatio imperii and, 434
See also marriage; women Pippin III’s kingship of, 457, 507
Fastrada, 253 – 254 Pippin II’s unification of, 149
Felix of Urgel, 2, 34, 49 Pippin the Short’s rule of, 385
female fidelity, 401 Pope Leo III’s interactions in, 367 – 369
First Jewish War, 28 role of Zachary in, 380, 456, 573 – 575
Fontenoy, Battle of, 154, 181, 254 – 255, Romanization of, 408
389, 391, 425, 500, 543 Rome’s relationship with, 395
Fortunatus, Venantius, 464 – 465 Rothari’s defeat of, 478
Four Books of Histories (Nithard), 425 Salic law, 364 – 365, 409, 457, 487 – 488, 495,
Franks, 256 – 257 569
Aëtius’s army mobilization, 9 slaves and slavery of, 488
Alans battle with, 24 Stephen II’s journey to, 457
Alboins good relations with, 31 Stilicho’s treaties with, 498
Annals of St. Bertin, Annals of Fulda, 482 Theudelinde’s hostility for, 525
Arbogast’s treaty with, 62 use of slaves, 495
Arianism believers, 63 Vandals’ battle with, 24
Attila the Hun’s alliance with, 76 West Frankish kingdom, 116 – 117, 154, 182,
Austrian Germanic Franks, 424 186, 424
Avars conflicts with, 85 – 87 See also Tolbiac, Battle of
Battle of Tolbiac, 199, 526 – 527 Fredegar, 191, 258 – 259, 407, 410, 451 – 452
battle with Attila the Hun, 256 Fredegund, 259 – 261
Brunhilde’s domination of, 129 – 130 Chlotar II admired by, 259
Carolingian Franks, 372, 444, 446, 456 rivalry with Brunhilde, 67, 129 – 130,
Charles III, the Fat, rule of, 184 – 185 188 – 189, 221, 252, 259 – 260, 407, 570
Chlodio’s rule of, 8 rule of Neustria, 424
clothing styles, 196 support of husband Chilperic I, 189 – 190
Clovis IV rule of, 453 Friedelehe relationship practice, 402
compliance with church law, 404 Fritigern, 262 – 264
defeat of Burgundians, 363 Arianism beliefs of, 64
East Frankish kingdom, 185, 186, 427 Athanaric’s rivalry with, 64, 262 – 263, 537
foot soldier, military style, 257 conversion to Christianity, 72
horses used by, 58 petition of Emperor Valens, 546
Italy invaded by, 18 Ulfilas’s support for, 536
jewelry and metalwork, 257, 339 Valens defeated by, 73
law and law codes, 361, 364 – 365, 491 Fulrad of St. Denis, 456 – 457
Liutprand’s alliance with, 379 – 380
Lombards relations with, 381 – 382 Gaiseric, 25, 265 – 267, 367
marriage customs, 118, 401 – 403 African kingdom created by, 540
Martel’s/Plectrude’s rivalry for control of, Attila the Hun’s alliance with, 76
459 capture of Carthage, 163, 265 – 266, 540
Merovingian Franks, 36, 43, 66, 383, 469, Jordanes’ description of, 265, 639 – 640
492 minting of coins by, 203
minting of coins by, 204 Pope Leo III’s negotiation with, 367
movement into Paris, 443 Ricimer defeated by, 470
728 | Index

Rome assaulted by, 474, 538 History of the Wars chapter on, 461
Vandals alliance with, 25 Justinian’s role in, 278 – 280, 354, 474
Galla Placidia, 7 – 8, 266, 267 – 269, 466, Narses closure of, 354, 421
547 – 548 resistance to Belisarius during, 447
Gallo-Romans, 424 Theodosius’s command during, 547
Galswintha, 269 – 270 Goths. See Ostrogoths; Visigoths
Chilperic I’s marriage to, murder of, 129, Gottschalk of Orbais, 281 – 282
189, 269, 403, 410 pilgrimage to Rome, 281
dowry of, 403 poetry of praise for Charlemagne, 282
murder of, 129 predestination doctrine of, 83, 159 – 160
rivalry with Aëtius, 269 Vita Karoli studied by, 552
Geats. See Beowulf grain cultivation and farming, 13, 15
Gelasius, Pope, 271 – 272 Greek Christians, 371
Genevieve, St., 272 – 273, 443 Gregory I, the Great, Pope, 41, 282 – 286, 463,
Germania (Tacitus), 196, 382, 401, 568, 493, 525
579 – 580 Aethelberht’s contact with, 3
Germanic peoples Alfred’s translation of works of, 56
Breviary of Alaric’s influence on, 126 Bede’s description of life, works of, 98,
denunciation of Donation of Constantine, 232 595 – 600
family structure, 251 – 252 Brunhilde’s correspondence with, 130
influences in Neustria, 424 description of Benedict of Nursia, 110
instability in marriage, 403 Dialogues of, 41, 56, 283
jewelry and gems of, 339 missionary work in England, 4, 78 – 79, 285
law codes, 361 – 365 Paul the Deacons biography of, 445
marriage traditions, 401 – 404 preservation of works of, 158
metalwork jewelry designs, 93 support for Leovigild, 374
minting of coins by, 203 Theudelinde’s friendship with, 383, 570
Row-Grave cemeteries of, 480 – 481 Gregory II, Pope, 287 – 288
Tacitus’ description of, 579 – 580 Leo III’s conflict with, 371 – 372
tight-knit family units in, 251 Liutprand’s conflict with, 379 – 380
weapons used by, 558 St. Boniface named by, 122 – 123
See also Alemanni; Arbogast; Franks visit to Rome, 123
Germanic religion, 273 – 276 Gregory III, Pope, 288 – 290
Gesta Karoli Magni (Deeds of Charlemagne) aid to Charles with Lombards, 179
(Notker), 427 – 428, 659 – 660 Boniface sent to Germany by, 57, 123 – 124
Getica (Jordanes), 348, 633 – 649 conflict with Liutprand, 289, 379 – 380
Gewisse tribe, 561 – 562 help in rebuilding Monte Cassino, 420
Gildas, 277 – 278 Leo III’s conflict with, 371 – 372
on Anglo-Saxons conquest of Britain, 52, letter to Charles Martel, 628
626 – 628 overtures to Carolingians, 287, 371, 385
comments on Vortigern, 553 – 554 Gregory of Tours, 291 – 293
King Arthur legend contributions, 277 – 278, on actions of Alaric II, 29 – 30
358 – 359, 423, 626 on Aëtius, 7
notes on Battle of Badon Hill, 89 on Alemanni’s battle with Clovis, 36
Goor. See Alans on Avars battle with Sigebert, 86
Gothic Wars, 103, 278 – 280 on Battle of Tolbiac, 526 – 527
Belisarius’s seizure of Milan, 413 on Battle of Vouillé, 555 – 556
devastation in Italy from, 441 on Brunhilde, 128
 Index | 729

on brutal treatment of slaves, 495 Ammianus Marcellinus’s account of, 48, 305,
on Clothilde and Clovis, 134, 198, 199, 492, 582 – 587
571 Roman losses in, 263
on Clovis and the Vase of Soissons, 629 successes of Theodosius, 521 – 522
on Clovis’s favoring Catholic Christianity, Valens defeat in, 24 – 25, 64, 73, 96, 537 – 538,
65 – 66 547
on the Conversion of Clovis, 630 – 631 Handbook for William (Dhuoda), 226 – 228
Guntram’s difficulty with, 292 Hastings, Battle of, 508
History of the Franks by, 188, 463 Hatfield Chase, Battle of, 241
on Hygelac’s raid into Francia, 113 Hebrew Bible, 69, 98, 100, 115, 172
on marriage of Fredegund and Chilperic, Helena, St. See women
260 Heliand, 306
on marriages of Merovingian kings, 252 Hengist and Horsa (mid-fifth century), 52,
promotion of cult of Martin of Tours, 306 – 308, 553 – 554, 594
404 – 405 heptarchy, 53, 308 – 309
on Radegund, 463, 465 Hermenegild, 309 – 311
Grimoald, 294 – 295 marriage to Merovingian princess, 130,
attempt at capture of Merovingians, 411, 373 – 374, 549
452 – 453, 473 revolt against Leovigild, 310 – 311, 490
invasion of Lombards by, 384 role in Reccared I court, 468
overthrow of, 237 Herodotus, 461
Paul’s writings on, 446 Herod the Great (Jewish king), 138
popularity of, 149 Hexameron (St. Basil the Great), 46, 97
successes of, 295 Hillary of Poitiers, St., 416
Gundobad, 296 – 297 Hincmar of Rheims, 159 – 160, 181 – 182, 281,
Burgundian Code compiled by, 131, 134, 311 – 313, 399
363, 491 – 492 Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons)
marriage to Clovis, 198 (Nennius), 423
role as magister militum, 134 Historia Langobardorum (History of the Lom-
See also Lex Gundobada bards) (Paul the Deacon), 444 – 446
Guntram, 298 – 300 Historiarum Libri VI (Four Books of Histories)
alliance with Chilperic, 190, 469 (Nithard), 425
Columban granted territory by, 207 History of the English Church and People
enmity towards Reccared, 469 (Bede), 41, 51, 78, 98 – 101, 426
Gregory of Tours difficulty with, 292 History of the Franks (Gregory of Tours), 463
respect for Chlotar II, 191 History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi
(Isidore of Seville), 332
Hadrian I, Pope, 301 – 303, 367 History of the Wars (Procopius), 461, 670
Adoptionism opposed by, 2 Honoria, 75, 167, 313 – 314, 322
anointing of Louis the Pious, 394 Honorius, 7, 27 – 28, 267 – 269, 314 – 316, 466,
blessing of Council of Nicaea by, 326 497
capitularies submitted to, 49 Huneric, 266, 316 – 318, 540 – 541
Charlemagne’s aid of, 385 Huns, 318–322, 481
Dionysio-Hadriana capitulary of, 1 Aëtius as hostage of, 7
Offa’s positive relations with, 53, 406 Aëtius assisted by, 321
onset of coinage during reign of, 205 Aëtius campaigns against, 9
Tassilo’s seeking of aid from, 506 Ammianus’s history of, 48
Hadrianople, Battle of, 304 – 305 Athanaric’s struggles against, 71 – 73
730 | Index

Avars’ threats to, 215 Lothar I’s rule of, 386 – 389, 386 – 390
battles with Goths, 437 Louis the Pious campaigns in, 394, 396
collapse of, 438 Monte Cassino religious community, 418,
defeat of, 640 – 641 419 – 420, 445, 574
eagle as power symbol, 481 Narses’ invasion of, 421
Jordane’s writing (Getica) about, 634 – 635, North African invasions of, 475
639 – 640 Odovacar’s rule of, 429 – 430, 439
Ostrogoths victories over, 516 Orestes’ control of, 435 – 436
threats of invading Leo I, 366 – 367 Ricimer’s protection of, 470
Visigoth’s threatened by, 537, 545, 636 slavery practices, 494 – 495
weapons used by, 558, 560 Theodoric’s invasion of, 439
westward migration of, 548 See also Lombards
See also Attila the Hun ivories, 333 – 335
See also under barbarian art
iconoclastic controversy, 11, 173, 217,
324 – 325, 328, 370 – 371 Jarrow. See Benedict Biscop
In honorem Hlodovici imperatoris poem Jerome, 51, 337 – 338
(Ermoldus), 246 Columban’s study of, 207
Institutes (of Justinian), 218 – 219, 353, 649, Gregory of Tours and, 293
654, 656 – 658 Latin translation of Bible, 100
Institutes Conferences (Cassian), 164, 416 letter to Pope Damasus, 378
Irene, 153, 215, 303, 327 – 329 monastic life encouraged by, 416
Irminsul, 330 Radegund’s study of, 463
Isidore of Seville, 51, 100, 158, 258, 331 – 333, scribes copying works of, 158 – 159
446 visits to Constantine, 337
Islam Vulgate of, 358, 426
absorption of Antioch by, 61 jewelry and gems, 338 – 341
Adoptionism and, 2 Jews and Judaism, 341 – 345
Caesarea’s fall to, 138 Ambrose and, 46
Christianity’s conflicts with, 477, 632 attempts at converting to Christianity, 331
coins/coinage and, 203 Carolingian dynasty toleration of, 344 – 345
expansion of, 216 – 217, 236 Charlemagne and, 1, 659 – 660
iconoclastic controversy and, 326 church hostility towards, 549
positive treatment of Jews, 343 – 345 community in Antioch, 60
in Seville, Spain, 490 exile from Spain, 343
Italy First Jewish War, 28
Alaric II’s aid for, 29 harsh restrictions on, 521
Alemanni’s raid of, 566 Herod the Great rule of, 138
Anastasius I’s rule of, 439 Isidore’s commentary against, 332 – 333
Attila’s invasion of, 366 – 367, 446 Louis the Pious’s policies towards, 10 – 11
Bernard’s rule of, 370, 396, 434 Rabbinical Judaism, 341
Frankish invasion of, 18 Reccared and, 528, 549 – 550
importance of Milan city, 413 return to Spain, 343 – 344
Justinian’s invasion of, 441 Second Jewish War, 138
Leo III’s religious policy in, 372 slave trade participation, 495 – 496
Liutprand’s rule of, 379 – 381 texts of, 342
Lombard law in, 363 – 364 Wilfrid’s comments about, 602 – 603
 Index | 731

John Scottus Erigena, 346 – 347 legend of, 423

John VIII, Pope, 183, 184, 399 – 400 Nennius’s contribution to legend, 423
Jordanes, 347 – 348
account of Goth origins, 319, 437 Lament for the Cuckoo poem (Alcuin), 33
description of Attila, 73 – 74 Latin Christians, 371
description of Gaiseric, 265 law and law codes, 361 – 365
Getica of, 348, 633 – 649 Aethelberht’s codification of, 4
as source of Germanic religion, 273 of Albert the Great, 40
Judith, 349 – 351 Alemanni codification, 365
adultery accusations against, 397 Burgundian code, 131 – 134, 362 – 363
aid to Lothar, 389 Corpus Iuris Civilis, 218 – 219, 353, 649
marriage to Louis the Pious, 386, 396, 570 Dionysio-Hadriana, 1
placement in monastery, 391 Justinian’s codification of Roman law, 5, 126,
Julian the Apostate, 48, 342 649 – 659
See also Ammianus Marcellinus Law of Gundobad, 131 – 134, 297, 363,
Julius Caesar, 59, 239, 243 491 – 492
Julius Nepos (Roman emperor), 429 – 430, Laws of King Rothari, 494 – 495
435 Roman Law of the Burgundians, 363, 492
Justinian, 351 – 354 Roman Law of the Visigoths, 126, 362
Amalaswintha’s relationship with, 42 – 44 Rothari’s codification of, 363 – 364, 383 – 384,
attempts at overthrowing, 216 479
Avars meeting with, 85 – 86 Salic law, 364 – 365, 409, 457, 487 – 488,
Belisarius’s leadership role for, 102 – 104 495, 569
churches built by, 22, 467 Theodosian Code, 127, 218 – 219, 362,
conquests of, 363 521 – 522
defeat of Ostrogoth armies, 437 Visigoth law, 361 – 365, 491 – 492, 548
Getica information on, 348, 633, 647 – 659 Laws of King Rothari (Leges Rothari), 494 – 495
Gothic Wars launched by, 474 Leander, St. See Isidore of Seville
Italy invaded by, 166, 441, 529, 565 Leges Rothari (Laws of King Rothari),
marriage to Theodora, 512 – 514, 569 494 – 495
Narses’ importance to, 421 Leo I, the Great, Pope, 366 – 367
Nika Revolt against, 421, 670 – 675 church renovations in Rome, 475
Procopius’s disenchantment with, 461 – 462, defense of Rome against Attila, 588 – 589
664 – 670 meeting with Attila the Hun, 77
recovery of Ravenna, 466 Leo III, Pope, 367 – 370
Roman law codified by, 5, 126, 649 – 659 Leo III, the Isaurian, 153, 370 – 372, 380, 384
undermining of, by Lombards, 381 Leo IV, Pope, 38
Vandals defeated by, 23, 163, 538, 541, 647 Leovigild (Visigothic king of Spain), 373 – 375,
See also Corpus Iuris Civilis 467, 528
Justin II (Byzantine emperor), 422 Letter to Baugulf, 2, 157, 240, 375 – 376,
605 – 606
Kells, Book of, 357 – 358, 417 Lex Burgundionum (Burgundian code),
King Arthur, 358 – 359 131 – 134, 362 – 363
Battle of Badon HIll association with, 89 Lex Gundobada (Law of Gundobad), 131 – 134,
Gildas’s contributions to legend, 277 – 278, 297, 363, 491 – 492
358 – 359, 423, 626 Lex Ribuaria (Law of the Ripuarian Franks),
historical background, 52 – 53 222
732 | Index

Lex Romana Burgundionum (Roman Law of the Liutprand’s strengthening of, 381
Burgundians), 363, 492 Merovingian campaigns against, 383
Lex Romana Visigothorum (Roman Law of the minting of coins by, 203
Visigoths), 126, 362 Narses invitation to invade Italy, 661 – 662
Lex Salica (Salic law), 364 – 365, 409, 457, Paul the Deacon’s writings on, 382 – 383,
487 – 488, 495, 569 444 – 446, 660 – 661
Liber Constitutionem (Book of Constitutions), Pippin III’s defeat of, 456
363, 491 – 492 Pope Gregory II’s alliance with, 380
Liber manualis (Handbook) (Dhuoda), 226 – 228 ribbon animal metalwork designs, 92 – 93
Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), 17, 51, Witigis’s diplomatic efforts with, 566
302, 367 – 368 See also Desiderius; Rothari
Libri Carolini, 32, 34, 49, 326, 376 – 377, Lothar, 386 – 390
523 – 524 Aix-la-Chapelle captured by, 154
Libri septem contra Felicem (Seven books alliance with Carolingians, 386 – 387
against Felix) (Alcuin), 34 appointment to rule of in Italy, 434
Life of Alfred (Asser), 68 – 69 the Astronomer’s criticism of, 70
Life of Boniface (Willibald), 678 – 687 Battle of Fontenoy, 154, 181, 254 – 255, 389,
Life of Charlemagne (Einhard), 70, 428, 472 391, 425, 500, 543
The Life of Saint Balthild, 90 granting of Neustria to, 424
The Life of St. Martin (Severus), 405 Nithard’s chronicling of, 425
Life of the Emperor Louis (Vita Hludowici Treaty of Verdun and, 543
imperatoris) (the Astronomer), 69 – 70 Lothar Crystal (gemstone), 390
Lindisfarne Gospels, 377 – 379, 426 Louis the German, 386 – 388, 390 – 393, 434
De litteris colendis (Charlemagne), 2, 157, 240, Oath of Strasbourg and, 499 – 500
375 – 376, 605 – 606 revolt against authority of, 154
Liturgy of St. Basil, 97 rule of in East Francia, 155
Liutprand (Lombard king, Italy), 379 – 381 Treaty of Verdun and, 543 – 544
Charles Martel’s alliance with, 380 warfare with Charles the Bald, 390 – 391, 425
conflicts with Gregory II, Gregory III, Zach- Louis the Pious, 386 – 387, 393 – 399
ary, 379 the Astronomer’s book about, 69
conflict with Gregory II, 379 – 380 Benedict of Aniane’s advisory to, 107
conflict with Gregory III, 289, 379 – 380 capitularies issued by, 143
Franks’ alliance with, 379 – 380 coverage of, in the Royal Frankish Annals,
Lombard dynasty strengthened by, 381 481
Paul the Deacon’s notes on, 379 – 380 empire reorganization by, 390 – 391
Ravenna seized by, 385 granting of Neustria, 424
rule of Italy, 379 – 381 issuance of laws by, 365
Lombards, 364, 381 – 385 Louis the German’s revolt against, 397 – 398
Aistulf’s rule of, 16 – 19, 146 – 147, 232 – 233, military campaigns of, 389
385, 457 missi dominici and, 414
Alboin’s rule of, 30 – 31, 382 – 383, 422 Ordinatio imperii of, 387 – 388, 394, 433 – 434
arimmani (soldiers) of, 381 Pactum Ludovicianum of, 395
Carolingian alliance with, 386 revolts against, 434
Charlemagne’s conquest of, 368, 413 See also Lothar; Ordinatio imperii
conquests/invasions of, 381 – 382 Louis the Stammerer, 116, 154, 399 – 400
end of rule by, 447 Louis the Child, 155
Gregory III’s letter seeking aid against, 628 Louis the Younger (son of Louis the German),
jewelry and gems, 339 392
 Index | 733

Magyars, 154 – 155, 318, 447 Maserfelth, Battle of, 449

mansus (properties), of peasants, 448 Meersen, Treaty of, 154, 392
Marmoutier monastery, 405 Mercia (Anglo-Saxon kingdom), 405 – 406
marriage, 401 – 404 Æthelflæd’s career in, 5 – 6, 406
Aethelberht I to Merovingian princess, 3 – 4 Egbert’s defeat of, 125
Alaric to Theodoric’s daughter, 29 Penda’s leadership in, 405 – 406, 449 – 450
Alboin to Chlotar I’s daughter, 31 power exercised by, 308
Amalaswintha to Eutharic, 42 – 43 Merovingian Dynasty, 407 – 412
Arnulf’s son to Pippin’s daughter, 66 – 67, Abbey of Saint-Denis relations with, 485
410, 450 Aethelberht I’s friendship with, 4
Æthelflæd to Ethelred, 6 Balthild’s role in reunification of, 90
Attila the Hun to Ildico, 642 Battle of Tolbiac, 526 – 527
Audofleda to Theorodic, 518, 646 Battle of Vouillé, 548, 555 – 556
Authari to Theudelinde, 383, 525 building of Aix-la-Chapelle villa, 21
Balthild to Clovis II, 90 campaigns against Lombards, 383
Bertrada to Pippin, 118 Childeric III’s rule of, 190 – 192, 407 – 408,
Brunhilde to Merovech, 129, 292 412
Burgundian traditions, 131, 134 Chilperic I’s rule of, 364, 410, 469
Charlemagne’s laws, 610 Chlotar I’s rule of, 364, 403, 407, 410
Chilperic I to Galswintha, 189, 260, Christian beliefs of, 404 – 405
269 – 270, 410 civil wars/blood feuds, 409 – 410
Clotilda to Clovis, 196 Clotilda’s influences, 1989 – 199
contract rules, 402 Clovis’s founding of, 199 – 201
Desiderata to Charlemagne, 225 conquests of, 408
Fastrada to Charlemagne, 253 Dagobert III’s rule of, 453, 460
fourth to eighth century evolution, 251 – 252, Dagobert’s rule of, 221 – 223, 403, 407,
403 410 – 411, 450
Franks’ customs, 118, 401 – 403 declining years, 410 – 412, 507
friedelehe, Frankish practice, 118, 401 – 402 Eboin’s rule of, 237 – 238
Galla Placidia to Ataulf, 267 Eudes exploitation of weaknesses of, 246
Germanic peoples instability, 403 eviction of Visigoths from France, 545
Ingunde to Hermenegild, 309 – 310, 373 – 374 jewelry and gems of, 339
Itta to Pippin I, 451 law codes, 364
Judith to Louis the German, 386 legacy of Clovis, 409
Justinian to Theodora, 512 – 514, 569 Lombard campaigns, 383 – 384
Louis the Pious to Judith, 396 marriage alliances of, 373 – 374
Merovingian alliances through, 373 – 374 marriage customs, 252
Merovingian customs, 252, 410 minting of coins by, 204
polygyny, serial marriages, 409 origins of, 407 – 408
Radegund to Chlotar, 463 – 464 Paris as capital of, 443
Reccared to Baddo, 469 Plectrude’s rival for control of, 459
rules of Justinian, 651 Queen Radegund’s rule of, 463 – 465
Sigismund to Theodoric’s daughter, 296, 492 rule of aristocratic families, 451
of slaves, legitimacy of, 495 Theudebert’s rule of, 530, 567
Tacitus on important role of women, Theuderic III’s rule of, 411, 452, 453
568 – 569 weapons used by, 559
See also adultery; polygyny Witigis’s diplomatic efforts with, 566
Martin of Tours, St., 404 – 405, 417, 677 – 678 women’s marriage customs, 410
734 | Index

Milan, 413 St. Martin’s advocacy for, 404, 677

See also Ambrose of Milan Swiss monasteries, 427
Milvian Bridge, Battle of, 473, 623 – 626 Theudelinde’s monastery support, 526
missi dominici, 414 – 415, 523 See also Aix-la-Chapelle; Rule of Benedict
missionaries, 383, 392 – 393 of Nursia
Anglo-Saxon missionaries, 78, 80, 83, 418, Monte Cassino (religious community), 418,
454, 457 419 – 420, 445, 574
Celtic vs. Roman conflicts, 503 Mozarabic Christian community (Spain), 528
Danish missionaries, 396 Muslim Berbers, 551
Irish missionaries, 417 Muslims
murder of, 489 Adoptionism and, 2
St. Augustine’s mission to England, 4, defeat of Visigoths, 551
78 – 79, 285 expulsion from Constantinople, 371
Tassilo’s promotion of, 505 Frankish kingdom threatened by, 380
Theudelinde’s welcoming of, 525 – 526 monasteries destroyed by, 420
work of St. Boniface, 122 – 124 raids of Eudes, 247
work of St. Columba, 206 siege of Seville, 490
work of St. Columban, 36, 207
work of Ulfilas, 536 Narses, 382, 421 – 422, 441, 661 – 662
monasticism, 404 – 405, 415 – 420 De natura rerum (On the Nature of Things)
Abbey of Saint-Denis, 222, 410, 444, 467, (Isidore of Seville), 332
485 – 486 Nedao, Battle of, 322, 437 – 438
Agobard’s monastery stay, 10 Nennius, 423
Augustine of Hippo’s religious community, Neustria, 424
417 Balthild’s role in reunification of, 90
of Bede, 98 Eboin’s near unification of, 238
of Benedict of Aniane, 107 – 109 Fredegund’s rule of, 424
of Benedict of Nursia, 105, 419 – 420 Pippin II’s defeats of, 453
of Caesarius of Arles, 139 – 140 Queen Brunhilde’s rule of, 451
Canterbury monastery, 105 sixth century emergence of, 410 – 411
of Carloman, 124 war with Austrasia, 507
of Cassiodorus, 165 – 166, 417 Nibelungenlied (epic poem), 8
Celtic tradition, 418 Nika Revolt, 102, 215, 216, 352, 421, 512 – 513,
of Gottschalk of Orbais, 281 – 282 569, 670 – 675
Jarrow monastery, 98 Nithard, 49, 254 – 255, 425 – 426
of Jerome, 416 North Africa
Monophysite monks protected by Theodora, agricultural production in, 162
571 Circumcellions in, 194 – 195, 234 – 235
Monte Cassino community, 418, 419 – 420, Donatism in, 234 – 236
445, 574 Gaiseric’s gaining control of, 265 – 266
Northumbrian monasteries, 426 Gaiseric’s kingdom in, 538, 540
Paris monasteries, 443 – 444 Huneric’s power in, 316 – 317
reforms of Benedict of Aniane, 108 Justinian’s defeat of Vandals in, 23, 44, 102,
Saint Maurice at Agaune monastery, 491 278
of St. Basil the Great, 96 – 97, 417 monastic community in, 417, 420
of St. Columba, 206 Muslim conquests in, 217
St. David’s Abbey, 66 religious schism in, 163
of St. John Cassian, 163 – 165 Tariq’s invasion from, 471
 Index | 735

Northmen, 182, 185, 186 use of slaves, 494

Northumbria Witigis’s rule of, 441, 529 – 530, 565 – 567
Edwin’s rule of, 54 – 55, 241 – 242, 449 Zeno’s negotiations with, 438 – 439
Oswy’s rule of, 53, 55, 105, 449 – 450, See also Gothic Wars
600 – 601 Oswald of Bernicia (Northumbrian king), 449
power exercised by, 308 Oswy, 53, 55, 105, 449 – 450, 502 – 503,
Northumbrian Renaissance, 426 600 – 601
See also Lindisfarne Gospels Ottonian dynasty, 447, 557
Notker the Stammerer, 427 – 428, 659 – 660
Pachomius, St., 96, 416
Oath of Strasbourg, 181, 255, 389, 391, 425, Pactum Ludovicianum (of Louis the Pious),
499 – 500 395
Odovacar, 407, 429 – 430, 446 Pactus Lex Salicae. See Salic law
capture of slaves by, 494 Paris, 443 – 444
Euric’s war with, 248 Edict of Paris (614), 410
rebellion against Romulus Augustulus, 407, Genevieve as patron saint of, 272 – 273, 443
429, 436, 476 as Neustria kingdom city, 424
Theodoric’s murder of, 429, 439, 466 Paschal I, Pope, 387
Offa of Mercia, 406, 431 – 433 Paschasius Radbertus, 159
Offa’s Dyke, 53, 406, 431 – 432 Pastoral Rule (Regula pastoralis) (Gregory I),
De Officiis Ministrorum (Ambrose of Milan), 41, 284
46 – 47 Patrick, St., 423
On Buildings (Procopius), 461, 462 Paul the Deacon, 444 – 446
On Christian Doctrine (Augustine of Hippo), biography of Gregory I, 445
82 – 83 comments about Alboin, 31
On the Holy Spirit (Basil the Great), 97 comments about Narses, 422
Opus Caroli Regis (Work of King Charles), comments on Rothari, 479
376 – 377 on the history of Lombards, 382 – 383,
Ordinatio imperii, 10 – 11, 153, 387 – 388, 394, 444 – 446, 660 – 661
433 – 434 Monte Cassino residency, 420
Orestes, 429, 435 – 436, 446 notes on Liutprand, 379 – 380
Origo Gentis Langobardorum (The Origin of role in Carolingian Renaissance, 157 – 158
the Lombard People), 446 writings on Theudelinde, 525
Orosius, 243 Pavia, 446 – 447, 456
Ostrogoths, 436 – 441 peasants, 384, 447 – 448
Attila the Hun’s alliance with, 76 diet and nutrition of, 13, 228 – 230
conversions to Christianity, 276 tools used for agriculture, 15
declining years of, 439 – 441 Penda, 405 – 406, 449 – 450, 562
Gothic Wars influences, 413, 421 – 422, Persian Empire, 461
441 Peter of Pisa, 157
Huns’ influences, 436 Pippin I, called Pippin of Landen, 148, 410,
Italy’s indebtedness to, 384 424, 450 – 452
law and legal codes, 361 – 363 Pippin II, called Pippin of Herstal, 149, 411,
minting of coins, 203 452 – 454
Narses’ defeat of, 422 Battle of Fontenoy, 154, 181, 254 – 255, 389,
Pavia city citadel of, 446 – 447 391, 425, 500, 543
Theodoric the Great’s rule of, 429 – 430 battle with Ebroin, 453, 507
Totila’s rule of, 421, 441, 529 – 530 victory at Battle of Tertry, 507
736 | Index

Pippin III, called Pippin the Short, 143, Ricimer, 429, 435, 470 – 471
150 – 151, 364, 385, 391, 398, 407, 410, Robber Council (Council of Ephesus), 366
455 – 458, 481 Robert the Strong, 186, 444
Plectrude, 459 – 460 Roderic, 471 – 472
Pliny the Younger, 158 rois fainéants (do-nothing kings), 187, 223,
Poetovio, Battle of, 522 407, 453, 472 – 473, 507
Poitiers, Battle of. See Tours, Battle of Roman Britain, 52, 101, 277
polygyny, 252, 401, 403, 409 Roman Constitution (Constitutio Romana), 387,
predestination doctrine, of Gottschalk, 83, 395
159 – 160, 281 – 282 Roman Empire
Priscus, 74, 513, 635, 641 – 642, 662 Antioch’s incorporation into, 60
Procopius, 460 – 462 arrival of the Burgundians, 131
on Aëtius, 7 Attila the Hun’s terrorization of, 588 – 589
On Buildings, 461 – 462 Caesara’s commercial importance, 138
comments on Theodoric, 520 campaign against the Goths, 71
disenchantment with Justinian, 441, defeat of Carthage in Punic Wars, 162
461 – 462, 664 – 670 education and the fall of, 239 – 240
Hagia Sophia reconstruction description, family structure, 251 – 252
675 – 676 importance of Aix-la-Chapelle, 21
History of the Wars, 461 – 462, 511, 670 importance of horses, 57
on Narses, 421 law codes, 361 – 365
The Secret History, 102, 461 – 462, 510 – 511 marriage customs, 403 – 404
on Theodora’s character, 664 – 670 Ostrogoth role in, 436 – 437
on Vanda wars, 542 Stilicho’s military leadership, 61
Prudentius (Christian poet), 428 Tours incorporation as Caesarodunum, 532
Punic War, 162 use of slaves, 493 – 494
Visigoths contacts with, 545
Quintilian, 239 De vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars), 552
weakness exploited by Franks, 256
Rabanus Maurus, 32, 158 – 160, 181, 281, 306, weapons used by, 558
346 Roman Law of the Burgundians (Lex Romana
Rabbinical Judaism, 341 – 342, 345 Burgundionum), 363, 492
Radagaisus. See Stilicho Roman Law of the Visigoths (Lex Romana
Radegund, 140, 292, 402, 463 – 465, 571 Visigothorum), 126, 362
Ratramnus of Corbie, 159 Roman North Africa, 161 – 162
Raubehe marriage practice, 402 Rome, 473 – 476
Ravenna, 466 – 467 Aistulf’s expansion in, 17
Gregory III’s defense of, 380 Alboin’s threats to, 382 – 383
Liutprand’s seizure of, 385 Attila the Hun’s threats to, 366 – 367
Odocavar’s stand in, 430 barbarian invasions of, 474
Orestes march on, 435 Benedict Biscop’s trips to, 105 – 106
Theodoric’s mausoleum in, 440 Caesarea, port, 138 – 139
Reccared I (Spanish Catholic Christian king), Carolingian alliance with, 387, 395 – 396,
373 – 375, 467 – 469, 528 398, 454 – 455, 475
Regula pastoralis (Pastoral Rule) (Gregory I), 41 Charlemagne’s visit to, 153
Reihengräber. See Row-Grave Cemeteries Charles the Bald’s visit to, 399
religion, Germanic. See Germanic religion church renovations by Pope Leo I, 474
De Republica (Cicero), 589 – 590 church schism in, 370
 Index | 737

Constantinople’s relations with, 16, 372 Seven Books against the Pagans (Orosius), 41
Desiderius’s visit to, 224 Severus, Sulpicius, 243, 405
Frankish relations with, 395 Seville, 51, 310, 331, 490, 539
Gaiseric’s assault on, 474, 538 See also Isidore of Seville
Gelasius’s actions for, 271 – 272 Sigebert. See Brunhilde
Gottschalk’s pilgrimage to, 281 Sigebert I, 129
Gregory II’s visit to, 123 Sigebert III, 149, 221, 223, 452
Leo I defense of, against Attila, 588 – 589 Sigebert. See Brunhilde
Lombard invasions of, 475 Sigismund, St., 491 – 492
nobility’s support for Aëthius, 8 Sixtus III, Pope, 366
religious communities in, 416, 420, 456 slaves and slavery, 447, 493 – 496
religious pilgrimages to, 475 in Frankish society, 488
Stilicho’s military service, 498 – 499 in Lombard society, 384
Totila’s siege of, 441 marriage with free people, 402
treaty with Liutprand, 380 Rothari’s dealings with, 479
withdrawal from, 307 in Visigoth society, 402 – 403
Romulus Augustulus (Roman emperor), Solidus. See coins and coinage
476 – 477 The Song of Roland (medieval epic), 477 – 478
Odovacar’s rebellion against, 407, 429, 436, Stephen II, Pope, 16, 18, 457, 486
476 martyrdom of Boniface, 194
Orestes transfer of power to, 435 Stephen III, 224
Roncesvalles, Battle of, 152, 477 – 478 Stilicho, Flavius, 470, 497 – 499, 637 – 638
Rothari, 479 – 480 alliance with Vandals, 539
Arianism promoted by, 383, 479 assassination of, 25, 267, 547
codification of laws by, 363 – 364, 383 – 384, conflicts with Alaric, 26 – 27
479 defeat of Arbogast, 497
Edictus Rothari published by, 363 – 364, 479 defeat of Radagaisus, 320
Franks defeated by, 478 Honorius’s conflicts with, 314, 547
Leges Rothari, 494 – 495 Roman Empire military leadership, 61
row-grave cemeteries, 480 – 481 treaties with Alemmani, Franks, 498 – 499
Royal Frankish Annals, 69, 70, 118, 124, 144, St. John’s Gospel (Lindisfarne Gospels), 378
159, 349, 369, 478, 481 – 482 St. Maurice at Agaune monastery, 491
Rule of Benedict of Nursia, 107 – 108, 111 – 112, Strasbourg, Oath of, 181, 255, 389, 391, 425,
396, 418 – 419 499 – 500, 543
rule of canons (Regula canonicorum), 194 Suetonius, 158, 243, 552, 612
Sutton Hoo (burial mounds), 378, 500 – 502,
Saint-Denis, Abbey of, 410, 444, 467, 485 – 486 531
Salic law, 364 – 365, 409, 457, 487 – 488, 495, Synod of Frankfurt, 34
569 Synod of Whitby, 55, 101, 105, 502 – 504,
Saxon capitularies, 488 – 489, 564, 608 600 – 605
See also Capitulare Saxonicum; Capitulatio
de Partibus Saxoniae Tacitus
Second Council of Nicaea (787), 376 – 377 on adultery, 251
Second Jewish War, 138 Ammianus Marcellinus inspired by, 47
Secret History (Procopius), 102, 421, 461, 462 Comitatus coined by, 209
Seneca, 239 description of early Germanic society,
Seven books against Felix (Libri septem contra 579 – 580
Felicem) (Alcuin), 34 on family, 251
738 | Index

Germania written by, 196, 382, 401, 568, support for St. Columban, 525
579 – 580 Theuderic I, 201
on German worship, 273 – 274 Theuderic III, 130, 411, 452, 453
on marriage, 401 – 403 Thiudimer (Ostrogoth king), 438
on pre-migration Germanic women, 571 three-field system. See agriculture
preservation of writings of, 158 Thucydides, 461
Tariq ibn Ziyad, 471 Thuringia kingdom, 463
Tassilo, 118 – 119, 152, 171, 225, 505 – 506 Ticinum. See Pavia
Tertry, Battle of, 149, 412, 424, 452 – 453, Tolbiac, Battle of, 199, 526 – 527
506 – 507 Toledo, 203, 343, 468 – 469, 472, 528
Thane. See thegn Totila, 421, 441, 529 – 530
thegn, 508 – 509, 565 Tournai, 256 – 257, 339, 408, 531
Theoda, 509, 571 Tours, 532 – 533
Theodohad, 44, 440 – 441, 515, 566 Tours, Battle of, 150, 177, 247, 533 – 534,
Theodora, 421, 441, 510 – 515 631 – 632
actions in support of Justinian, 569 Trajan, 60, 213, 585
inspiration of Justinian, 670 – 675 treaties
marriage to Justinian, 512 – 514, 569 Agilulf with Pope Gregory, 525
Procopius’s invective against, 461 – 462, Childeric with the Saxons, 407
664 – 670 Gaiseric with Constantinople, 540
protection of Monophysite monks, 571 Gaiseric with Vandals, 540
role in kingdom’s religious affairs, 513 – 514 Liutprand with Pope Zachary, 385
Theodoric II, 8, 362 Meersen, 392
Theodoric the Great, 515 – 520 Ostrogoths and Eastern Empire, 516
capture of slaves by, 494 Pippin II with Saxony, 457
control of Italy by, 436 – 437, 439 Theodoric with Zeno, 430, 438
execution of Boethius, 121, 440, 519 Valens with Athanaric, 537
Getica information on, 348, 633, 644 – 648 Valens with Fritigern, 537
as hostage in Constantinople, 438 Verdun, 389 – 390, 391, 489, 500, 543 – 544,
legal statutes of, 362 564
Odovacar murdered by, 429, 439, 466
patronage of Boethius, 439, 515, 518 Ulfilas, 535 – 536, 545 – 546, 643 – 644
patronage of Cassiodorus, 439, 515
preservation of Roman laws, 363 Valamir, 437 – 438, 516, 640, 644
religious challenges of, 440 Valens, 521 – 522, 537 – 538
treaty with Zeno, 430, 439 Arianism and, 63
Theodosian Code, 127, 218 – 219, 362, 521 – 522 death at Battle of Hadrianople, 96, 586
Theodosius II, 366 Fritigern’s defeat of, 25, 73, 586
Theodosius the Great, 497 – 498, 521 – 523, 545 war against Athanaric by, 71
defeat of Arbogast, Eugenius, 522 Valentinian I, 36, 62
excommunication by Ambrose of Milan, Valentinian III, 9, 46
580 – 581 Vandals, 538 – 542
treaty with the Visigoths, 547 Alans association with, 24 – 25
Theodulf of Orléans, 371, 377, 396, 415, Athenius’s defeat in, 471
523 – 524 attacks of Rome, 474
Theudebert, 130, 530, 567 Attila the Hun’s alliance with, 76
Theudelinde, 383, 479, 525 – 526 Belisarius’s invasion of, 102 – 103
friendship with Gregory I, 383, 570 capture of Seville, 490
 Index | 739

capture of slaves by, 494 Ricimer’s victory over, 470

Gaiseric’s rule of, 265 – 267 Row-Grave cemeteries, 480 – 481
Gothic Wars and, 278 Theodosius the Great’s treaty with, 547
invasion of Rome, 367, 474 Toledo (Spanish city), 528
laws and legal codes, 362 Ulfilas, as apostle to, 643 – 644
minting of coins by, 203 use of slaves, 494
Ricimer’s protection of, 470 weapons used by, 546
ruling issues, 363 See also Amalaswintha; Gothic Wars
Theodoric’s hegemony over, 439 Vision of Charles the Fat (anonymous), 185
Vandals (of North Africa) De vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars) (Sue-
Verdun, Treaty of, 389 – 390, 391, 489, 500, tonius), 243, 552
543 – 544, 564 Vita Hludowici imperatoris (Life of the
Vikings Emperor Louis) (the Astronomer), 69 – 70
Alcuin’s poem about, 33 Vita Karoli, 70, 428, 472, 552 – 553,
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle coverage of, 51 612 – 623
Æthelflæd’s campaigns against, 5 – 6 Vivarium monastic community, 417
France waterway explorations, 444 Vortigern, 52, 277 – 278, 307, 553 – 554, 626
invasions by, 6, 562 Vouillé, Battle of, 30, 548, 555 – 556
Nithard’s battles against, 425 Vulgate of Jerome, 358, 426
10th century invasions by, 378 – 379
Virgil (Roman poet), 428 Waltharius, 557
Visigoths, 545 – 551 weapons and armor, 546, 558 – 560
Aëthius’s engagement of, 8 – 9 Wearmouth. See Benedict Biscop
agriculture’s importance to, 546 Wessex, 561 – 563
Alans association with, 24 claimants to the throne in, 432
Alaric II’s rule of, 29 – 30, 140, 248, 362, 548, Mercia’s influence in, 406
555 Offa’s possible influence in, 431
Alaric’s rule of, 25 – 28, 474 power exercised by, 308
Ammianus’s history of, 48 West Frankish kingdom, 116 – 117, 154, 182,
attacks of Rome, 474 186, 424
Avars’ threats to, 215 West Saxon kingdom, 40, 51, 137, 242, 406,
Battle of Vouillé, 548, 555 – 556 449, 504, 562
capture of Milan, 413 Widukind, 171, 488, 563 – 564
control of Tours, 532 William the Conqueror, 50, 51, 56, 563
conversions to Christianity, 276, 468, 535 Winfrith. See Boniface, St.
declining years of, 550 – 551 Winwaed, Battle of, 450
eagle as power symbol, 481 Witenagemot, 565
Euric’s rule of, 247 – 249 Witigis, 441, 529 – 530, 565 – 567
geographic positioning of, 546 women, 568 – 571
Getica, description of, 636 – 637 barbarian customs, 568 – 569
harsh treatment of Jews, 344 burial customs, Row-Grave cemeteries, 480
historical background, 545 – 546 Carolingian customs, 570
Huns’ influences, 436 Germanic clothing fashions, 568
law codes, 361 – 365, 491 – 492, 548 marriage customs, 401 – 404, 410
Leovigild’s rule of, 373 – 375, 467, 528, 549 Merovingian customs, 570
marriage customs, 402 prophecy power, Germanic women, 571
metalwork jewelry designs, 93 religious monastic community, 416
Ravenna’s hegemony over, 439 Rothari’s management of, 479 – 480
740 | Index

Salic law regulations, 487, 569 Zeno, 575 – 576

Theodora’s care of, 513 Odovacar’s tense relations with, 430
See also family; marriage Orestes not recognized by, 435
Wulfstan. See Anglo-Saxons rise to power, 438
Romulus not recognized by, 476
Zachary, St., 379, 380, 456, 573 – 575 Theodoric’s conflict with, 517
Zayid, Tarik ibn, 528 Ziyad, Tariq ibn, 471
About the Author

Michael Frassetto earned his PhD in history at the University of Delaware and was
awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to research his dissertation in Berlin in 1989–
1990. He teaches medieval and world history at the University of Delaware, La Salle
University, and Richard Stockton College, and is the former religion and medieval
history editor at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He is the author of The Great Me-
dieval Heretics and numerous articles on medieval history. He is also the editor of
Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious
Reform, Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (with David
Blanks), Christian Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages, and Heresy and
the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages.