No More Learning

Why the explosion was delayed until the year 507 is unknown. That
the king of the Franks was the aggressor is certain. He easily found a
pretext for beginning the war as champion and protector of Catholic Chris-
tianity against the absolutely just measures which Alaric took against his
treacherous orthodox clergy. Clovis had sufficiently appreciated the by
no means despicable power of the Visigoth kingdom, and had summoned
a very considerable army, one contingent of which was furnished by the
Ripuarian Franks. His allies, the Burgundians, approached from the
east in order to take the Goths in the flank. Among his allies Clovis
probably also counted on the Byzantines, who placed their fleet at his
disposal. On his part Alaric had not looked upon coming events
idly, but his preparations were hampered by the bad state of the finances
of his kingdom. In order to obtain the necessary funds he was obliged
to coin gold pieces of inferior value, which were soon discredited everywhere.
Apparently the fighting strength of the Gothic army was inferior to the
army of Clovis, but if the Ostrogoth troops, who had held out prospects
of coming, should arrive at the right time Alaric could hope to oppose
his foe successfully. The king of the Franks had to endeavour to bring
about a decisive action before the arrival of these allies. In the spring
of 507 he suddenly crossed the Loire and marched towards Poitiers,
where he probably joined the Burgundians. On the Campus Vocladensis,
ten miles from Poitiers, the Visigoths had taken up their position.
Alaric put off beginning battle because he was waiting for the Ostrogoth
troops, but as they were hindered by the appearance of a Byzantine fleet
in Italian waters he determined to fight instead of beating a retreat,
as it would have been wise to do. After a short engagement the Goths
turned and fed. In the pursuit the king of the Goths was killed, it was
said by Clovis' own hand (507). With this overthrow the rule of the
Visigoths in Gaul was ended for ever.
The principal town of the Gothic kingdom was Toulouse, where the
royal treasure was also kept; Euric from time to time also held court in
Bordeaux, Alaric II in Narbonne. The Gothic rule originally stretched,
as has been already mentioned, as far as the province of Aquitanica


## p. 287 (#317) ############################################

Goths and Romans
287
Secunda and some bordering municipalities, among which was the
district of Toulouse, but later on it extended not only over the whole
territory of the Gallic provinces, but in addition to several parts of the
provinces Viennensis, Narbonensis Secunda, Alpes Maritimae, and
Lugdunensis Tertia. The Gothic possessions included also the greater
part of the Iberian peninsula, i. e. the provinces of Baetica, Lusitania,
Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis. The provinces named were in Roman
times, in so far as it was a question of civil administration, governed by
consulares or praesides, and they were again divided into city-districts
(civitates or municipia). Under the sovereignty of the Goths this
constitution was maintained in its chief features.
The inhabitants of the kingdom of Toulouse were composed of two
races—the Goths and the Romans. The Goths were regarded by the
Romans as foreigners so long as the federal connexion remained in force,
yet both peoples lived side by side, each under its own law and jurisdic-
tion: intermarriage was forbidden. This rigid line of separation was
adhered to even when the Goths had shaken off the imperial suzerainty
and the Gothic king had become the sovereign of the native population
of Gaul. Theoretically, the Romans had equal privileges in the State;
thus they were not treated as a conquered people without rights, as
the Vandals and Langobards (Lombards) dealt with the inhabitants of
Africa and Italy. That the Goths were the real rulers was clearly enough
made manifest to the Romans.
The domestic condition of the Visigoths before the settlement in
Gaul was undoubtedly on the same level as in their original home;
private property in land was unknown, agriculture was comparatively
primitive, and cattle-rearing provided the principal means of subsistence.
A national change began with the settlement in Aquitaine. This was
done on the principle of the Roman quartering of troops, so that the
Roman landowners were obliged to give up to the Goths in free possession
a portion of their total property together with the coloni, slaves and
cattle appertaining to it. . According to the oldest Gothic codes of law
the Goth received two-thirds of the tilled land and, it seems, one-half
of the woods. The wood and the meadow land which was not partitioned
belonged to the Goths and the Romans for use in common. The parcels
of land subjected to partition were called sortes, the Roman share,
generally, tertia, their occupants hospites or consortes. The Gothic
sortes were exempt from taxation. As the invaders were very numerous
compared with the extent of the province to be apportioned, there
is no doubt that not only the large estates, but also the middle-
sized and smaller properties were partitioned. Nevertheless it is evident
that not every Goth can have shared with a Roman possessor, because
there would certainly not have been estates enough; we must rather
assume that in the share given up larger properties were split up among
several families, as a rule among kinsmen. As the apportionment of the
CH. X.


## p. 288 (#318) ############################################

288
Social Conditions
single lots undoubtedly took place through the decisive influence of the
king, it is natural that the nobility (i. e. nobility by military service) was
favoured in the partition above the ordinary freemen. The landed
property of the monarch's favourites must have gained considerably in
extent, as elsewhere, through assignments from state property. The
very considerable imperial possessions, both crown and private property,
as a rule fell to the share of royalty.
Land partition in the districts conquered later followed the same
plan as in Aquitaine ; seizures of entire Roman estates certainly occurred,
but they were exceptions and happened under special circumstances. As
a rule the Romans were protected by law in the possession of their
tertiae, even if it were only for fiscal reasons. The considerably
extended range of the Gothic kingdom offered the people ample space
for colonisation, so it was not necessary to encroach on the whole of the
Roman territory as had been the case in Aquitaine. It is to be assumed
that in the newly won territories only the superfluous element of the
population had to be provided for; we are not to suppose a general
desertion of the home-land.
The social economy proceeded, on the whole, on the same lines as
before, i. e. through coloni and slaves, from whose toil the owners derived
their principal support, at least in so far as it was a question of food.
For the Goths, whose favourite occupations were warfare and the chase,
had no inclination to devote themselves to arduous agricultural toil.
They only wanted to control directly the rearing of cattle, as they did
of old ; animal food seems to have been provided principally by means
of large herds of swine. The revolution which the partition of land
brought about in the habits of the Goths was too powerful not to exert
the deepest influence on all the conditions of life. The rich revenues
led to the display of a wanton and indolent way of living; the close
contact with the Romans, who were for the most part morally decadent,
was bound to affect injuriously a people so famous in earlier times for its
austere manners. The old national bonds of union, besides having been
relaxed through the migration, now from the scattering of the mass in
colonisation lost more and more of their original importance, since kins-
men need no longer be companions on the farmstead in order to obtain
a living. The adoption of the Roman conditions of land-holding
obliged the Goths to accept numerous legal arrangements which were
foreign to their national law and altered its principles considerably.
Nevertheless the national consciousness was strong enough to prevent
it from merging itself quickly and completely in the Roman system ; in
contrast to the Ostrogoths who did nothing but carefully conserve the
Roman institutions which they found, the Visigoths are remarkable
for an attitude in many respects independent towards the foreign
organisation.
The entire power of government lay in the hands of the king, but


## p. 289 (#319) ############################################

Political Conditions
289
the several rulers did not succeed in making their power absolute.
Outwardly the Visigoth king was only slightly distinguished from the
other freemen ; like them he wore the national skin garment, and long
curly hair. The raised seat as well as the sword appear as tokens of
royal power, the insignia such as the purple mantle and the crown do
not come till later. The succession to the throne follows the system
peculiar to the old German constitution of combined election and
inheritance. After the death of Alaric I his brother-in-law Ataulf was
chosen king ; thus a kindred connexion played an important part in
this choice. Ataulf's friendliness to Rome had placed him in opposition
to the great mass of the people; therefore his successor was not his
brother, as he had wished, but first Sigerich and then Wallia, who both
belonged to other houses. The elevation of Theodoric I is also an
instance of free election; the royal dignity remained in his house for
over a century. Thorismud was appointed king by the army; the
succession of Theodoric II, Euric and Alaric II, on the other hand, was
only confirmed by popular recognition.
Just as the people regularly took a part in the choice of the successor
to the throne, so their influence was often brought to bear on the
sovereign's conduct of government. After the settlement in Gaul there
could certainly no longer be any question of a national assembly in the
old sense of the word, especially after the great expansion of territory
under Euric. Meetings of all the freemen had become impossible on
account of the expansion of the Gothic colonies. The circle of those
who could obey the call to assemble became, therefore, smaller and
smaller, while in carrying out the principal public functions, such as
the coronation of the king, only those of the people who happened
to be present at the place of election or who lived in the immediate
neighbourhood, could as a rule take part. The importance which the
commonalty hereby lost was gained by the nobility, an aristocracy
founded on personal service to the king. It was only in the army that
the greater part of the people found opportunity of expressing its will.
It is certain that among the Visigoths, as among the Franks, regular
military assemblies were held, which at first served the purpose of reviews
and were under the command of the king. In these assemblies important
political questions were discussed; but the decision of the people was
not always for the welfare of the State.
The kingdom was subdivided very nearly on the lines of the previous
Roman divisions into provinciae, and these again into civitates (territoria).
At the head of the province was the dux as magistrate for Goths and
Romans. He was also, as his title implies, in the first place the
commander of the militia in his district, and he provided also the final
authority and appeal in matters of government, corresponding to the
Praefectus Praetorio or vicarius of imperial times. The centre of
gravity of the government lay in the municipalities whose rulers were
19
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. İ.


## p. 290 (#320) ############################################

290
The Church
comites civitatum. They took exactly the place of the Roman pro-
vincial governors, so that the city-districts also appear under the title of
provinciae. Their authority extended even to the exercise of jurisdiction
with the exception of such cases as were reserved to the civic magistrates,
and included control of the police and the collection of taxes. The
dux could at the same time be comes of a civitas in his district. At
the head of the towns themselves were the curiales who, as hitherto, were
bound by oath to fill their offices; and they were personally responsible
for collecting the taxes. The most important official was the defensor,
who was chosen from among the curiales by the citizens and only con-
firmed by the king. He exercised, in the first instance, jurisdiction in
minor matters, but his activity extended over all the branches of
municipal administration. Side by side with this Roman magistrature
existed the national system which the Goths had brought with them.
The Gothic people formed themselves into bodies of thousands, five
hundreds, hundreds and tens, which also remained as personal societies
after the settlement. The millenarius, as of old, led the thousand in
war and ruled over it jointly with the heads of the hundreds both in
war and in peace. The comes civitatis and his vicar originally only
possessed jurisdiction over the Romans of his own circuit, but in Euric's
time that had so far changed that he now possessed authority to judge
the Goths as well in civil suits in conjunction with the millenarius : thus
the later condition was prepared in which the millenarius appears only
as military official. On the other hand the defensor remained a judiciary
solely for the Romans.
We know but little about the officers of the central government.
The first minister of Euric and of Alaric II was Leo of Narbonne, a
distinguished man of varied talents. His duty comprised a combination
of the functions of the quaestor sacri palatii and of the magister
officiorum at the imperial Court; he drew up the king's orders, con-
ducted business with the ambassadors and arranged the applications for
an audience. A higher minister of the royal chancery was Anianus,
who attested the authenticity of the official copies of the Lex Romana
Visigothorum and distributed them ; he seems to have answered to the
Roman primicerius notariorum or referendarius.
The organisation of the Catholic Church was not disturbed by the
Visigoth rule: rather it was strengthened. The ecclesiastical subdivision
of the land as it had developed in the last years of the Roman sway
corresponded on the whole with the political : the bishoprics, which
coincided in extent with the town districts, were grouped under metro-
politan sees, which corresponded with the provinces of the secular
administration. Since the middle of the fifth century the authority of
the Roman bishop over the Church had been generally recognised. Next
to the Pope the bishop of Arles exercised over the Gallic clergy a theo-
retically almost unlimited disciplinary power. A bishop was chosen by
,


## p. 291 (#321) ############################################

Arianism
291
the laity and the clergy of his see, and was ordained by the metropolitan
bishop of the province together with other bishops. Although the
boundaries of the Visigoth kingdom now in no way coincided with the
old provincial and metropolitan boundaries, the hitherto existing metro-
politan connexion was nevertheless not set aside, nor were the relations
of the bishops with the Pope interfered with. The Gothic government
as a rule shewed great indulgence and consideration to the Catholic
Church, which only changed to a more severe treatment when the clergy
were guilty of treasonable practices, as happened under Euric. No
organised and general persecution of the Catholics from religious
fanaticism ever took place. The Catholic Church enjoyed particularly
favourable conditions under Alaric II, who in consideration of the
threatening struggle with Clovis acknowledged the formal legal position
of the Roman Church according to the hitherto existing rules.
Hardly anything is known of the ecclesiastical organisation of the
Arians in the kingdom of Toulouse. Probably in all the larger towns
there were Arian bishops as well as orthodox ones, and no doubt in
earlier times they had been appointed by the king. Under the several
bishops were the different classes of subordinate clergy; presbyters and
deacons are mentioned as in the orthodox Church. The endowment
of the Arian Church was probably as a rule allowed for out of the
revenue; now and then confiscated Catholic churches as well as their
endowments were also made over to it. The church service was of
course held in the vernacular as it was in other German churches ; the
greater number of the clergy were therefore of Gothic nationality. The
opposition between the two creeds was also certainly a very sharp one.
Both sides carried on an active propaganda, which on the Arian side
not unfrequently seems to have been urged by force, but such ebullitions
scarcely had the support and approval of the Gothic government.
Very scanty indeed is our knowledge of the civilisation of the
kingdom of Toulouse. That the Romance element was foremost in
almost
every department has already been observed. The Goths how-
ever held to their national dress until a later period ; they wore the
characteristic skin garment which covered the upper part of the body,
and laced boots of horse-hide which reached up to the calf of the
leg; the knee was left bare. There is no doubt that the Gothic
tongue was spoken by the people in intercourse with each other;
unhappily no vestiges remain of it except in proper names. It is certain
however that a great part of the nobility, especially the higher officials,
understood Latin well. Most of the Arian clergy undoubtedly were
also masters of both languages. Latin was the language of diplomatic
intercourse and of legislation. Theodoric II was trained in Roman
literature by Avitus; Euric however understood so little of the foreign
language that he was obliged to use an interpreter for diplomatic
correspondence. Yet this king was in no way opposed to the knowledge
CH. X.
19-2


## p. 292 (#322) ############################################

292
Civilisation
and significance of classical culture. The Visigothic Court therefore
formed a haven of frequent resort for the last representatives of Roman
literature in Gaul. And the kings, from various motives, but especially
from a fondness for Roman models, would employ the art of these men
to celebrate their own deeds. Here may be named in the first place
the poet Sidonius Apollinaris who for a long time lived, first in the
Court of Theodoric II and then in that of Euric. Euric's minister Leo
also is said to have distinguished himself as a poet, historian and lawyer,
but no more of his writings have been preserved than of the rhetorician
Lampridius, who sang the fame of the Gothic royal house at the Court
of Bordeaux. But the decay of literature and of culture in general,
which had been for so long in progress in spite of the support of the
still existent schools of rhetoricians, could assuredly not be stayed by
the patronage of the Gothic kings.
(B)
THE FRANKS BEFORE CLOVIS.
Tacitus, in the de Moribus Germanorum, tells us that the Germans
claimed to be descended from a common ancestor, Mannus, son of the
earth-born god Tuisco. Mannus, according to the legend, had three
sons, from whom sprang three groups of tribes : the Istaevones, who
:
dwelt along the banks of the Rhine; the Ingaevones, whose seat was on
the shores of the two seas, the Oceanus Germanicus (North Sea) and the
Mare Suevicum (the Baltic), and in the Cimbric peninsula between; and,
lastly, more to the east and south, on the banks of the Elbe and the
Danube, the Herminones. After indicating this general division,
Tacitus, in the latter part of his work, enumerates about forty tribes,
whose customs presented, no doubt, a strong general resemblance, but
whose institutions and organisation shewed differences of a sufficiently
marked character.
When we pass from the first century to the fifth, we find that the
names of the Germanic peoples given by Tacitus have completely
disappeared. Not only is there no mention of Istaevones, Ingaevones
and Herminones, but there is no trace of individual tribes such as the
Chatti, Chauci and Cherusci; their names are wholly unknown to the
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. In their place we find these
writers using other designations: they speak of Franks, Saxons, Alemans.
The writers of the Merovingian period not unnaturally supposed
that these were the names of new peoples, who had invaded Germany
and made good their footing there in the interval. This hypothesis


## p. 293 (#323) ############################################

Legends of the Franks
293
found favour especially with regard to the Franks. As early as Gregory
of Tours, we find mention of a tradition according to which the Franks
had come from Pannonia, had first established themselves on the right
bank of the Rhine, and had subsequently crossed the river. In the
chronicler known under the name of Fredegar the Franks are represented
as descended from the Trojans. “Their first king was Priam ; after-
wards they had a king named Friga ; later, they divided into two parts,
one of which migrated into Macedonia and received the name of
Macedonians. Those who remained were driven out of Phrygia and
wandered about, with their wives and children, for many years. They
chose for themselves a king named Francion, and from him took the
name of Franks. Francion made war upon many peoples, and after
devastating Asia finally passed over into Europe, and established himself
between the Rhine, the Danube and the sea. The writer of the Liber
Historiae combines the statements of Gregory of Tours and of the
pseudo-Fredegar, and, with a fine disregard of chronology, relates that,
after the fall of Troy, one part of the Trojan people, under Priam and
Antenor, came by way of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Danube,
sailed up the river to Pannonia, and founded a city called Sicambria.
The Trojans, so this anonymous writer continues, were defeated by the
Emperor Valentinian, who laid them under tribute and named them
Franks, that is wild men (feros), because of their boldness and hardness
of heart. After a time the Franks slew the Roman officials whose duty
it was to demand the tribute from them, and, on the death of Priam,
they quitted Sicambria, and came to the neighbourhood of the Rhine.
There they chose themselves a king named Pharamond, son of Marcomir.
This naïf legend, half-popular, half-learned, was accepted as fact
throughout the Middle Ages. From it alone comes the name of
Pharamond, which in most histories heads the list of the kings of
France. In reality, there is nothing to prove that the Franks, any
more than the Saxons or the Alemans, were races who came in from
without, driven into Germany by an invasion of their own territory.
Some modern scholars have thought that the origin of the Franks,
and of the other races who make their appearance between the third
century and the fifth, might be traced to a curious custom of the
Germanic tribes. The nobles, whom Tacitus calls principes, attached
to themselves a certain number of comrades, comites, whom they bound
to fealty by a solemn oath. At the head of these followers they made
pillaging expeditions, and levied war upon the neighbouring peoples,
without however involving the community to which they belonged.
The comes was ready to die for his chief; to desert him would have been
an infamy. The chief, on his part, protected his follower, and gave
him a war-horse, spear, etc. as the reward of his loyalty. Thus there
were formed, outside the regular State, bands of warriors united together
by the closest ties. These bands, so it is said, soon formed, in the
CA. X.


## p. 294 (#324) ############################################

294
Origin of the Franks
interior of Germany, what were virtually new States, and the former
princeps simply took the title of king. Such, according to the theory,
was the origin of the Franks, the Alemans and the Saxons. But this
theory, however ingenious, cannot be accepted. The bands were formed
exclusively of young men of an age to bear arms; among the Franks
we find from the first old men, women and children. The bands were
organised solely for war; whereas the most ancient laws of the Franks
have much to say about the ownership of land, and about crimes against
property; they represent the Franks as an organised nation with regular
institutions.
The Franks, then, did not come into Germany from without; and
it would be rash to seek their origin in the custom of forming bands.
That being so, only one hypothesis remains open. From the second
century to the fourth the Germans lived in a continual state of unrest.
The different communities ceaselessly made war on one another and
destroyed one another. Civil war also devastated many of them. The
ancient communities were thus broken up, and from their remains were
formed new communities which received new names. Thus is to be
explained why it is that the nomenclature of the Germanic peoples in
the fifth century differs so markedly from that which Tacitus has recorded.
But neighbouring tribes presented, despite their constant antagonisms,
considerable resemblances. They had a common dialect and similar
habits and customs. They sometimes made temporary alliances, though
holding themselves free to quarrel again before long and make war on
one another with the utmost ferocity. In time, groups of these tribes
came to be called by generic names, and this is doubtless the character
of the names Franks, Alemans and Saxons. These names
were not
applied, in the fourth and fifth centuries, to a single tribe, but to a group
of neighbouring tribes who presented, along with real differences, certain
common characteristics.
It appears that the peoples who lived along the right bank of the
Rhine, to the north of the Main, received the name of Franks; those
who had established themselves between the Ems and the Elbe, that of
Saxons (Ptolemy mentions the Edgoves as inhabitants of the Cimbric
peninsula, and perhaps the name of this petty tribe had passed to the
whole group); while those whose territory lay to the south of the Main
and who at some time or other had overflowed into the agri decumates
(the present Baden) were called Alemans. It is possible that, after all,
we should see in these three peoples, as Waitz has suggested, the
Istaevones, Ingaevones and Herminones of Tacitus.
But it must be understood that between the numerous tribes known
under each of the general names of Franks, Saxons and Alemans there
was no common bond. They did not constitute a single State but
groups of States without federal connexion or common organisation.
Sometimes two, three, even a considerable number of tribes, might join


## p. 295 (#325) ############################################

240–392)
Franks and Romans
295
together to prosecute a war in common, but when the war was over the
link snapped and the tribes fell asunder again.
Documentary evidence enables us to trace how the generic name
Franci came to be given to certain tribes between the Main and the
North Sea, for we find these tribes designated now by the ancient
name which was known to Tacitus and again by the later name. In
Peutinger's chart we find Chamavi qui et Pranci and there is no
doubt that we should read qui et Franci. The Chamavi inhabited the
country between the Yssel and the Ems; later on, we find them a little
further south, on the banks of the Rhine in Hamaland, and their laws
were collected in the ninth century in the document known as the Lex
Francorum Chamavorum. Along with the Chamavi we may reckon among
the Franks the Attuarii or Chattuarii. We read in Ammianus Marcellinus
(xx.
10) Rheno transmisso, regionem pervasit (Julian in A. D. 360)
Francorum quos Atthuarios vocant. Later, the pagus Attuariorum will
correspond to the country of Emmerich, of Cleves and of Xanten. We
may note that in the Middle Ages there was to be found in Burgundy, in
the neighbourhood of Dijon, a pagus Attuariorum, and it is very probable
that a portion of this tribe settled at this spot in the course of the fifth
century. The Bructeri, the Ampsivarii and the Chatti were, like the
Chamavi, reckoned as Franks. They are mentioned as such in a well-known
passage of Sulpicius Alexander which is cited by Gregory of Tours
(Historia Francorum, 11. 9). Arbogast, a barbarian general in the service
of Rome, desires to take vengeance on the Franks and their chiefs-
subreguli-Sunno and Marcomir. Consequently in midwinter of the
year 392 collecto exercitu transgressus Rhenum, Bructeros ripae proximos,
pagum etiam quem Chamavi incolunt depopulatus est, nullo unquam
occursante, nisi quod pauci ex Ampsivariis et Catthis Marcomere duce in
ulterioribus collium jugis apparuere.
It is this Marcomir, chief of the
Ampsivarii and Chatti, whom the author of the Liber Historiae makes the
father of Pharamond, though he has nothing whatever to do with the
Salian Franks.
Thus it is evident that the name Franks was given to a group of
tribes, not to a single tribe. The earliest historical mention of the
name may be that in Peutinger's chart', supposing, at least, that the words
et Pranci are not a later interpolation. The earliest mention in a
literary source is in the Vita Aureliani of Vopiscus, cap. 7. In the year
240, Aurelian, who was then only a military tribune, immediately after
defeating the Franks in the neighbourhood of Mainz, was marching
against the Persians, and his soldiers as they marched chanted this
refrain :
Mille Sarmatas, mille Francos semel et semel occidimus;
Mille Persas quaerimus.
It would be in any case impossible to follow the history of all these
1 The date of the chart is very uncertain.
CH, X


## p. 296 (#326) ############################################

296
The Salian Franks
( 358—400
sea,
Frankish tribes for want of evidence, but even if their history was known
it would be of quite secondary interest, for it would have only a remote
connexion with the history of France. Offshoots from these various
tribes no doubt established themselves sporadically here and there in
ancient Gaul, as in the case of the Attuarii. It was not however by
the Franks as a whole, but by a single tribe, the Salian Franks, that
Gaul was to be conquered ; it was their king who was destined to be the
ruler of this noble territory. It is therefore to the Salian Franks that
we must devote our attention.
The Salian Franks are mentioned for the first time in A. D. 358. In
that year Julian, as yet only a Caesar, marched against them. Petit
primos omnium Francos, eos videlicet quos consuetudo Salios appellavit
(Ammianus Marcellinus, xvII. 8). What is the origin of the name?
It was long customary to derive it from the river Yssel (Isala), or
from Saalland to the south of the Zuiderzee; but it seems much more
probable that the name comes from sal (the salt sea). The Salian
Franks at first lived by the shores of the North Sea, and were known
by this name in contradistinction to the Ripuarian Franks, who lived
on the banks of the Rhine. All their oldest legends speak of the
and the name of one of their earliest kings, Merovech, signifies sea-born.
From the shores of the North Sea the Salian Franks had advanced
little by little towards the south, and at the period when Ammianus
Marcellinus mentions them they occupied Toxandria, that is to say the
region to the south of the Meuse, between that river and the Scheldt.
Julian completely defeated the Salian Franks, but he left them in
possession of their territory of Toxandria. Only, instead of occupying
it as conquerors, they held it as foederati, agreeing to defend it against
all other invaders. They furnished also to the armies of Rome soldiers
whom we hear of as serving in far distant regions. In the Notitia
Dignitatum, in which we find a sort of Army List of the Empire drawn
up about the beginning of the fifth century, there is mention of
Salii seniores and Salii juniores, and we also find Salii figuring in the
auxilia palatina.
At the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century the
Salian Franks established in Toxandria ceased to recognise the authority
of Rome, and began to assert their independence. It was at this period
that the Roman civilisation disappeared from these regions. The Latin
language ceased to be spoken and the Germanic tongue was alone
employed. Even at the present day the inhabitants of these districts
speak Flemish, a Germanic dialect. The place-names were altered and
took on a Germanic form, with the terminations hem, ghem, seele and
zele, indicating a dwelling-place, loo wood, dal valley. The Christian
religion retreated along with the Roman civilisation, and those regions
reverted to paganism. For a long time, it would seem, these Salian
Franks were held in check by the great Roman road which led, by way


## p. 297 (#327) ############################################

431–451]
Clodion, Merovech
297
of Arras, Cambrai and Bavay, to Cologne, and which was protected by
numerous forts.
The Salians were subdivided into a number of tribes each holding a
pagus. Each of these divisions had a king who was chosen from
the most noble family, and who was distinguished from his fellow-
Franks by his long hair-criniti reges. The first of these kings to whom
we have a distinct reference bore the name of Clogio or Clojo (Clodion).
He had his seat at Dispargum, the exact position of which has not
been determined—it may have been Diest in Brabant. Desiring to
extend the borders of the Salian Franks he advanced southwards in
the direction of the great Roman road. Before reaching it, however, he
was surprised, near the town of Helena (Hélesmes-Nord), when engaged
in celebrating the betrothal of one of his warriors to a fair-haired
maiden, by Aëtius, who exercised in the name of Rome the military
command in Gaul. He sustained a crushing defeat; the victor carried
off his chariots and took prisoner even the trembling bride. This was
about the year 431. But Clodion was not long in recovering from this
defeat. He sent spies into the neighbourhood of Cambrai, defeated the
Romans and captured the town. He had thus gained command of the
great Roman road. Then, without encountering opposition, he advanced
as far as the Somme, which marked the limit of Frankish territory.
About this period Tournai on the Scheldt seems to have become the
capital of the Salian Franks.
Clodion was succeeded in the kingship of the Franks by Merovech.
All our histories of France assert that he was the son of Clodion ; but
Gregory of Tours simply says that he belonged to the family of that
king, and he does not give even this statement as certain ; it is main-
tained, he says, by certain persons—De huius stirpe quidam Merovechum
regem fuisse adserunt. We should perhaps refer to Merovech certain
statements of the Greek historian Priscus, who lived about the middle of
the fifth century. On the death of a king of the Franks, he says, his
two sons disputed the succession. The elder betook himself to Attila to
seek his support; the younger preferred to claim the protection of the
Emperor, and journeyed to Rome. “I saw him there,” he says; "he was
still quite young. His fair hair, thick and very long, fell over his
shoulders. " Aëtius, who was at this time in Rome, received him
graciously, loaded him with presents and sent him back as a friend and
ally. Certainly, in the sequel the Salian Franks responded to the
appeal of Aëtius and mustered to oppose the great invasion of Attila,
fighting in the ranks of the Roman army at the battle of the Mauriac
Plain (A. D. 451). The Vita Lupi, in which some confidence may be
placed, names King Merovech among the combatants.
Various legends have gathered round the figure of Merovech. The
pseudo-Fredegar narrates that as the mother of this prince was sitting
by the sea-shore a monster sprang from the waves and overpowered her;
OH. X.


## p. 298 (#328) ############################################

298
Childeric
[463
and from this union was born Merovech. Evidently the legend owes its
origin to an attempt to explain the etymology of the name Merovech,
son of the sea. In consequence of this legend some historians have
maintained that Merovech was a wholly mythical personage and they
have sought out some remarkable etymologies to explain the name
Merovingian, which is given to the kings of the first dynasty ; but in
our opinion the existence of this prince is sufficiently proved, and we
interpret the term Merovingian as meaning descendants of Merovech.
Merovech had a son named Childeric. The relationship is attested
in precise terms by Gregory of Tours who says cujus filius fuit Childericus.
In addition to the legendary narratives about Childeric which Gregory
gathered from oral tradition, we have also some very precise details
which the celebrated historian borrowed from annals now no longer
extant. The legendary tale is as follows. Childeric, who was extremely
licentious, dishonoured the daughters of many of the Franks. His
subjects therefore rose in their wrath, drove him from the throne, and
even threatened to kill him. He fled to Thuringia—it is uncertain
whether this was Thuringia beyond the Rhine, or whether there was a
Thuringia on the left bank of the river-but he left behind him a
faithful friend whom he charged to win back the allegiance of the Franks.
Childeric and his friend broke a gold coin in two and each took a part.
“When I send you my part,” said the friend, “and the pieces fit together
to form one whole you may safely return to your country. ” The Franks
unanimously chose for their king Aegidius, who had succeeded Aëtius
in Gaul as magister militum. At the end of eight years the faithful
friend, having succeeded in gaining over the Franks, sent to Childeric
the token agreed upon, and the prince, on his return, was restored to the
throne. The queen of the Thuringians, Basina by name, left her
husband Basinus to follow Childeric. “I know thy worth," said she, “and
thy great courage; therefore I have come to live with thee. If I had
known, even beyond the sea, a man more worthy than thou art, I would
have gone to him. " Childeric, well pleased, married her forthwith, and
from their union was born Clovis. This legend, on which it would be
rash to base any historical conclusion, was amplified later, and the
further developments of it have been preserved by the pseudo-Fredegar
and the author of the Liber Historiae.
But alongside of this legendary story we have some definite information
regarding Childeric. While the main centre of his kingdom continued
to be in the neighbourhood of Tournai, he fought along with the Roman
generals in the valley of the Loire against all the enemies who sought
to wrest Gaul from the Empire. Unlike his predecessor Clodion and
his son Clovis, he faithfully fulfilled his duties as a foederatus. In the
year 463 the Visigoths made an effort to extend their dominions to the
banks of the Loire. Aegidius marched against them, and defeated them at
Orleans, Friedrich, brother of King Theodoric II, being slain in the battle.


## p. 299 (#329) ############################################

360—481]
The Ripuarian Franks
299
Now we know for certain that Childeric was present at this battle. A short
time afterwards the Saxons made a descent, by way of the North Sea, the
Channel, and the Atlantic, under the leadership of a chief named Odovacar,
established themselves in some islands at the mouth of the Loire, and
threatened the town of Angers on the Mayenne. The situation was the
more serious because Aegidius had lately died (October 464), leaving the
command to his son Syagrius. Childeric threw himself into Angers and
held it against the Saxons. He succeeded in beating off the besiegers,
assumed the offensive and recaptured from the Saxons the islands which
they had seized. The defeated Odovacar placed himself, like Childeric,
at the service of Rome, and the two adversaries, now reconciled, barred
the path of a troop of Alemans who were returning from a pillaging
expedition into Italy. Thus Childeric policed Gaul on behalf of Rome
and endeavoured to check the inroads and forays of the other barbarians.
The death of Childeric probably took place in the year 481, and he
was buried at Tournai. His tomb was discovered in the
year
1653. In
it was a ring bearing his name, CHILDIRICI REGIS, with the image
of the head and shoulders of a long-haired warrior. Numerous objects
of value, arms, jewels, remains of a purple robe ornamented with golden
bees, gold coins bearing the effigies of Leo I and Zeno, Emperors of
Constantinople, were found in the tomb. Such of these treasures as
could be preserved are now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. They
serve as evidence that these Merovingian kings were fond of luxury and
possessed quantities of valuable objects. In the ensuing volume it will
be seen how Childeric's son Clovis broke with his father's policy, threw
off his allegiance to the Empire and conquered Gaul for his own hand.
While Childeric was reigning at Tournai, another Salian chief, Ragnachar,
reigned at Cambrai, the town which Clodion had taken; the residence of
a third, named Chararic, is unknown to us.
The Salian Franks, as we have said above, were so called in contra-
distinction to the Ripuarians. The latter doubtless included a certain
number of tribes, such as the Ampsivarii and the Bructeri. Julian, in
the year 360, checked the advance of these barbarians and forced them
to retire across the Rhine. In 389 Arbogast similarly checked their
inroads and conquered all their territory in 392, as we have already
said. But in the beginning of the fifth century, when Stilicho had
withdrawn the Roman garrisons from the banks of the Rhine, they
were able to advance without hindrance and establish themselves on the
left bank of the river. Their progress however was far from rapid.
They only gained possession of Cologne at a time when Salvian,
born about 400, was man in middle life, and even then the
town was retaken. It did not finally pass into their hands until the year
463. The town of Trèves was taken and burned by the Franks four
times before they made themselves masters of it. Towards 470 the
Ripuarians had founded a fairly compact kingdom, of which the
а
CH. X.


## p. 300 (#330) ############################################

300
The Salic Law
[507–511
principal cities were Aix-la-Chapelle, Bonn, Juliers and Zülpich. They
had advanced southwards as far as Divodurum (Metz), the fortifications
of which seem to have defied all their efforts. The Roman civilisation,
the Latin language, and even the Christian religion, seem to have
disappeared from the regions occupied by the compact masses of these
invaders. The present frontier of the French and German languages, or
a frontier drawn a little further to the south—for it appears that in
course of time French has gained ground a little-indicates the limit of
their dominions. In the course of their advance southwards, the Ripuarians
came into collision with the Alemans, who had already made themselves
masters of Alsace and were endeavouring to enlarge their borders in all
directions. There were many battles between the Ripuarians and
Alemans, of one of which, fought at Zülpich (Tolbiacum), a record has
bee preserved. Sigebert, king of the Ripuarians, was there wounded
in the knee and walked lame for the rest of his life; whence he was
known as Sigebertus Claudus. It appears that at this time the Alemans
had penetrated far north into the kingdom of the Ripuarians. This
kingdom was destined to have but a transient existence; we shall see in
the following volume how it was destroyed by Clovis, and how all the
Frankish tribes on the left bank of the Rhine were brought under his
authority.
While the Salian and Ripuarian Franks were spreading along the
left bank of the Rhine, and founding flourishing kingdoms there, other
Frankish tribes remained on the right bank. They were firmly estab-
lished, especially to the north of the Main, and among them the ancient
tribe of the Chatti, from whom the Hessians are derived, took a leading
place. Later this territory formed one of the duchies into which
Germany was divided, and took from its Frankish inhabitants the name
of Franconia.
If we desire to make ourselves acquainted with the manners and
customs of the Franks, we must have recourse to the most ancient
document which has come down from them,
the Salic Law. The
oldest redaction of this Law, as will be shewn in the next volume,
probably dates only from the last years of Clovis (507–511), but in
it are codified much more ancient usages. On the basis of this code
we can conjecture the condition of the Franks in the time of Clodion,
of Merovech, and of Childeric. The family is still a very closely united
whole; there is solidarity among relatives even to a remote degree. If
a murderer could not pay the fine to which he had been sentenced, he must
bring before the mâl (court) twelve comprobators who made affirmation
that he could not pay it. That done, he returned to his dwelling, took
up some earth from each of the four corners of his room and cast it with
the left hand over his shoulder towards his nearest relative; then, bare-
foot and clad only in his shirt, but bearing a spear in his hand, he


## p. 301 (#331) ############################################

Political Organisation
301
leaped over the hedge which surrounded his dwelling. Once this cere-
mony had been performed, it devolved upon his relative, to whom he
had thereby ceded his house, to pay the fine in his place. He might
appeal in this way to a series of relatives one after another; and if,
a
ultimately, none of them was able to pay, he was brought before four
successive mâls, and if no one took pity on him and paid his debt, he
was put to death. But if the family was thus a unit for the payment of
fines, it had the compensating advantage of sharing the fine paid for
the murder of one of its members. Since the solidarity of the family
sometimes entailed dangerous consequences, it was permissible for an
individual to break these family ties. The man who wished to do so
presented himself at the mal before the centenarius and broke into
four pieces, above his head, three wands of alder. He then threw the
pieces into the four corners, declaring that he separated himself from his
relatives and renounced all rights of succession. The family included the
slaves and liti or freedmen. Slaves were the chattels of their master; if
they were wounded, maimed, or killed, the master received the com-
pensation ; on the other hand, if the slave had committed any crime the
master was obliged to pay, unless he preferred to give him up to bear
the punishment. The Franks recognised private property, and severe
penalties were denounced against those who invaded the rights of owner-
ship; there are penalties for stealing from another's garden, meadow,
corn-field or flax-field, and for ploughing another's land. At a man's
death all his property was divided among his sons ; a daughter had no
claim to any share of it. Later, she is simply excluded from Salic
ground, that is from her father's house and the land that surrounds it.
We find also in the Salic Law some information about the organisa-
tion of the State. The royal power appears strong. Any man who
refuses to appear before the royal tribunal is outlawed. All his goods
are confiscated and anyone who chooses may slay him with impunity;
no one, not even his wife, may give him food, under penalty of a very
All those who are employed about the king's person are
protected by a special sanction. Their wergeld is three times as high
as that of other Franks of the same social status. Over each of the
territorial divisions called pagi the king placed a representative of his
authority known as the grafio, or, to give him his later title, the comes.
The grafio maintained order within his jurisdiction, levied such fines as
were due to the king, executed the sentences of the courts and seized
the property of condemned persons who refused to pay their fines. The
pagus was in turn subdivided into “hundreds” (centenae). Each “hundred"
had its court of judgment known as the mâl; the place where it met
was known as the mâlberg. This tribunal was presided over by the
centenarius or thunginus—these terms appear to us to be synonymous.
Historians have devoted much discussion to the question whether this
official was appointed by the king or elected by the freemen of the
heavy fine.
CH. X.


## p. 302 (#332) ############################################

302
Crimes and Offences
“hundred. ” At the court of the “hundred all the freemen had a
right to be present, but only a few of them took part in the proceedings
--some of them would be nominated for this duty on one occasion, some
on another. In their capacity as assistants to the centenarius at the mâl
the freemen were designated rachineburgi. In order to make a sentence
valid it was required that seven rachineburgi should pronounce judg-
ment. A plaintiff had the right to summon seven of them to give
judgment upon his suit. If they refused, they had to pay a fine of
three sols. If they persisted in their refusal, and did not undertake
to pay the three sols before sunset, they incurred a fine of fifteen sols.
Every man's life was rated at a certain value; this was his price,
the wergeld. The wergeld of a Salian Frank was 200 sols ; that of a
Roman 100 sols. If a Salian Frank had killed another Salian, or a
Roman, without aggravating circumstances, the Court sentenced him to
pay the price of the victim, the 200 or 100 sols. The compositio in this case
is exactly equivalent to the wergeld; if, however, he had only wounded
his victim he paid, according to the severity of the injury, a lower sum
proportionate to the wergeld. If, however, the murder has taken place
in particularly atrocious circumstances, if the murderer has endeavoured
to conceal the corpse, if he has been accompanied by an armed band, or
if the assassination has been unprovoked, the compositio may be three
times; six times, nine times, the wergeld. Of this compositio, two thirds
were paid to the relatives of the victim; this was the faida and bought
off the right of private vengeance; the other third was paid to the
State or to the king : it was called fretus or fredum from the German
word Friede peace, and was a compensation for the breach of the public
peace of which the king is the guardian. Thus a very lofty principle
was embodied in this penalty.
The Salic Law is mainly a tariff of the fines which must be paid for
various crimes and offences. The State thus endeavoured to substitute
the judicial sentences of the courts for private vengeance, part of the
compensation being paid to the victim or his family to induce them to
renounce this right. But we may safely conjecture that the triumph of
law over inveterate custom was not immediate. It was long before
families were willing to leave to the judgment of the courts serious
crimes which had been committed against them, such as homicides and
adulteries; they flew to arms and made war upon the guilty person
and his family. The forming in this way of armed bands was very
detrimental to public order.
The crimes mentioned most frequently in the Salic Law give us
some grounds on which to form an idea of the manners and charac-
teristics of the Franks. These Franks would seem to have been much
given to bad language, for the Law mentions a great variety of terms
of abuse. It is forbidden to call one's adversary a fox or a hare, or to
reproach him with having fung away his shield; it is forbidden to


## p. 303 (#333) ############################################

Weapons of the Franks
303
call a woman meretrix, or to say that she had joined the witches at
their revels. Warriors who are so easily enraged readily pass to violence
and murder. Every form of homicide is mentioned in the Salic Law.
The roads are not safe, and are often infested by armed bands. In
addition to murder, theft is very often mentioned by the code—theft
of fruits, of hay, of cattle-bells, of horse-clogs, of animals, of river-boats,
of slaves and even of freemen. All these thefts are punished with
severity and are held by all to be base and shameful crimes. But
there is a punishment of special severity for robbing a corpse which has
been buried. The guilty person is outlawed, and is to be treated like a
wild beast.
The civilisation of these Franks is primitive; they are, above all else,
warriors.