Revue belge de philologie et

d'histoire

Clovis, Gregory of Tours, and Pro-Merovingian Propaganda

Yitzhak Hen

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Hen Yitzhak. Clovis, Gregory of Tours, and Pro-Merovingian Propaganda. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 71,
fasc. 2, 1993. Histoire medievale, moderne et contemporaine — Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp.
271-276;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.1993.3880

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1993_num_71_2_3880

Fichier pdf généré le 16/04/2018

 Clovis, Gregory of Tours,
and Pro-Merovingian Propaganda

Yitzhak Hen

In the second book of the Libri Historiarum, Gregory of Tours introduces

Clovis, his one and only hero, magnus etpugnator egregius ('). The description
of Clovis and his deeds leave no doubt that Gregory considered him to be
the ideal king, an attitude which no doubt derives from Gregory's idealization
of the past (2). In his description of Clovis, Gregory inserts some curious and
unusual details, which are, in my opinion, traces of pro-Merovingian
propaganda, which accompanied the conquest of Gaul by Clovis and the
Franks.
The extracts, which so far as I know have never been discussed as pro-
Merovingian propaganda, are Clovis' baptism and his consular accession (3).
The story of Clovis' baptism begins with his marriage to Clotild, the
Burgundian Catholic princess (4), and reaches one of its climaxes with Clovis'
appeal to the Christian God before the battle of Tolbiac and after his old
pagan gods deserted him (5). Here we can identify the first elements which
allude to the conversion of Constantine, the first Christian emperor.
After his victory over the Alamans and after overcoming a few difficulties
concerning his magnats : 'King Clovis asked that he might be baptized first
by the Bishop. Like some new Constantine he stepped forward to the baptismal
pool, ready to wash away the sores of his old leprosy and to be cleansed
in flowing water from the sordid stains which he had borne so long' (6). If,

(1) Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum, ed. Br. Krusch and W. Levison,
Monumenta Germaniae Historicae (MGH), Scriptores Rerum Merowingicarum I, 1
(Hannover, 1951), II 12.
(2) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Work of Gregory of Tours in the Light of
Modem Research, in The Long-haired Kings (London, 1962), p. 63-64 ; W. Goffart,
The Narrators of Barbarian History (Princeton, 1988), p. 203-227 ; and especially
Gregory's own words, which reveal his feelings toward his time as opposed to the
past, Gregory, Liber Historiarum, V praefatio.
(3) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 31, 38.
(4) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 28.
(5) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 30.
(6) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 31 ; throughout the paper I cite the translation
of L. Thorpe (Harmondsworth, 1974).
272 Y. HEN

at first, there is only an allusion to Constantine, here the comparison is obvious,

and perhaps even, tendentious. Gregory makes the comparison explicit by
using Constantine's name, and by commenting on the king's leprosy, which
in the case of Constantine was taken literally (7). In order to make the point
even clearer, Gregory compares Remigius to Silvester, who baptized
Constantine (8).
Ian Wood, in one of the best discussions of the chronology of Clovis' reign,
has noted that 'the images of Clovis as a new Constantine and Remigius
as a new Silvester can hardly have been Gregory's' (9). Gregory must have
taken it from another source, and this source provided him with a traditional
comparison which could be useful in creating a pro-Merovingian campaign.
Somebody wanted to create an association with Byzantium and Rome, and
so intentionally introduced a comparison to Constantine into the legend of
Clovis' baptism.
The conversion of Clovis to Christianity was an act of opportunism done
for political profit. It was not a 'total conversion' (l0), since Clovis did not
intend to lay aside his old-Frankish-pagan gods. He perceived the Christian
God as an additional one, and his baptism 'did not imply that the myths
and rituals of ancestral heathen piety were to be swept aside' ("). This attitude
makes the political motives of the comparison between Clovis and Constantine
much more prominent, and reading it as a trace of pro-Merovingian
propaganda is more substantiated.
The second extract from Gregory's Libri Historiarum which suggests pro-
Merovingian propaganda is Clovis' accession to the consulate after the victory
over the Visigoths at Vouillé : 'Letters reached Clovis from the Emperor
Anastasius to confer the consulate on him. In Saint Martin's church he stood
clad in purple tunic and the military mantle, and he crowned himself with
a diadem. He then rode out on his horse and with his own hand showered
gold and silver coins among the people present all the way from the doorway
of Saint Martin's church to Tours cathedral. From that day on he was called

(7) According to some legends Constantine was cured of leprosy by Pope Silvester
at the Lateran Baptistery. See W. Levison, Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester-
Legende, in Miscellanea Francesa Ehr le, II (1924), p. 159-247. On the Medieval image
of Constantine see : A. Linder, The Myth of Constantine the Great in the West :
Sources and Hagiographie Commemoration, in Studi Medievali, XVI (1975), p. 43-95.
(8) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 31.
(9) I. Wood, Gregory of Tours and Clovis, in Revue Belge de Philologie et
d'Histoire, LXIII (1985), p. 251.
(10) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, in The Long-haired Kings.
(London, 1962), p. 169.
(11) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 169 ; the same was true
of Constantine, R. Mac Mullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400
(Westford, 1984), p. 45-46.
 CLOVIS, GREGORY OF TOURS 273

Consul or Augustus' (12). Many scholars have analysed this incident, yet none
have suggested that it was part of a pro-Merovingian campaign. However,
a thorough analysis reveals the covert intentions of a pro-Merovingian
propagandist.
First, there is the matter of the titles. The codecilli de consolato sent by
Anastasius bestowed on Clovis the honorary title of consul (or possibly that
of patrician), and 'from that day on he was called Consul or Augustus' (n).
Clovis did not need these honours to rule over the Franks, nor to conquer
Gaul. His military force was sufficient for both ends. The title was, however,
significant in building his prestige and status among his new Gallo-Roman
subjects.
From the Roman point of view, Clovis thus became superior to Syagrius (14),
to his Burgundian colleagues (15), and even to Theodoric (l6), and it is clear
that these were matters of prestige and not of actual power or sovereignity (17).
Clovis 'received his title in a part of the world where Roman titles counted
for something' (l8), but actually it did not change a thing. Clovis continued
to be king of the Franks and the sole master of Gaul. The official imperial
acknowledgement of his new position after the victory at Vouillé must have
been meant to improve his position among his new subjects and to ease his
reception as their new ruler.
The symbols of office offer another indication of the author's intention.
Tunica blattea, chlamys, diadem and horseback riding were not parts of the
consular accession ceremony (19). Clovis' consular accession, as described by
Gregory of Tours, combined elements from various Roman and Byzantine

(12) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 38.

(13) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 38.
(14) Gregory calls Syagrius Rex Romanorum, but Syagrius did not actually hold
any imperial appointment. See E. James, The Franks (Oxford, 1988), p. 70-71.
(15) Sigismund the Burgundian king was only patricius, and Gundobad his father
was magister militum Galliarum. See H. Wolfram, The Goths, tr. T. J. Dunlap
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1988), p. 312.
(16) Theodoric was consul in 484, and he was patricius and magister militum when
he came to Italy to displace Odoacer. However, only one inscription from the period
of his reign calls him semper Augustus. See M. MacCormick, Eternal Victory —
Triumph Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West
(Cambridge, 1986), p. 277 ff.
(17) In this way we should understand Procopius' words : ού γάρ ποτέ ωοντο
Γαλλίας ξύν τω άσφαλει κεκτήσθαι Φράγγοι, μη του αύτοκράτορος τό έργον
έτασφραγίσαντος τουτό γε. Procopius, History of the Wars, ed. & tr. Η. Β. Dewing
(Cambridge Massachusetts, London, 1924), VII : xxxiii : 4.
(18) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 176.
(19) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 175-176 ; S. MacCor-
mack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1981),
p. 161 ff.
274 Y. HEN

cermonies in an attempt to create the feeling of a Roman scene. The purple

tunic, the mantle of a soldier, and the diadem were taken from the imperial
accession ceremony (20). The showering of gold and silver coins was,
however, an element of a consular accession (21), and riding horseback instead
of sitting in a chariot can be classified as a Frankish custom. All of these
were intended to create the impression of a Roman triumphal procession in
the mind of the common people. The attempt was probably successful, as
the common Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Gaul could not tell the difference
between an imperial triumphal procession and the ceremony ascribed to Clovis
by Gregory, and it is doubtful whether many members of the senatorial
aristicracy could do so either (22).
This combination of elements could not have been Gregory's invention,
and it must have been propagated long before Gregory wrote the history
of Clovis' reign. Even so, Gregory's description, whether based on written
sources or on oral tradition, shows the traces of tendentious pro-Merovingian
propaganda. From the passages mentioned above it is clear that the pro-
Merovingian propaganda which was spread throughout Gaul during the reign
of Clovis was addressed to the Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Gaul, and its
purpose was to legitimize the new ruling dynasty. Since the propaganda was
meant to provide the Gallo-Romans with a comprehensive conceptual
framework for dealing with the new social and political reality, it did so using
the Roman symbols and context whichever dear to the Gallo-Romans (23).
Although the propagandist portrays Clovis as wearing imperial clothes,
receiving Christianity and dealing with Byzantium, these things were not
necessary for him. He could rule by force, as did his ancestors and his
Visigothic colleagues, and his rule did not depend on his religious beliefs,
nor on any Roman symbols and titles he received. Therefore, it is far from
probable that Clovis was the initiator of a pro-Merovingian campaign,
although he might hope to win the support of the Gallo-Roman inhabitants
of Gaul in this way. We must therefore look for another party, other than
the king and his circle, interested in promoting Merovingian rule. The question
is cui bono ?
Two letters which date to the reign of Clovis, suggest who the interested
party might have been. In the first letter, Remigius (St. Rémi), the Bishop

(20) S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, p. 194-195, 250-252.

(21) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 176, n. 1.
(22) After a law, dated to 450, which allowed the senators to stay at home and
enjoy their dignitas, fewer and fewer Gallo-Romans visited Rome, and as a result
there was inevitably detachment from Roman tradition and ceremony. For the law
see : Codex Justiniani, ed. P. Krüger (Berlin, 192910), XII 2 : 1.
(23) For the Gallo-Roman predilection for Roman symbols and titles see : B.
Brennan, Senator and Social Mobility in sixth-century Gaul, in Journal of Medieval
History, XI (1985), p. 145-161.
 CLOVIS, GREGORY OF TOURS 275

of Rheims, acknowledges Clovis' occupation and administration of Belgica

Secunda (24). 'The tone of the letter', states Wallace-Hadrill, 'is patronising :
the pagan barbarian will wish to reflect on the advantages of having the Gallo-
Roman Church on his side' (25). Yet beneath the patronising tone lies a deeper
issue. Remigius, who is seemingly patronising Clovis, is actually offering him
a close alliance with the Gallo-Romans and their most significant institution,
the Church. Clovis would have been a fool to reject such an offer. It demanded
nothing from his side, neither conversion to Christianity, nor rejection of
Arianism and his pagan gods. It is simply an offer of alliance from a wise
man, who knew how to foresee and assess Clovis' future moves. Reading
between the lines of Remigius' letter we can detect a great hope for the success
of Clovis in his new jobs as ruler of Belgica Secunda.
The second letter was sent to Clovis after his conversion. In it Avitus, the
Bishop of Vienne, celebrates the last link in the chain which bound Clovis
to the Gallo-Romans and to the Catholic Church (26). 'One catches an echo
of the tone of Remigius, writing to the young warrior twenty years earlier ...
but there is also awareness of wider horizons' (27). In his letter Avitus gives
a clear picture of a Catholic king, and he praises Clovis for acting accordingly.
These praises, coming from a Bishop whose king is an Arian, and especially
after abortive attempts to convert him to Catholicism (28), cannot be
interpreted but as wishful thinking. Avitus, in despair over his own king, looked
at Clovis as the saviour of the Catholic Church of Gaul.
Avitus places the issue of Clovis' baptism 'against a background of Byzantine
interests', and in so doing paves the way for his last sentence : Quatenus externi
quique populi paganorum pro religionis vobis primitus imperio servituri, dum
adhunc aliam videntur habere proprietatem, discernantur potius gente quam
principe (29). Whether or not this is the source of Gregory's comparison to
Constantine is unknown. The point is that here is a clear case of pro-
Merovingian propaganda.
Avitus was not the only one who favoured Merovingian rule. A large group
of Gallo-Roman bishops formed the interested party, and therefore acted as
the propagandists. The bishops clearly favoured Clovis, a pagan barbarian
king, over the other option, an Arian king, but beneath the religious arguments,
there were two deeper and more important issues. The first was the bishops'

(24) Epistulae Austrasicae, ed. M. Gundlach, MGH, Epistulae, III (Berlin, 1892),
p. 113, Ep. 2.
(25) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 166.
(26) Avitus, ed. R. Peiper, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi (A A), VI 2 (Berlin, 1883),
p. 75-76, Ep. XXXXVI (41).
(27) J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings, p. 171-172.
(28) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 34.
(29) Avitus, Ep. XXXXVI (41).
276 Y. HEN

fear of being deposed from their sees, which controlled as much secular power
and resources as religious (30). The second issue was the Arians' intolerance
of the Catholics. Isidor of Seville offers an impression of this attitude when
he discusses the deeds of an Arian-Suevic prince : 'He [Huneric] himself too
was kindled by the Arian madness and persecuted the Catholics throughout
the whole of Africa more harshly than his father ; he destroyed churches,
sent into exile priests and clergymen of every order, also banished with more
severe exile about four thousand monks and laymen, made martyrs, and cut
off the tongues of confessors, who spoke fully up to the end even with their
tongues removed' (31). It was a terrifying situation, and it is thus easy to
understand the preference for a pagan but tolerant king over an Arian one,
even though he was a Christian (32).
In conclusion, I would like to return to Gregory of Tours. It is unknown
how the Gallo-Roman bishops propagandized their ideas, but it is clear that
Gregory's account of Clovis' baptism and consular accession contains an echo
of that propaganda. Gregory of Tours, writing more than half a century later,
did not personally encounter this pro-Merovingian propaganda. He lived in
an established Merovingian kingdom whose kings and subjects were Catholics,
and therefore received his information from ancient traditions still remembered
in Gaul. His pride in his kings proves the success of the pro-Merovingian
propaganda. There is no counterpropaganda anywhere in Gregory's Libri
Historiarum, and the Gallo Romans helped the Franks in conquering and
dominating southern Gaul (33).
The pro-Merovingian propaganda was propagated by the Gallo-Roman
bishops for utilitarian and tendentious reasons, and it was intended to
encourage the Gallo-Romans to accept the Franks as the new rulers of Gaul.
After its success there was no need to continue this propaganda, and it
disappeared. Thus Gregory's writings contain only scanty and almost un-
detectable traces of this pro-Merovingian propaganda, which must be attributed
to earlier and unknown sources.

(30) P. J. Geary, Before France and Germany (Oxford, 1988), p. 123-139 ; E. James,
The Origins of France — From Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000 (London, 1982),
p. 49-63 ; M. Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien (München, 1976).
(31) Isidore of Seville, Historia Gothorum, Wandalorum, et Sueborum, éd. Th.
Mommsen, MGH, AA, XI (Berlin, 1894), c. 78 ; I cite the translation of G. Domini
and G. B. Ford (Leiden, 1970). Other chapters from Gregory's History confirm
Isidore's description, see Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 34. One should also mention
here the intolerant attitude of the Visigoths towards Jews, see : P. D. King, Law
and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge, 1972), p. 133-145.
(32) Gregory describes the happiness of the Gallo-Roman inhabitants of southern
Gaul at the Frankish occupation, see Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 35-37.
(33) Gregory, Liber Historiarum, II 35-37.