Clovis and Remigius of Reims in the making of the Merovingian Kingdoms

Abstract

This article approaches the study of the collaboration between Remigius of Reims and Clovis and its impact on the formation of the Merovingian kingdoms. This will be achieved through the introduction of an alternative reading of the letter sent by the former to the young king on the occasion of his accession to power. To attain this goal, special attention will be paid to the personal interests of both figures as the main and most immediate reason for their relationship. Specifically, both Clovis and Remigius had to move in a scenario dominated by their own political and social competition, which forced each man to look to his own political survival. It is in this sense in which we will interpret many of his political movements and perceptions reflected in the letter in question. Likewise, the short and long-term political implications of their alliance on the building and forging of the future Regnum Francorum will also be addressed. This will be of special importance in the supply of a territorial basis for the new kingdom, supported largely by the diocesan structure provided by Remigius. In the end, this situation would change and the relationship between the two figures would undergo an erosion as a consequence of Remigius’ mistrust of Clovis’ increasing power.

Keywords:

• Belgica Secunda
• bishops
• competition
• power
• territory

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Marisa Bueno, Pablo C. Díaz, Alberto Ferreiro, Enrique Hernández, Régine Le Jan and two anonymous referees whose valuable comments and suggestions have contributed to the improvement and enhancement of this study. Nevertheless, the content of what is here presented is the sole responsibility of its author. This text was drafted during a research stay at the UMR 7041 ArScAn (Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité), belonging to the CNRS and the Université Paris Nanterre, under the supervision of Dr. Bruno Dumézil, whom I thank for his kind welcome and invaluable help.

Notes

1. Epistulae Austrasicae, II, 1, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber epistolarum,’ 62.

2. Trans Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 76

3. With regard to establishing the chronology for Clovis’ rule, cf. Bachrach, “Procopius and the Chronology,” 21–31; Wood, “Gregory of Tours and Clovis,” 249–72; Breukelaar, Historiography and Episcopal Authority in Sixth-Century Gaul, 144–85; Halsall, “Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ Succession,” 170–3.

4. As one of the main advocates of this, cf. Werner, Les origines. Histoire de France. For further references, see later in this article.

5. For example, Latouche, Les grandes invasions et la crise; Tessier, Le baptême de Clovis.

6. Lot et al., Les destinées de l’Empire, 302. In a similar vein, Dumézil, Servir l’État barbare, 135–6.

7. Escalona Monge, “Patrones de fragmentación territorial,” 165.

8. Taking a similar view, Goetz, “Gens, Kings, and Kingdoms,” 332–4; Le Jan, “La sacralité de la royauté mérovingienne,” 1234–38; Moore, A Sacred Kingdom, 112, among others. Although the forging of a common identity for the kingdom as a whole was mostly accomplished through the fusion of Gallo-Roman and Germanic peoples along the sixth century, the monarch would play a leading role in community cohesion and, therefore, in the embracing of the identity elements that would prevail throughout the Merovingian period. Cf. Gillett, “Was Ethnicity Politicized in the Earliest Medieval Kingdoms?,” 85–121; Pohl, “Nouvelles identités ethniques,” 23–34.

9. In this regard, the following assertion by I. Wood is quite revealing: ‘In such periods of change we should not expect to find archaic tradition so much as strategies for survival.’ “Royal Succession and Legitimation,” 61. The building of medieval states in the eastern part of central Europe has been approached from this perspective. Cf. Urbanczyk, “Early State Formation in East Central Europe,” 139–51.

10. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 166; Daly, “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?,” 632; Rouche, Clovis, 390–1.

11. MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, 127.

12. Tessier, Le baptême de Clovis, 83; Pietri, “La chrétienté gauloise de la division à l’unité retrouvé,” 332; Cândido da Silva, A Realeza Crista na Alta Idade Média, 53, who base their support of this timeline on the analysis of the array of titles that Remigius uses to describe Clovis.

13. Cf. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 41.

14. Cf. Barrett and Woudhuysen, “Remigius and the ‘Important News’,” 471–500, who present an exhaustive account of the state of the issue.

15. Ibid., 485, specifically ‘ut domini iudicium a te // non uacillet’.

16. For different views on the issue, see Daly, “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?,” 632.

17. Our purpose is not to argue about the chronological background; rather, we are suggesting a new reading of the letter based on the traditional dating. In addition, although we recognize that there could be other chronological possibilities, none of them for now have the final word.

18. Epistulae Austrasicae, II, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber epistolarum,’ 62, 64. For a new lecture of the letter through an exhaustive study of the manuscript transmission, Barrett and Woudhuysen, “Remigius and the ‘Important News',” 471–500. It is a known fact that this bishop occupied the episcopal cathedra from 459 until his death in 533. On the figure of Remigius of Reims, see Isaïa, Remi de Reims.

19. This view is defended by Bloch, “Observations sur la conquête de la Gaule,” 161–78; Werner, “La ‘conquête franque’ de la Gaule,” 23–4; James, The Franks, 6; Lebecq, Les origines franques, 47–50; Daly, “Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?,” 627–35; Rouche, Clovis, 203–4; Guillot, “Clovis ‘Auguste’, vecteur des conceptions romano-chrétiennes,” 155; Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 97; Cândido da Silva, A Realeza Crista, 53–7; Oudart, “‘Seigneur insigne et par ses mérites’,” 69–143, among others, although the latter shows certain reluctance when it comes to claiming that Clovis held ample territorial power. A far less popular line rejects the continuist theory when interpreting the letters. MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, 127.

20. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 27, 11, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 71. For further research on Childeric and Clovis’ family roots, see Renard, “Le sang de Mérovée,” 999–1040.

21. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 12, 1–2, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 61. Cf. Lebecq, “The Two Faces of King Childeric,” 327–41. Specifically, Childeric and, eventually, his son Clovis, are said to have ruled over the so-called Salian Franks. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 149. On the controversy around the separation of the Franks into different branches, cf. Springer, “Salier und salisches Recht,” 485–7. For a journey through the history of the Franks at different times until Clovis’ takeover of power, see Zöllner, Geschichte der Franken; Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 148–63; James, The Franks, 34–77; Staab, “Les royaumes francs au V^e siècle,” 539–66.

22. On a similar note, Périn and Feffer, Les Francs. Tome 1, 137; Goetz, “Gens, Kings, and Kingdoms,” 321–2.

23. Advocating this idea, Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 164; Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 39; Kulikowski, “The Western Kingdoms,” 39. Gregory of Tours himself states that at a certain point between the late fourth and early fifth centuries, the Franks themselves were led by different reges, apparently holding the same rank and scattered across the different pagi and civitates. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 9, 11–3, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 57.

24. Epistulae Austrasicae, II, 1, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 62. For an alternative approach, see Halsall, “Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ Succesion,” 178.

25. The wealth of literature available on this issue is overwhelming. A selection of it: Wood, “Kings, Kingdom and Consent,” 24; Werner, Les origines, 336; Lebecq, Les origines franques, 46–7; Rouche, Clovis, 187; Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 97, among others. E. James even claims that the scope of Childeric’s control spread beyond the limits of Belgica Secunda. Cf. James, The Franks, 64.

26. There is evidence of the comes or magister utriusque militiae per Gallias Egidius, a Frankish man called Ragnachar, who exerted his power in Cambrai and its surroundings and, also of another Frankish leader, Chararic. However, we cannot rule out the existence of more political players that the sources do not mention. Cf. MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, 69–164.

27. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 12, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 61–2. Sarti, Perceiving War and the Military, 33. The territorial connotations of the term regnum would come later, with the construction and consolidation of the post-imperial kingdoms. Cf. Jiménez Garnica, “Sobre rex y regnum,” 57–80; Kulikowski, “The Western Kingdoms,” 34.

28. On this issue, see Van Dam, Leadership & Community in Late Antique Gaul, 141–56; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 346–68; Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 392–400, among others.

29. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 39; Halsall, “Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ Succession,” 182. Such status would derive not so much from his relationship with the Empire, as from his own political abilities and reputation. Sarti, Perceiving War and the Military, 31–2.

30. Cf. Brulet, “Le tombe de Childéric et la topographie de Tournai à la fin du V^e siècle,” 59–78.

31. Wood, “Kings, Kingdom and Consent,” 10.

32. Childeric’s barrow is understood as a mechanism to express such competition: Effros, “Grave Goods and the Ritual Expression of Identity,” 190; Halsall, “Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ Succession,” 173–6, 185; Le Jan, “Prendre, accumuler, détruire les richesses,” 372–3.

33. Alongside the abovementioned authors, other authors also agree with this idea of Clovis, among them are: Verlinden, “Frankish Colonization: A New Approach,” 15; Wood, “Gregory of Tours and Clovis,” 262.

34. Cf. Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 94. A new edition of the fragment concerned has been recently suggested, denying any mention of Belgica Secunda. Cf. Barrett and Woudhuysen, “Remigius and the ‘Important News’,” 483–4.

35. Wood, “Gregory of Tours and Clovis,” 262.

36. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 18, 8–9; II, 27, 13–14, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 65, 71.

37. There has been much discussion on the meaning of Syagrius’ title of rex and the regnum it entailed. For a state of the question, see Fanning, “Emperors and Empires in Fifth-Century Gaul,” 288–97.

38. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 27, 13–17, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 71.

39. MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, 127–8.

40. These two cities are barely 60 kms away from each other.

41. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 27, 11, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 71. This is a generally accepted opinion in historiography. For example: Bloch, “Observations sur la conquête,” 163; Rouche, Clovis, 389–90; Oudart, “‘Seigneur insigne et par ses mérites,’” 115–16.

42. Cf. Wood, “Deconstructing the Merovingian Family,” 149–71.

43. Along these lines, see Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 322. Evidence of the indefinite nature of political succession at the time can be found in Le Jan, “La sacralité de la royauté mérovingienne,” 1233. To further support this idea, Gregory of Tours claims that there was a time when Childeric was removed from his status as rex by his own people, who chose Egidius as their new leader. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 12, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 61–2.

44. Dumézil, “Les ruptures dynastiques dans les royaumes barbares,” 43.

45. Cf. Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 52–7.

46. Gauthier, “Le réseau de pouvoirs de l’évêque,” 197. Against this, Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 178–85. On Remigius’ family policy, Cf. Foviaux, “Les mutations de la géographie administrative de l’Antiquité tardive en Gaule,” 201–25.

47. The successio sancta phenomenon, meaning the transfer of the episcopal rank within a specific family, was a constant in fifth- and sixth-century Gaul. Cf. Mathisen, Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul, 91; Beaujard, “L’épiscopat, ambition des familles de clarissimes gaulois aux V^e et VI^e siècles,” 381–92.

48. Epistulae Austrasicae, III-IV, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 64, 66, 68, 70, 72.

49. Cf. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy.

50. Kreiner, “About the Bishop: The Episcopal Entourage and the Economy of Government,” 337.

51. Sid. Apollinaris, Epistulae, VIII, 14; IX, 8, ed. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire, III, 123–5, 145–6. Concerning the same individual, Hincmarus, Vita Sancti Remigii, II, 1; 32, ed. Krusch, Passionaes vitaeque sanctorum, 259–62, 336–7.

52. Heuclin, Hommes de Dieu et fonctionnaires du roi en Gaule du Nord, 39.

53. Specifically, in case we can lend a minimum of credibility to such a late source as the Vita S. Remigii, after Principius, Remigius would promote his nephew Lupus to the bishopric of the see of Soissons. In the case of Laon, the first holder of such place would be his niece’s husband, Genobaudus, who would be succeeded by his own son. On such episcopal promotions, see Cf. Pietri, “Remarques sur la christianisation du Nord de la Gaule,” 58–9; Foviaux, “Les mutations de la géographie administrative de l’Antiquité tardive en Gaule,” 201–25; Heinzelmann, “L'aristocratie et les évêchés entre Loire et Rhin jusqu'à la fin du VII^e siècle,” 81, 97.

54. Lebecq, Les origines franques, 47; Rouche, Clovis, 206.

55. It is also true, according to Gregory of Tours’ testimony, that, after eight years, Childeric would have recovered his authority. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 12, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 61–2.

56. Along these lines, see Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 164; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 304. Revealing in terms of the relevance of the competition between Clovis and Syagrius is the principle of competitive exclusion expressed by anthropology: ‘The principle of competitive exclusion […] states simply that two species occupying and exploiting the same portion of the habitat cannot coexist indefinitely. Sooner or later one of them will eliminate the other.’ Carneiro, “Political Expansion as an Expression of the Principle of Competitive Exclusion,” 208.

57. Cf. Mathisen, Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul, 67; Díaz, “El obispo y las invasiones de los pueblos bárbaros,” 140–3.

58. Dumézil, Les racines chrétiennes de l’Europe, 72–3.

59. This idea is further supported by the request made by Remigius to Clovis asking him to use his own wealth to free the prisoners that had been enslaved. Epistulae Austrasicae, II, 3, 18–20, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum’, 62, 64. Freeing the captives through episcopal intervention was a constant immediately before and after the fall of the Western Empire. For a case study, see Klingshirn, “Charity and Power: Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul,” 183–203. An alternative approach, Barrett and Woudhuysen, “Remigius and the ‘Important News’,” 484.

60. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 27, 13–17, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 71.

61. Epistulae Austrasicae, II, 2, 9–15, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 62. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings, 166.

62. Hen, “The Church in Sixth-Century Gaul,” 237.

63. For an analysis of the different virtues listed by Remigius, see Oudart, ‘“Seigneur insigne et par ses mérites”,’ 118–43.

64. The bibliography available on the relevance of the figure of the bishop in the late antique and early medieval contexts is very extensive. A selection: Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien; Mor, “Sui poteri civili del vescovi dal IV al secolo VIII,” 7–33; Beaujard, “L’évêque dans la cite en Gaule aux V^e-VI^e siècles,” 127–45; Gauthier, “Le réseau de pouvoirs de l’évêque,” 173–207; Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity.

65. Dumézil, Les racines chrétiennes de l’Europe, 73.

66. Greg. Tur., DLH, II, 27, 1–2, ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 72.

67. Cf. Lauwers, “Territorium non facere diocesim,” 23–68; Mazel, L'évêque et le territoire.

68. Cf. Gottmann, The Significance of Territory; Raffestin, Pour une géographie du pouvoir; Sack, Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History; Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights.

69. Guerreau, “Quelques caractères spécifiques de l’espace féodal européen,” 85–101.

70. From a general perspective, cf. Jones, “Mann and Men in a Medieval State,” 65–78.

71. Mériaux, “De la cité antique au diocèse médiéval,” 603.

72. Martín Viso, “Organización episcopal y poder entre la antigüedad Tardía y el Medievo,” 160.

73. Le Jan, La société du haut Moyen Âge, 48.

74. In anthropological terms, churches could be also defined as ‘active centers for social order’. Geertz, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma,” 122–3. On the social role of rural churches, cf. Pietri, “Chiesa e comunità locali nell’Occidente cristiano,” 493–500; Delaplace, “Local Churches, Settlement, and Social Power in Late Antique and Early Medieval Gaul,” 419–47, where the relationship between rural churches and the elites’ influence networks is also addressed.

75. Cardot, L'espace et le pouvoir, 163.

76. Gregory of Tours’ testimony provides a quite exhaustive list of the rural foundations made by the bishops of Tours since the times of Saint Martin. Cf. Stancliffe, “From Town to Country,” 43–59. For further studies on this, see Delaplace, dir., Aux origines de la paroisse rurale. As for the north, there are data on foundations in the vicinity of Belgica Secunda, Cf. Gauthier, L’Évangélisation des pays de la Moselle, 153–6, 238. For a general assessment, see Pietri, “Chiesa e comunità locali,” 475–521.

77. As well as in this will, this church also appears under the influence of the Bishop of Reims in the letter Remigius addresses to Falco of Tongeren. Epistulae Austrasicae, IV, 2, 12–14, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 68.

78. Hincmarus, Vita Sancti Remigii, 32, 15–18, ed. Krusch, Passionaes vitaeque sanctorum, 339. Cf. Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 130. On the controversy around this text and its two versions, cf. Jones et al., “The Authenticity of the ‘Testamentum S. Remigii,’” 356–73. Based on this study, later historiography usually accepts the authenticity of the shorter version of the will.

79. A similar situation has been proposed for the Visigothic kingdom in Hispania. Cf. Castellanos and Martín Viso, “The Local Articulation of Central Power in the North of the Iberian Peninsula,” 15.

80. Again, the Visigothic reality presents a useful analogy. Cf. Castellanos, “The Political Nature of Taxation in Visigothic Spain,” 221.

81. For example, this royal appointment would have been made in the cases of Sofronius in Noyon, Libanus in Senlis, Edibius in Amiens, Gildaredus in Rouen, Maurusus in Evreux, Nepos in Avranches and Leontianus in Coutances, who subscribe the minutes of the I Council of Orléans. Conc. Aurelianense a. 511, Subscriptiones, ed. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae, 13–19. Cf. Heuclin, Hommes de Dieu et fonctionnaires du roi en Gaule du Nord, 39–41; Halfond, “Vouillé, Orléans (511),” 157. This idea is deduced because these bishoprics were unoccupied the years prior to Clovis’ conquest of the region located between the Seine and the Loire. The letter sent by Remigius to the bishops of the province of Sens is clearer proving the intervention of Clovis in the appointment of bishops. Epistulae Austrasicae, III, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 64, 66.

82. A very illustrative example is the episode of the Vase of Soissons, when Clovis quarrels with his own soldiers to satisfy the desires of the bishop, who had requested the return of the famous vase. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 27 ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 71–3. Further evidence of such concessions, although framed in the late part of Clovis’ reign, can be observed in the minutes of the Council of Orléans, held in 511, where there is clear evidence of the Merovingian king personally giving munera to the Church. Conc. Aurelianense a. 511, c. 5, ed. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae, 6. Likewise, at the Council of Paris in 556–73, there is also mention of such type of grants. Conc. Parisiense a. 556–573, c. 5, ed. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae, 205–6. On discussion concerning this council, cf. Halfond, “Charibert I and the Episopal Leadership,” 1–28. Despite the fact that this evidence belongs to a later date, there is no reason to think that such deliveries were not offered to the septentrional episcopacy throughout his entire reign.

83. Heuclin, Hommes de Dieu et fonctionnaires du roi en Gaule du Nord, 38–9. For an alternative approach, Isaïa, Remi de Reims, 138–61.

84. Greg. Tur. DLH, II, 31 ed. Krusch and Levison, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis, 76–8. On the issue of dating it, Spencer, “Dating the Baptism of Clovis,” 97–116; Shanzer, “Dating the Baptism of Clovis,” 29–57.

85. Mériaux, Gallia irradiata. Saints et sanctuaires, 54, who defends the view of a certain disregard of Clovis and his sons for the region.

86. Jonas Bobbiensis, Vita Vedastis episcopi Atrebatensis duplex, 5, ed. Krusch, Passionaes vitaeque sanctorum, 409. Cf. Pietri, “Remarques sur la Christianisation,” 61–3; Heuclin, Hommes de Dieu et fonctionnaires du roi en Gaul du Nord, 39.

87. Heuclin, “Le concile d’Orléans, un premier concordat ?,” 444–5.

88. Epistulae Austrasicae, IV, 2, 12–13, ed. Malaspina, Il ‘Liber Epistolarum,’ 68, 70.

89. For other approaches to the reasons that led to Cyprian’s election, see Heuclin, “Le concile d’Orléans, un premier concordat?,” 440; Halfond, “Vouillé, Orléans (511),” 160.

90. Heuclin, Hommes de Dieu et fonctionnaires du roi en Gaule du Nord, 69.