DIPLOMARBEIT

Titel der Diplomarbeit

A woman's life in Gregory of Tours' Histories

Verfasser

Richard Hemmer

angestrebter akademischer Grad

Magister der Philosophie (Mag.phil)

Wien, 2013

Studienkennzahl lt.
Studienblatt:

A 312

Studienrichtung lt.
Studienblatt:

Geschichte

Betreuer:

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Pohl

I'd like to thank:

My parents, for their unwavering support.
Lene, for putting up with long hours. And me.
Everyone who so tirelessly kept encouraging me through the
years.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................7
2 Theory.............................................................................................11
2.1 Current State of Research............................................................11
2.1.1 Gregory of Tours..................................................................11
2.1.2 Gender in the early Middle Ages.............................................12
2.2 Gender and History.....................................................................13
2.2.1 Gender and the Middle Ages...................................................14
2.2.2 Gender in the Middle Ages.....................................................15
2.3 Gregory of Tours............................................................................18
2.3.1 Life.....................................................................................18
2.3.2 Gregory's Family..........................................................................20
2.3.3 Gregory, Bishop of Tours........................................................22
2.3.4 Works.................................................................................27
2.3.4.1 The Histories.................................................................27
2.3.4.2 Other writings................................................................28
2.3.5 Historiographic Significance...................................................30
3 A Woman's Life in Gregory of Tours' Histories........................................33
3.1 Good vs. Evil..............................................................................33
3.1.1 Fredegund as seen by Gregory...............................................34
3.1.1.1 The rise of Fredegund.....................................................35
3.1.1.1.1 Getting rid of competition..........................................35
3.1.1.1.2 Getting rid of opposition............................................37
3.1.2 Brunhild or Beauty lies in the Eyes of the Beholder....................45
3.1.3 The Beauty versus the Beast..................................................49
3.1.4 Contrast: Fredegar...............................................................50
3.1.5 Chilperic and Guntram as seen by Gregory...............................53
3.1.6 Chilperic..............................................................................55
3.1.7 Guntram.............................................................................65
3.1.8 Conclusion...........................................................................73
3.2 Rights.......................................................................................74
3.2.1 Division between legal positions.............................................74
3.2.2 Royalty and Aristocracy.........................................................75
3.2.2.1 Marriage.......................................................................75
3.2.2.2 Unmarried.....................................................................83
3.2.2.2.1 Divorced.................................................................84
3.2.2.2.2 Widowed.................................................................87
3.2.3 The People...........................................................................88
3.2.3.1 Free.............................................................................88
3.2.3.2 Unfree..........................................................................91
3.3 Relationships within families.........................................................95
3.3.1 Mother and Child..................................................................96
3.3.2 Women and relatives...........................................................106
4 Conclusion......................................................................................109
Bibliography.......................................................................................113
Sources..........................................................................................113
Literature.......................................................................................113
Images used...................................................................................117
Abbreviations.....................................................................................117

1 Introduction
The early Middle Ages, generally categorized as that time between
the Fall of Rome and the coronation of Charlemagne, are a period often
overlooked not only by students but also teachers. While we are all well
versed in the philosophers of antiquity, the knights who went to fight
the crusades and the history of World War II, the early Middle Ages are
often curiously absent from our collective minds. The earliest events
after the fall of Rome we learn about in school are generally about the
time of Charlemagne, sometimes maybe that of his father and
grandfather. This is already a few hundred years past what is classified
by many scholars as the early Middle Ages.1
When it comes to gender studies or dealing with women in whatever
period in history, it is not a rare occasion that people, among them even
trained historians, put on a vague look and decide to change the
subject. Fortunately, gender studies have become more and more part
of the everyday curriculum of almost any liberal arts university, while
the early Middle Ages studies are still somewhat behind in that regard.
The core piece of my research will be the Histories by Gregory of
Tours, the bishop, saint and historiographer of the Merovingian Franks
during the 6th century. This for the time very rare narrative source has
been under the scrutiny of many scholars since it was written in the 6 th
century, and many have found flaws as well as merit in the writings of
Gregory of Tours. He has been used as a face-value account of the royal
Merovingians,

studied

for

his

historiographical

significance,

and

dissected by scholars for the numerous elements of his writings.

There have been various studies dealing with the role of women
during the early Middle Ages, most prominent that by Suzanne F.
Wemple.2 She attempted to connect various sources of the early Middle
1 For a discussion on the dates which try to put the early Middle Ages into a temporal
framework see Chris Wickham. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the
Mediterranean 400-800. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005, pp.1-6.
2 Suzanne Fonay Wemple, Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900.
7

Ages and create a picture of women's situation, their status and the
most important discrepancies between legal documents and the actual
perceived reality as depicted in narrative sources like the Histories of
Gregory of Tours. For this thesis, the circumstances of a woman's life in
these times, that is the day-to-day struggle or hardships, are of interest
as well. As with all accounts, evaluating these demands from the reader
a certain distance, which of course cannot guarantee total objectivity,
but help clear one's vision regarding positions taken rather obviously
through one or another sort of bias.
In the case of Gregory, these issues of how to process and dissect an
historical text are even more complex considering the differing
perceptions of Gregory's writings ranging from ridicule as a pious
annalist of the Franks to the conduct of serious scholarly research into
his merits as a historiographer. Even though today Gregory is mostly
regarded as an actual historiographer of his time, reading his work has
not become easier. I would rather argue that a reading of the Histories
demands a kind of discipline of keeping in mind this anecdotal character
of his writings not necessary when it comes to historiographers who at
their time of writing had already been regarded as such. This is owed to
Gregory's anecdotal writing most obvious in his Histories which needs to
be seen as a pars pro toto at times, but then sometimes simply left as
what it is, namely anecdotes which might or might not have been of
core significance in the greater scheme of things.
While in scientific writing anecdotal evidence is frowned upon, in
certain chapters it won't be possible to avoid using it, especially in the
ones dealing with the language of Gregory's depictions of certain people
and events. These chapters will be focusing on how Gregory portrays
certain people he obviously held in great esteem and the ones he also
quite obviously held to be responsible for treacherous and murderous
events in the Merovingian period. The single episodes of either their
benevolence or malevolence are examined, more or less free of other
University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1981.
8

context, in order to distill how the language Gregory uses is already

giving away his misgivings about or his admiration for either of the
persons described. The following chapters will give an overview of
gender and the early Middle Ages and a concise description of Gregory's
life and impact.

10

2 Theory
2.1 Current State of Research
2.1.1 Gregory of Tours

The writings of Gregory of Tours have been widely circulated since

their creation, and been read and used from wildly differing vantage
points. The Histories, actually devised as chronicles of the world, were
soon after his death read as not much more than a witness-report
depicting the Merovingian kingdoms. Even as early as the tenth century,
his Histories had had attached the name The History of the Franks and
were perceived merely as such, ignoring the actual intent of creating a
chronicle of the world.3
Today, as established above, Gregory of Tours is discussed, studied
and read by numerous scholars for many different reasons. Since the
1980s, his writings have seen a revival in interest, even though it was
his

hagiographic

writings

that

garnered

most

of

the

attention.

Considering how all of his writings are interlinked, it is not difficult to

see why the Histories have undergone new scrutiny by many scholars4.
Nevertheless, the road Gregory's writings have taken is winding and
one of many ups and downs. During the Age of Enlightenment, he was
discredited for his writing style and his overt piousness, was called a
gullible writer and deemed disorganized. His Latin, rooted not in the
classical Latin of antiquity but rather in his contemporary language, was
reason enough for scholars of the Enlightenment to ridicule his work.
Thus, his writings were regarded with similar disdain as they were
3 See Martin Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours: history and society in the sixth century.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, p.2.
4 See for example Helmut Reimitz: Geschlechterrollen und Genealogie in der frnkischen
Historiographie in: Frauenbild und Geschlechterrollen bei antiken Autoren an der Wende von
der Sptantike zum Mittelalter, eds. Christoph Ulf and Robert Rollinger (Studienverlag:
Innsbruck 2006): 335-354.
11

during the above mentioned tenth century, where his choice of language
was seen as a reflection of the age of barbarism he supposedly lived in. 5
As Peter Brown puts it:
There was a time, and not so very long ago, when we thought
that we knew all that we needed to know about Gregory of
Tours. He was the unembarrassed chronicler of a brutish age,
whose cultural disarray even among those like himself who
affected Roman descent and were aware of former standards of
Latinity he himself represented only too faithfully. 6

What is prevalent throughout the works that deal with Gregory is the
way his thoughts and ideas are rarely questioned, but taken at face
value. Today, the meta-questions are the main themes of scholars
dealing with Gregory in general and the Histories in particular. Starting
with Goffart and Mitchell, there can be seen a rehabilitation of Gregory
as a historiographer whose Latin was in fact not inferior and whose
ways of organizing his writings were not due to a lack of understanding
of formal organizational patterns, but rather due to his own, internal
preferences of structure.7
Today, Gregory's writings are scrutinized by scholars under various
different viewpoints, and while they, as Peter Brown points out, are not
at all papers praising Gregory, they do remove the stain that earlier
historians tarnished Gregory's reputation with by deeming him the mere
and lowly chronicler of the barbarian age of Merovingian kingdoms. 8

2.1.2 Gender in the early Middle Ages

Suzanne Fonay Wemple's study Women in Frankish Society is
considered a landmark in the field. In her book, published in 1981, she
showcases the roles of women in Merovingian and Carolingian Gaul
between 500 and 900 AC, portraying their social status and their
5 See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.3.
6 See Peter Brown, Gregory of Tours: Introduction in: The World of Gregory of Tours,
Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and Early Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell
and Ian Wood (Brill: Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2002): 1-28, p.1.
7 See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.5.
8 See Brown, p.1.
12

activities ranging from their position in the family in general, in the

royal families and to that in the church.9
In her introduction, Wemple cites a list of authors that have dealt
with women in the early Middle Ages. Nevertheless she comes to the
conclusion that what we can infer from the laws of any given period,
especially when it comes to women, is not always a reflection of the
realities of these times, as taken from various narrative sources:
The purpose of this book is to explain the gap between the
ideals and laws on the one hand and the social reality on on
the other.[...]Of greater interest outside scholarly circles is the
debate concerning women's position in the early church.[...] In
searching for answers to these and other questions in primary
sources, I have sought not merely to settle controversies but
also to gain an understanding of the relationship between men
and women and to provide insights into women's experiences
in this formative period of European history.10

In 1985, Brigitte Merta wrote a study on the depiction of women of

the Merovingian kingdoms in early medieval sources. As she puts it in
her

introduction,

these

portrayals

of

women

connected

to

the

Merovingian kingdoms are scarce and more often than not, it is plenty
of interpretative work that needs to be applied to these depictions. 11
As the following chapters will show, the 25 years since these works
were written have produced a number of studies by many notable
scholars focusing on gender and the early middle ages.

2.2 Gender and History

Women and history is a topic that has seen a surge in
publications, studies and research during the last thirty years. The
issues at hand are obvious. Women's studies only emerged in earnest
after the second women's movements in the 60s and 70s of the
twentieth century. Women in medieval history were tightly linked to said
9 See Wemple, Women in Frankish Society.
10 See Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, p.6.
11 See Brigitte Merta, Darstellung von Frauen des merowingischen Hauses in
frhmittelalterlichen Quellen, Wien, 1985.
13

emergence of women's studies. Even though there were efforts during

the turn of the twentieth century to study the contribution of women in
historiography and the role of women in history, these efforts were
mainly limited to the outer-academic domain. Still, the works produced
were of high quality, these authors being largely self-trained but astute
amateur-historians. Among those should be named Lina Eckenstein 12,
who authored several books about convent life in the Middle Ages, or
Mary Bateson13, who provided ground-breaking studies on double
monasteries. While aimed at a general rather than a scientific audience,
these works are nowadays included in the scholarly literature on women
in history.14

2.2.1 Gender and the Middle Ages

The taking into account of gender, that is the social concept of
sex, didn't happen in medieval studies up until the 1970s. The term
gender itself is applied in two different ways: one is the way interactions
between members of the opposite sex are perceived, whereas the other
is a discourse of power relations. The fact that the term gender is often
interchangeably used with the terms sex, women, feminism or sexual
orientation adds some confusion to the whole discourse. 15
Nowadays, there exist multiple studies on gender in the Middle
Ages, and even though they comprise a number of various topics within
the early Middle Ages and gender, e.g. ethnicity and gender in Walter
Pohl's Gender and ethnicity in the early middle ages 16, there is still no
real consensus as to what the fixed meaning for the term gender should
be.

12 As an example see Lina Eckenstein, Woman under monasticism. CUP Archive, 1972.
13 As an example see Mary Bateson, "Origin and early history of double monasteries." in:
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 13.1 (1899): 137-198.
14 See Susan Mosher Stuard, Women in medieval history & historiography. University of
Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1987, pp.5-6.
15 See Lisa Bitel, Gender in History in: Women and gender in medieval Europe: an
encyclopedia. Vol. 14., ed. Margret Schaus, (Routledge: New York 2006): 311-315, pp.312ff.
16 See Walter Pohl, Gender and ethnicity in the early middle ages in: From Roman Provinces
to Medieval Kingdoms, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble (Routledge: New York 2006): 168-88.
14

In this paper, my use of the word gender will be a hybrid of above

described terms. While I will be looking into the way interactions
between men and women are perceived by Gregory, I will also look at
how Gregory's depictions differ in a woman's case as opposed to a man
of the same or similar levels.

2.2.2 Gender in the Middle Ages

There is one telling episode told in the Histories, that shows that
even during the time of Gregory of Tours, the issue of how to deal with
the idea of gender was discussed:
Exstetit enim in hac synodo quidam ex episcopis qui dicebat
mulierem hominem non posse vocitari. sed tamen ab episcopis
ratione accepta quievit: eo quod sacer veteris testamenti liber
edoceat, quod in principio deo hominem creante ait,
"masculum et feminam creavit eos: vocavitque nomen eorum
Adam" (Gen. 5.2), quod est 'homo terrenus'; sic utique vocans
mulierem ceu virum: utrumque enim hominem dixit. sed et
dominus Iesus Christus ob hoc vocitatur filius hominis, quod sit
filius virginis, id est mulieris. ad quam cum aquas in vina
transferre pararet, ait: "Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?" (John
2.4) et reliqua. multisque et aliis testimoniis haec causa
convicta quievit.17

The rather simple explanation of how woman and man are both
named man in the bible rivals certain contemporary explanations of
why gender-sensitive language ought not be employed. In comparison,
the explanation of the bishop in Merovingian Gaul seems rather levelheaded and plausible.
As for the idea of gender, there was no fixed gender ideology in
17 Liber Historiae Francorum, Book 4, Chapter 28. The Latin texts of Gregory's Histories are
taken from Krusch, Bruno, ed. Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Historiarum. MGH: SRM 1.
Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani: Hannover, 1951. (digital). 'There came forward at this Council
a certain bishop who maintained that woman could not be included under the term "man."
However, he accepted the reasoning of the other bishops and did not press his case for the
holy book of the Old Testament tells us that in the beginning, when God created man, "Male
and female he created them and called their name Adam," which means earthly man; even
so, he called the woman Eve, yet of both he used the word "man." And our Lord Jesus Christ
is called "Son of man", but is the son of a virgin, who is a woman.' translation from Gregory
of Tours. The History of the Franks. Ed. L. Thorpe. Penguin Books: London, 1974, p.452.
15

the Middle Ages. With the majority of narrative sources for the Middle
Ages composed by clerical writers, it is difficult to glean real gender
ideologies from these writings. The ideologies of non-members of the
clergy are nearly impossible to tell, since of course most hagiographic
and biographical writings were written by members of the educated
clergy.18
The above-cited example from Gregory of Tours' Histories reflects
how what we subsume under gender was an issue during the early
medieval period too, much of it owing to the structures that had seeped
into this period from Roman and Greek times. With the geographic and
temporal proximity to the Roman Empire,

Roman law was still

dominant and thus profoundly shaping the status of women and the
perception of gender.19
Jo Ann MacNamara adds that gender was indeed a convenient way
of organizing the structure of societies during the times of Gregory of
Tours but compared by today's standards, these categorizations were
based on an even more complex and unstable system. 20 One might add
that this has only slightly improved in current times.
Dick Harrison also stresses a point about misogyny purportedly
being prevalent in antiquity and the middle ages:
I do not dispute that many of these stereotypical images did
exist in the minds of ancient and medieval men, but there is
more to it. The real stereotypes exist in the minds of the
historians themselves. We like to build systems, construct
images of the past and make bold interpretations. In doing so
we often oversimplify the past to a degree that turns it into
something that never was.21

18 See Jacqueline Murray, "One Flesh, Two Sexes, Three Genders?" in: Gender and Christianity
in Medieval Europe: New Perspectives (2008): 34-51, p.35.
19 See Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp.102-104.
20 See Jo-Ann MacNamara, "Chastity as a Third Gender in the History and Hagiography of
Gregory of Tours. in: The World of Gregory of Tours, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions.
Medieval and Early Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Brill: Leiden,
Boston, Cologne 2002): 199-209., p.199.
21 See Dick Harrison, The age of abbesses and queens: gender and political culture in early
medieval Europe. Nordic Academic Press: Lund, 1998, p.34.
16

While his criticism is directed towards historians of the renaissance, he

also includes modern historians and their reading of texts. In this paper,
it shall be kept in mind that the creation of these systems, images and
interpretations is influenced by how the world is experienced by the
observer.22

22 See Dick Harrison, The age of abbesses and queens: gender and political culture in early
medieval Europe. Nordic Academic Press: Lund, 1998, pp.34ff.
17

2.3 Gregory of Tours

2.3.1 Life
Gregory of Tours, or Georgius Florentius Gregorius 23, was probably
born on the 30th of November in the year 538 or 539. It is impossible to
declare an exact date, and even the date-range given above is based
upon some rater speculative interpretations of various of Gregory's
works.24
He was a descendant of a venerable Gallo-Roman family, but, as
Heinzelmann points out, regarded this as not much more than a
personal requirement for achieving his position in the world and for
exercise of episcopal office. It was, after all, a background he had in
common with most of his colleagues.25 As Wood points out:
Again, the absence of any direct statement is symptomatic of
Gregory's reticence about himself and his family connections.
He often talks of relatives without stating that they were
related to him.26

Gregory's father died probably in the year 548, before Gregory had
reached his teens. The years between 548 and 551, Gregory lived with
his mother in Clermont. There he was visited regularly by his uncle
Gallus, who had by then been bishop of Clermont for some years
already.27
It was around that time that Gregory contracted a serious illness,
which led to him being taken to the grave of St. Illidius in hope of a
cure. He there promised to enter the church if he was to survive his
illness. This short anecdote is important, as it could be a sign that
Gregory was not initially meant to become a cleric. With Gregory's
brother, who had entered the Church of Langres, there already was a
23 See Walter A. Goffart, The narrators of barbarian history (AD 550-800): Jordanes, Gregory
of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1988, p. 112.
24 See Wood, Gregory of Tours, pp. 4-5.
25 See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.11.
26 See Wood, Gregory of Tours, p.6.
27 See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.29.
18

cleric in the immediate family, which for Gregory might rather have
pointed towards the pursuit of a secular career. What's more, Gregory's
grandfather, Gregory of Langres, was the only direct ancestor who had
entered the church before them, and as a late convert even.28
In his later teens, after the death of Gallus in the year 551, Gregory
moved to Lyon with his mother. There his education was resumed in the
household of Nicetius, who later went on to be elected the bishop of
Lyon.29 Gregory soon became a deacon there as well.30
That Gregory later became the bishop of Tours was not exactly
surprising, as it was more or less a family see. Gregory's predecessor,
Eufronius, was related to Gregory. He was a close relative of Gregory's
mother, and quite probably even her brother. As can be gathered from
Gregory's Histories, at least five of his predecessors as bishop of Tours
were quite probably related to Gregory as well. 31 While this may have
been proof that Tours was in the hands of Gregory's family, it was, as
mentioned above, not mandatory for Gregory to become bishop of Tours
as well. It took grave illness for Gregory to vow to become a cleric, and
having a lot of bishops in his lineage might not have been more than a
fact brought about by senatorial ancestry.32
Gregory's

appointment

wasn't

without

dispute.

According

to

Venantius Fortunatus, the bishop of Poitiers, Gregory was appointed

bishop by King Sigibert and his wife Brunhild. This special relationship
between the royal court and Gregory may explain the fact that Gregory
was not, as canonical rules would demand, consecrated in Tours but by
bishop Egidius in Reims, the Austrasian seat of King Sigibert. 33
As Ian Wood notes: Perhaps significantly these three backers were
to receive discreet treatment in Gregory's Histories.34
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.30.

See Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian history, p.112.
See Wood, Gregory of Tours, pp. 7-8.
Ibid., p.24.
Ibid., p.30.
Ibid., p.33.
See Wood, Gregory of Tours, p.11
19

That Gregory's episcopacy would not be an easy one taken the

political implications such an office entails, must have been clear to him.
When he moved to Tours, he soon grew ill, but was purportedly shortly
after cured by visiting the tomb of the patron saint of Tours, Martin.
Incidentally, this occurred only a short while after Gregory's mother was
cured of an affliction at the tomb as well.35
It can be assumed that there is a relation to these incidents as to
why Gregory began collecting stories of miracles pertaining to Martin of
Tours.

2.3.2 Gregory's Family

As pointed out by Heinzelmann, when it comes to the work of any
given author there is always a connection between their historical
background and the writings they have produced. 36 In the case of
Gregory of Tours, this holds true due to several aspects. As for
Gregory's hagiographic writings, which I will talk about later in this
chapter, the logical background is his being a member of the clergy. For
the Histories, Gregory's social background is just as important as his
involvement with the clergy. It is especially important to look at
Gregory's family, and even though he is the only remaining source when
it comes to his relatives, the things he writes and those he does not
give us clues as to how his family shaped his writings. Heinzelmann, in
his monograph about Gregory of Tours, presents a prosopography of
Gregory37, which in itself is interesting already, but which can, in light of
this paper's topic, give a certain insight into the perception of women as
presented in Gregory of Tours' writings.
It is interesting to note that Gregory did not mention many of his
relatives in his work or did fail to mention his relation to people
35 Ibid., p.12.
36 See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.7.
37 Ibid., pp.11-28.
20

appearing in his writings. One of these rather prominent relatives is his

uncle Gallus, bishop of Clermont, who is of course mentioned, but
whose relation to himself is never disclosed by Gregory. Neither
isEufronius, his predecessor in Tours, revealed as a relation of
Gregorys.38
Armentaria II was the mother of Gregory. She is mentioned twelve
times in Gregory's hagiographic writings, and obviously influenced him
in many matters, especially religious ones. Gregory held her visionary
abilities in high esteem, both due to her apparently being able to
interpret one of his visions aptly, as well as for her being a visionary
herself. Since

she was a devout follower of the saints, Gregory was

heavily influenced in his own devotion to the saints, especially St.

Martin of Tours. It was also her

who supported him in writing, even

when he most objected.39

Another female relative of note was Gregory's sister, whose name is
not known, but who is mentioned as the wife of Justinus. She was
probably older than Gregory and had two daughters, thereby nieces to
Gregory, who went on to become prioress of a monastery and wife of a
governor of the Provence.40 Gregory's paternal grandmother was
Leocadia41, and Armentaria I was the grandmother of Gregory's
mother42, from whom she got her name. There is not much known
about either woman. Gregory's great-grandmother, Artemia, is a bit
better known, as she was the mother of Nicetius, and Gregory mentions
Nicetius' obedience to his mother in one of his writings. At the time,
Gregory was eight years old and presumably at the actual place of
Nicetius' demonstration of obedience.43

It is interesting to note that Gregory's style invites the assumption

38
39
40
41
42
43

See Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, p.8.

Ibid., pp.14-15.
Ibid., pp.11-12.
Ibid., p.13.
Ibid., p.19.
Ibid., p.22.
21

that he wasn't interested in putting too much importance on his family's

position. As Helmut Reimitz remarked44, if it weren't for certain details
in Gregory's writings, we would nowadays not be able to identify various
relatives of Gregory. Furthermore, the way Gregory linked his remarks
about his family in both the Histories and his hagiographic writings,
creates, as Reimitz calls it, a history of a spiritual network centred on
his family.45

2.3.3 Gregory, Bishop of Tours

The political situation in Gaul at the time of Gregory's consecration
as bishop of Tours was more than precarious. The kingdom had been
divided into sub-kingdoms more than once, and the respective lands in
the north-east were complimented by territories in the south and southwest. This habit of dividing kingdoms into smaller parts, initially to
avoid conflict among its heirs, was practiced up to the 9 th century.
These divisions found a constant in the creation of the three subkingdoms Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.46
However, there was a constant battle over the territories in the
south. With Tours being part of Austrasia, the kingdom of Reims/Metz,
Gregory's superior was the king of Reims/Metz, Sigibert I. But, as a
metropolitan bishop, which Gregory was as the clerical head of the city
of Tours, he was the superior of several other bishops who, due to their
geographic location, were subject not to Sigibert but to Chilperic, the
king of Soissons.47
During Gregory's twenty years as bishop of Tours, the territorial
bickering over Tours was constant. The kings among whom the
44 See Helmut Reimitz, Social networks and identities in Frankish historiography. New aspects
of the textual history of Gregory of ToursHistoriae in: The Construction of Communities in the
Early Middle Ages Texts, Resources and Artifacts, eds. Richard Corradini, Max Diesenberger,
Helmut Reimitz (Leiden: Boston 2002): 229-268., p.246.
45 Reimitz, Networks and Identities, p.246.
46 See Ian N. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751. Longman: London, New York, 1994,
pp.55-58.
47 See Wood, Kingdoms, p.12.
22

Merovingian kingdom had been divided were Chilperic, Sigibert,

Guntram and Charibert, the sons of Chlothar I. Charibert died six years
after the kingdom had been divided, leaving a territory that was up for
redistribution between his remaining three brothers. As if this new
situation wasn't enough to create tension between the brothers, there
was also the feud between Sigibert's wife Brunhild and Chilperic's wife
Fredegund.48
Thus, the battle for territory, including the city of Tours, would be
mainly between these two brothers. Guntram, who of course could not
escape the violent feuds between his brothers, was more inclined to
keep his reign similar to the Christian-Roman tradition. This was not
least due to the fact that his part of the Merovingian territory was more
Roman than the two other parts. Thus, his kingdom was administered
close to the Roman jurisdiction and he saw his duties as as those a
Christian king was supposed to fulfill. As Guntram was depicted quite
favorably by Gregory of Tours, it is to be assumed that Guntram was a
very religious man. Even though, as Geary presents in a graphic
anecdote49, this didn't mean in the least that Guntram wasnt
sometimes given to violence, he was prone to later on repent his
wrongdoings.
With these three kings and their heirs trying to gain control over
Tours, Gregory was forced to be not only a suitable bishop, but also a
cunning diplomat.

48 The feud between the two queens was rooted in the murder of Brunhild's sister Galsvinth,
who was then married to Chilperic. It can be assumed that Fredegund, then lower-ranking
additional wife to Chilperic, had urged him to kill Galsvinth. For a more detailed account, see
Patrick J. Geary, Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the
Merovingian World, Oxford University Press: New York. Oxford, 1988, pp.120-121.
49 Geary, Transformation, p.126.
23

This problematic situation is aptly described by Alexander Murray:

Canon law provided for the participation of various sectors of
the community in the selection of the bishop, but its norms,
which had developed in political circumstances increasingly
distant from those of Gallic communities and kingdoms, were
imprecise or variously interpreted. Divergent and genuine
interests intersected, not always harmoniously, when a new
bishop needed to be appointed. Such circumstances, combined
with many of the less wholesome characteristics of human
society, made the process of of episcopal appointment a
disruptive feature of political life in the Gallic cities. Yet for all
the discord, episcopal appointment in the sixth century was still
a process marked with very distinct institutional continuities
with the preceding century and the impeding seventh, just on
the horizon at the time of Gregory's death.50

This disruptive feature of political life would hold true for Gregory,
especially after the death of his patron Sigibert. Sigibert was murdered
in the year 575, two years after Gregory was consecrated as bishop of
Tours.51
With the death of the king, his brother Chilperic, ignoring that Tours
was bequeathed to Sigibert's underage son Childebert II., seized the
city of Tours.

Thus, a critical phase for Gregory began. First, one of

Sigibert's generals, Guntram Boso, sought refuge in Tours. It was

assumed then that Boso was responsible for the death of Chilperic's son
Theudebert, so Chilperic sent Roccolen to retrieve Boso from Tours, but
Roccolen failed. Another refugee in Tours was Chilperic's own son,
Merovech, who, as will be shown in a later part of this paper, had stirred
his father's anger by marrying Sigibert's widow Brunhild. Gregory did
not refuse asylum for either of the men, thus angering Chilperic. The
result was that an army was sent by Chilperic that ransacked the
countryside

around

Tours,

the

Touraine.

Merovech's

unfortunate

marriage to Brunhild entailed yet another rather delicate situation for

Gregory.

The

priest

who

had

married

Merovech

and

Brunhild,

Praetextatus, was to be tried for sanctioning a marriage that was not

canonical. Gregory supported the cleric, despite threats by Chilperic
50 Alexander C. Murray, Gregory of Tours, p.239.
51 See Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian History, p.112.
24

against him directly. Still, Praetextatus was found guilty by a ruse and
was consequently sent into exile.52
Even though Chilperic seems like Gregory's nemesis in these
episodes, he was actually strangely supportive of him during the
following years, partly in matters that could well have threatened
Gregory's career and his life .53
One of those events was brought about by Leudast, who proved to
be a rather insidious enemy to Gregory. Leudast had been the comes of
Tours under Charibert, and after the death of the king was keen to see
Tours become part of Chilperic's kingdom. As already mentioned above,
it went on to be controlled by Sigibert, with the result of Leudast losing
his office. After Chilperic gained control of the city, Leudast was
reinstated. Two Riculfs, friends of Leudast, then accused Gregory of
slandering Chilperic's wife Fredegund. In the course of this affair,
Gregory was tried at the palace in Berny-Rivire, but acquitted. Luckily,
there seemed to be support for Gregory in the royal household and,
which was even more important, the other bishops refused an
accusation against one of their own. In the aftermath of the affair it
came to light that, according to one of the accused Riculfs, the original
intent behind the accusations was to get rid of Fredegund, in order to
elevate her stepson Clovis to the throne.54
There can be found a reason for Chilperic to give Gregory the
abovementioned support: Childebert II., the son of Gregory's royal
patron Sigibert, had turned from his uncle Guntram to his other uncle
Chilperic. The man responsible for this change of tune was Egidius, who,
as mentioned above, had been the one to consecrate Gregory. In the
light of these new circumstances, Gregory was an important person for
Chilperic. Endorsing the new alliance between Chilperic and Childebert
meant to alienate Guntram. Fortunately for Gregory, Chilperic's murder
52 Wood, Gregory of Tours, p.13.
53 See Wood, Gregory of Tours, pp.14-16 for accounts of one attempt, among others, to try
Gregory for libel.
54 Wood, Kingdoms, p.86.
25

in 584 eased the tension. Still, Guntram, who until then had shown
restraint when it had come to territorial ambitions, now claimed Tours to
himself, even though it had once belonged to Childebert's father
Sigibert.

And Egidius, who as Guntram claimed had been the driving

force behind a plot to dethrone him, was tried. Gregory, who had played
a certain part in the alliance between Childebert and Chilperic, did not
dare to speak out openly for his old colleague.

55

As for religious matters, there were still a few problems Gregory had
to deal with. These included for example strained relations between
himself and the convent of the Holy Cross, founded by Radegund. 56

55 Wood, Gregory of Tours, pp.20-21.

56 Wood, Gregory of Tours, p.21.
26

2.3.4 Works
2.3.4.1 The Histories

The Histories, as they are commonly called, and which are

indispensable as the most prominent source of 6th century Frankish
history, were originally devised as chronicles of the world, titled the
Decem libri historiarum. The first book opens with the creation of the
earth and ends with the death of St. Martin of Tours. The following three
books then concentrate on the history of Gaul and its dominating
political powers, which then of course were the Merovingian Franks.
Book IV ends with the death of King Sigibert in 575. Starting with Book
V, Gregory changes the pace by giving year by year accounts of
contemporary history, to which Gregory was enabled by having access
to the higher echelons of the ruling class. 57 Thus, he was able to present
events shortly after their occurrence, creating actual contemporary
historical accounts. The end of Book X sees an overview of the history
of the bishops of Tours, an autobiography and a calculation of the years
spanning the origin of the world up to the year 593/594. 58
While Books V to X are written from the viewpoint of a contemporary
observer, there remains the question which sources of information
Gregory used to compile the first four Books. It is rather difficult to
discern the Histories' various sources. In the beginning, he bases his
writings on the Bible, Jerome, and for his treatment of the fourth
century the works of Orosius59 and Sulpicius Severus.60 Then, starting
with Book II, sources are not as transparent anymore. He mentions
collections of letters by Sidonius Apollinaris 61, Avitus of Vienne62,
Remigius of Rheims63 and others. Other historiographs he mentions as
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

See Thorpe, p.24.

See Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian history, pp.124-125.
Ibid., p.14.
See Thorpe, p.25.
See Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian history, p.193ff.
See HF, 2.34.
See HF, 2.31.
27

influential

were

Sulpicius

Alexander 64

and

Renatus

Profuturus

Frigeridus65. In addition to these sources, Gregory used Frankish oral

history in both the Histories and his hagiographies.66
2.3.4.2 Other writings

Even though this thesis is concerned mainly with the depiction of

women in Gregory of Tours' Histories, which might be his work of
greatest historical merit, there are of course other works by the bishop
of Tours worth mentioning.
Gregory didn't leave one compilation of what he had written, but
two. Even so, there are still hints that there existed other writings which
did not survive.67
Theological writings comprise only a small part of Gregory's corpus,
among which are compilations of psalms like De cursu stellarum ratio
and Passio septem dormientium. Apart from the Histories, Gregory's
other hagiographic writings are the most significant items of his works.
They are named by Gregory himself, at the end of the Histories, as the
libri miraculorum68, which comprise the vitae and miracles of St. Julian
and St. Martin, the Liber in gloria confessorum and the Liber vitae
patrum, which are the vitae of several Gallic bishops since the 4 th
century, predominantly of Clermont and Tours.69
Gregory's writings are heavily cross-referenced in all of his works,
indicating that Gregory regarded his writings not as separate pieces, but
as a whole. These references luckily enable historians to date Gregory's
writings. Ian Wood has, based on these hints, compiled a chronological
list of the writings, which starts off with the Miracles of St. Martin and
ends with the Prologue to Liber in gloria confessorum.70
64 HF, 2.9.
65 HF, 2.8.
66 See Ian N. Wood, "Gregory of Tours and Clovis" in: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire
63.2 (1985): 249-272, p.252.
67 Wood, Kingdoms, p.1.
68 Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian history, p.127.
69 See Thorpe, pp.22-23.
70 See Ian Wood, Kingdoms, p.3.
28

As Wood states, this chronology cannot be taken at face value, since

it is very likely that Gregory revised some of his writings at some later
time. Therefore, cross-references to earlier works might have been
inserted into older writings than the cited ones. Still, as Wood points
out, there is enough evidence to suggest that certain events in
Gregory's life might have been influencing factors in the creation of his
writings.71

71 Wood, Kingdoms, p.4.

29

2.3.5 Historiographic Significance

Whereas Gregorys hagiographic writings are an indispensable source
for certain specific aspects of Gregory's time, it is still the Histories that
have the power to actually convey much more: not only dates and
names, but also the mindset of Gregory and the people around him. 72
However, there is, as is probably quite common in any scientific
community, no wide-spread consensus as to the actual historiographic
significance of Gregory's writings. Too numerous are the reasons why
the writings of Gregory might not be considered a reliable source for his
time, or at least not a reliable source for the general age he describes.
As Ian Wood notes in his essay on the individuality of Gregory of Tours,
the role that Gregory fulfilled in his part of the world was less that of an
outside commentator, than that of a person fully immersed in the
political situation of the time:
However much Gregory presents himself as a detached
commentator, subjecting Francia to the scrutiny of a universal
historian, it is not clear that this detachment was genuine. That
is the bishop of Tours was parti pris on a host of political and
religious issues. [...] Rather than looking consistently at the
world of sixth-century Gaul through Gregory's eyes, it is worth
occasionally trying to understand some of the moments when
his detachment slips, in order to question his position as
commentator, and, additionally, to consider the extent to which
some of the places, or rather cult-sites, which he privileges
may not be representative of the Merovingian kingdom. 73

This ambiguity in the reception of Gregory is also illustrated in an

example from the Histories examined by Guy Halsall. In his paper on
Gregory's depiction of King Chilperic's death, he outlines how Chilperic,
originally presented as Gregory's arch-enemy, is in fact not the one king
Gregory feared and loathed. It is rather Guntram, the favourably
depicted king in Gregory's Histories. Obviously, his fear of Guntram
might have caused Gregory to write favorably about him, while doing
72 See Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian history, pp.114-116.
73 See Ian N. Wood, "The individuality of Gregory of Tours" in: The World of Gregory of Tours,
Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and Early Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell
and Ian Wood (Brill: Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2002): 29-46, p.31.
30

the opposite about Chilperic. The passage in question is found in Book

IV of the Histories, where Gregory names Chilperic, among other things,
the Nero and Herod of our times74, which phrase is also the namesake
of said paper by Halsall.75 The cited passage was written shortly after
Chilperic's death, and maybe not entirely incidentally just when
Guntram had taken possession of Tours. The reason for Gregory's
diatribe against Chilperic was not least his late involvement with the
alliance between Chilperic and Childebert II., the son of the late King
Sigibert. Guntram, as Halsall notes, was an unforgiving king:
Guntram, for all his piety, was not an easy king to live with. He
was dangerously, sometimes, murderously, paranoid, shorttempered, inconsistent and thus, above all, unpredictable. He
was, moreover, implacable in his pursuit of those whom he felt
had opposed him; one had to tread very carefully with the king
of Burgundy. From now on Gregory really did have to watch
what he wrote. This conclusion stands in direct opposition to
usual interpretations of Histories.76

This exemplifies the danger that lies in relying on a single source like Gregory's Histories.
However, there can also be found some merit in the discovery that
Gregory of Tours cannot be gullibly trusted as the historiographer of the
Merovingian kingdom. As Peter Brown mentions, the fact that scholars
have now found a new sort of self-esteem in regarding Gregory not as a
steadfast source for his time, but rather the historiographer held by
very real political and religious constraints, is resulting in different kinds
of research in new fields:
Less cramped than previously by the need to find, in Gregory, a
representative writer and a faithful mirror of his age, we
have learned to be less intolerant of his stony silence on so
many issues which concern us.77

74 HF, 6.46.
75 See Guy Halsall, "Nero and Herod? The death of Chilperic and Gregorys writing of history"
in: The World of Gregory of Tours, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and Early
Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Brill: Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2002):
29-46, p.337-50.
76 Ibid., Nero and Herod, p.347.
77 See Brown, p.5.
31

The stony silence Brown notes can be seen as fruitful regarding the
things that are neither implied nor said. Knowing the circumstances of
Gregory's position, or any other historiographer for that matter, allows
us to find clues in places the author may have had no desire to put
them.
However numerous the qualms about Gregory's faultiness as a
proper historiographer might be, there is no doubt about his importance
as a written source for the scarce information on social, political and
religious history of the sixth century. That, for various scholars, he was
also a propagandist, a key witness to the cult of the saints, a poet, an
expert religious commentator and a theologian, is, considering the
corpus of writings, not surprising. 78 This holds true not only for the
Histories, but for his religious writings as well. Were it not for Gregory's
hagiographic writings, there would be much less understanding of the
religious development of the post-Roman period 79. Historians have only
recently found merit in the study of such sources. 80

78 See Wood, Gregory of Tours, iii.

79 For a discussion of these merits, see for example Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian History,
pp. 136-146.
80 See Wood, Gregory of Tours, ii.
32

3 A Woman's Life in Gregory of Tours'

Histories
3.1 Good vs. Evil
As the most prominent narrative source for the Merovingians,
Gregory's position is both that of a historiographer, but also that of a
high cleric whose writing sheds light on the predominant position of the
church in all matters. As is the case with any historiographer, his
writings are not free of bias. Considering the role of Gregory as one of
the most powerful bishops of his time, it becomes clear that such a
position would only come about by adhering to certain principles and
standards of this social position and what was to be made public about
it. This of course leads to situations were the absolutely accurate
depiction of past events is more or less impossible if one is not to
become subject to the ire of one or another ruling monarch.
Hence, some of Gregory's depictions contain negative information
about persons so egregiously biased that it becomes apparent that
then currently ruling powers must have loomed large on his mind. To
put it bluntly, even for a man in a position as high as Gregory's, there
was always someone watching his very step.
With the following chapter I have two things in mind: I will take two
examples of prominent figures in Gregory's

Histories who were

portrayed in a rather harsh light and juxtapose them with two persons
Gregory depicted very favourably, respectively two men and two
women.. The first sub-chapter will deal with Fredegund as the exponent
of the evil faction and Brunhild as that of the favoured one. The
second sub-chapter will exemplify episodes about the adversely
perceived

king, Chilperic, and depict examples of those about

thegood king, Guntram. My focus will be on the wording of Gregory's

writings, but also on the actions he decided to feature in his text.

33

In the case of Fredegund and Brunhild I will also add a short subchapter pertaining to a different viewpoint on both queens from the
source of the Fredegar chronicle.
I will finally conclude this chapter by comparing how the description
of the male and the female protagonists differ to examine whether one
can speak of conclusive evidence of bias toward one gender.

3.1.1 Fredegund as seen by Gregory

In

Gregory's

account

of

the

power-struggles

within

the

Merovingian kingdom, one woman is repeatedly depicted as the

wretched embodiment of evil: Fredegund. Of unfree origins, Fredegund
was Chilperic's mistress, for whom Chilperic left his then wife Audovera.
When Chilperic married Galsvinth, the sister of his brother's wife
Brunichild, Fredegund wanted the woman removed and, according to
Gregory, convinced Chilperic to have her killed. This was one of the
reasons for the bitter enmity between Chilperic and his brother
Sigibert.81
Gregory's recounts of Fredegund's cruelty, deceits or general evilness
are abundant. His first mention of Fredegund is as the wife of Chilperic
when he has Galsvinth killed82, when we next read of her, it is near the
end of Book IV, when King Sigibert is murdered at the behest of
Fredegund83.
In this chapter, I will be looking at the characteristics of Gregory's
depictions of Fredegund and her alleged aberrations, including the
language employed in his description and the recurring motifs of her
actions.

81 See Geary, Transformation, pp.120-121.

82 HF 4.28.
83 HF 4.51.
34

3.1.1.1 The rise of Fredegund

3.1.1.1.1 Getting rid of competition

When King Chilperic decided he needed to be married to a Visigothic

princess, just like his hated brother Sigibert was, he was still married to
another woman, Audovera. Breaking up this marriage did not pose a
problem for Chilperic and so he was free to marry Galsvinth, the sister
of his brother's wife Brunichild. But as was the case during Chilperic's
and Audovera's marriage, there was still another woman close to
Chilperic's heart. That woman was of course Fredegund. Born of low
descent, she originally served at court but soon became Chilperic's
mistress.
In various works describing Fredegund and her role in the death of
Galsvinth, it has been suggested that the Visigothic princess was killed
at the behest of Fredegund. While this may easily have been the case,
there is only one source that actually references Fredegund as having
had a part in the murder of Galsvinth. Only in Regino of Prm's
chronicles, the murder of Galsvinth is credited in part as Fredegund's
work:
Hilpericus
Geilsuindam sororem Brunichildis in coniugium
accepit,
quam
pauco
interiecto
tempore
suggerente
Fredegunde in lecto strangulavit. Deinde Audoveram reginam a
se repulit, eo quod adhortante Fredegunde filiam propriam a
sacro fonte suscepisset, et eandem Fredegundem sibi in
matrimonium iungit.84

Gregory of Tours described the circumstances of Galsvinth's death in a

much less sombre way, but it has to be noted that Regino of Prm's text
was written around 900, roughly 300 years after Gregory wrote his.
Gregory states no direct intervention by Fredegund and in contrast to
what can be read in Regino's text, Gregory depicts Chilperic as
84 Regino von Prm, 498, taken from Kurze Friedrich, ed. Reginonis Abbatis Prumiensis
Chronicon. MGH: SRG. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani: Hannover, 1890. (digital).
35

delegating the deed instead of committing it himself. Of course, it can

easily be inferred that Fredegund wanted Chilperic to get rid of
Galsvinth, considering that the Visigothic princess was allegedly not at
all happy about the fact that Chilperic obviously was not willing to
remove Fredegund from either court or his bed-chamber. As Gregory
writes:
Sed per amorem Fredegundis, quam prius habuerat, ortum est
inter eos grande scandalum. Iam enim in lege catholica
conversa fuerat et chrismata. Cumque se regi quaereretur
assiduae iniurias, perferre diceretque, nullam se dignitatem
cum eodem habere, petiit, ut, relictis thesauris quos secum
detulerat, libera redire permitteretur ad patriam. Quod ille per
ingenia dissimulans, verbis eam lenibus demulsit. Ad extremum
enim suggillari iussit a puero, mortuamque repperit in strato. 85

Here it is the love Chilperic feels for Fredegund that bothers

Galsvinth. In Gregory's account, Galsvinth is the one that can't live with
the fact that she may be married to the king but can't enjoy the status
of first wife. Being a recent convert to the Catholic faith, she believed in
monogamy as the basis of marriage, a notion Chilperic had only halfheartedly respected by separating from his earlier wife Audovera in
order to be able to marry Galsvinth.
One can understand how commentators expected to see more of
Fredegund's pushing for Galsvinth's death when looking at what
happened after the death of the Visigothic princess. As Gregory writes:
Rex autem cum eam
Fredegundem recepit
reputantes ei fratres,
fuerit interfecta, eum a

mortuam deflessit, post paucos dies

in matrimonio. Post quod factum
quod sua emissione antedicta regina
regno deieciunt. 86

85 See HF 4.28. But because of his love for Fredegund, whom he had before, a disgraceful
conflict arose to dive them. Galsvinth had already been converted to the Catholic creed and
received the chrism. She complained to the king of the wrongs she constantly had to endure
and told him that he had no respect for her. Finally she asked him to give her freedom to
return to her native land, of she left the treasures that she had brought with her. But he
made up various excuses and mollified her with sweet words. In the end, he had her
strangled by a slave, and he himself found the corpse on the bed. translation from Saint
Gregory (Bishop of Tours). The Merovingians. Ed. Alexander C. Murray. Broadview Press:
Peterboro, Ontario. 2006, pp.59-61.
86 HF 4.28. The king wept over the body and then, after a few days, took Fredegund back
again as his wife. Whe he did this, his brothers attributed Galswinth's killing to his orders and
toppled him from power. Murry, p.61.
36

Chilperic apparently didn't waste too much time grieving after his
murdered wife and took, as Gregory states, Fredegund back as his wife.
It is interesting to see, that Chilperic not only took Fredegund as his
wife, but did so again. Considering that Chilperic never officially married
Fredegund before the episode with unlucky Galsvinth, Gregory's
wording seems slightly odd and leaves on to wonder how it came about.
3.1.1.1.2 Getting rid of opposition

The next mention of Fredegund is found in Book IV of the Histories.

Here, Gregory openly calls Fredegund the instigator of King Sigibert's
murder:
Tunc duo pueri cum cultris validis, quos vulgo scramasaxos
vocant, infectis vinino, malificati a Fredegundae regina, cum
aliam causam suggerire simularent, utraque ei latera feriunt. At
ille vociferans atque congruens, non post multo spatio emisit
spiritum.87

This second mention of Fredegund can be regarded as the start of

Gregory's thorough condemnation of the queen. While the first mention
is still somewhat tame, only insinuating the role Fredegund might have
played in the murder of her adversary Galsvinth, the above passage is a
clear display of Gregory's opinion of Fredegund.
Notable also is the fact that the two men not only killed Sigibert by
stabbing him, but also by previously dipping their swords in poison, the
latter a form of murder usually mostly attributed to women. Considering
87 HF 4.51 What strikes me as odd is how the translators shied away from the word malificati.
In Lewis Thorpe's translation, the passage reads like this: Two young men who had been
suborned by Queen Fredegund then came up to Sigibert, carrying the strong knives which
are commonly called scramasaxes, and which they had smeared with poison. They pretended
that they had something to discuss with him, but they struck him on both sides. He gave a
loud cry and fell to the ground. He died soon afterwards. Thorpe, p. 248.
Alexander C. Murray in his work on Gregory of Tours' Histories translates quite differently: At
this time two slaves bewitched by Queen Fredegund, carrying sturdy knives, commonly
called scramasaxes, smeared with poison, pretended to bring forward a request and stabbed
him from both sides. He shouted out and collapsed. He gave up his spirit not long
afterwards. Murray, p.70.
It is only owed to Murray's very literal translation, that this display of Fredegund's bloodlust is
not only very obvious in the action described, but also in the wording Gregory gave his account.
37

that Fredegund was the one who bewitched the two men, it may well
be that Gregory decided to emphasize Fredegund's role by changing the
killing setup from a male to a female one by adding poison as part
of the actual cause of death.
In Book V, chapter 18, Merovech, son of Chilperic, finds his death.
While it is described as suicide by the hands of his servant Gailen after
having fallen into a trap by the townspeople of Throuanne, Gregory
hints at murder. He employs a stylistic device that at the same time is
supposed to make him seem like an objective chronicler of events and
give him the opportunity to blame Fredegund as the instigator of a
murder. After the description of Gailen stabbing Merovech at his behest,
Gregory notes:
Extetirunt tunc qui adsererent, verba Merovechi, quae superius
diximus, a regina fuisse conficta, Merovechum vero eius fuisse
iussu clam interemptum.88

While it is feasible that there were indeed some people at the time
who thought that it was the queen who had secretly plotted and funded
the death of Merovech, son of Chilperic and his first wife Audovera, it is
quite possible that the one person who definitely thought so was
Gregory. Gregory's assuming goes on. After detailing how the men who
had been entrapped with Merovech were cruelly tortured and killed,
Gregory adds that some people back then suspected Guntram Boso and
Bishop Egidius had been the ones designing and executing the whole
massacre. According to Gregory, Boso had been in a good position with
Fredegund for killing Theudebert, while Egidius had been her friend all
along. The reasons for Gregory's reservation in that regard might have
been as was the case so often for those depending on the goodwill of
royalty the unstable situation when it came to the question of royal
dominance over Tours.
88 HF 5.18 With the referenced regina being of course Fredegund, the translation reads as
follows: There were some at the time who claimed that Merovech's words, which we have
just given, were an invention of the queen, and that Merovech had been secretly killed on
her orders. Murray, p.95.
38

Even though Gregory does not distinctly say so, the above described
actions by Fredegund must of course be seen in regard to her position
of power. Every murderous plan she hatched can be seen as a reaction
to forces from the out- or inside, threatening her position as a powerful
queen. Another one of these episodes in which Fredegund strives to
strengthen her position can be found in Book V. 89 There, Clovis, one of
her husband Chilperic's sons, is boasting about his status as the sole
heir of Gaul, and - according to Gregory thereby uttering some
slander about his step-mother Fredegund. Fredegund is terrified for her
future once her husband would have ceased to be. Adding to her terror,
an unnamed person visits her and warns her of the danger Clovis could
pose. Considering that a short time earlier Fredegund's children had
died of disease, what this person had to say must have sounded very
probable to the ears of disconcerted Fredegund. According to her visitor,
Clovis had killed her sons, aided by one of her maids, with whose
daughter he also entertained a relationship:
'Ut urbata de filiis sedeas, dolum id Chlodovechi est operatum.
Nam ipsi concupiscens unius ancillarum tuarum filia, maleficiis
tuos per matrem eius filios interficit, ideoque moneo, ne speres
de te melius, cum tibi spes per quam regnare debueras sit
ablata'90

Fredegund's revenge is harsh and swift. She apprehends the girl, has
her tortured, shaved and placed outside Clovis's abode. The mother she
has also apprehended and subjected to the same torture and finally
manages to get her to confess. These findings Fredegund then tells to
the king, asking for retribution, namely Clovis's death. The fact that her
husband allegedly tried to get rid of Clovis unsuccessfully by sending
him to an area where he was prone to be infected with the same
disease his step-brothers came down with may have also been due
partly to Fredegund's rage against Clovis. Clovis finally dies in a
89 See HF 5.39.
90 That you are sitting bereft of your children is the work of Clovis's treachery. He has a
passion for the daughter of one of your female slaves and has killed your sons by the magic
arts of the girl's mother. So I warn you, you can hope for no better yourself, now that the
hope by which you would have ruled has been taken from you. Murray p.109.
39

dungeon, after which his mother is killed, his sister sent to a cloister
and all his riches given to the queen. The woman who confessed to
have helped Clovis kill his brothers is sentenced to be burned at the
stake, on which she cries that everything to which she confessed was
fabricated - of course to no avail.
Again Fredegund is depicted as a woman who in the face of adversity
doesn't hesitate to rid herself of competition or menace.
Finally, Gregory shows lack of subtlety by naming chapter 15 in Book
VII De malitia Fredegunde. 91 Fredegund, now widow of the murdered
Chilperic, is still in the church in Paris, when she hears of how her
daughter Rigunth was mistreated in the city of Toulouse. Not very
surprisingly for Fredegund, she is enraged beyond control and strips
naked the man unable to prevent it. She also apprehends others who
had come back from the journey in which Rigunth was so maltreated
and has them tortured and bound. Rather suddenly, Gregory also details
how Fredegund starts to go after Nectarius, the brother of bishop
Badegisil, whom she would like to see rotting in the dungeons.
According to Gregory, she also did many foolish things and showed no
fear of God in whose church she was seeking help 92. The church was
refuge for Fredegund after having been expelled from her own court as
a consequence of her husband Chilperic's death. 93 The chapter closes
with descriptions of a judge named Audo, who according to Gregory was
one of Fredegund's most loyal henchmen and who, due to the death of
his protector Chilperic, possessed now not much more than the clothes
he was wearing and the loyalty to his Queen Fredegund.
While the title of the chapter may have sounded like Gregory was
losing his composure, the actual content is rather tame, compared to
what he had already had to say about the queen. It is only when
Fredegund has been sent into a sort of exile to the territory of Rueil,
91 See HF 7.15
92 Murray, p.154.
93 See HF 7.4.
40

near Rouen,94 that she again offers occasion for Gregory's appetite for
depictions of the woman fearless of God. Angered by the fact that she
had lost most of her power while at the same time her nemesis Brunhild
gained a lot of it, she sends out a man to kill her. The man, a cleric,
pretends to have escaped from the hands of Fredegund and manages to
gain Brunhild's trust.

But as seems to be the case with attempts to

assassinate Brunhild, the plan goes awry. As Gregory writes:

Coepit se etiam omnibus reddere humilem, carum,
oboedientem ac reginae privatum. Sed non longo tempore
interposito, intellexerunt eum dolosae transmissum; vinctusque
ac caesus, cum rem patifecisset occultam, redire permissus est
ad patronam. Reseransque quae acta fuerant, effatus, quod
iussa patrari non potuissit, manuum ac pedum abscisione
multatur.95

The man's ruse is found out sooner than later and after beating and
binding the man, he confesses to the plan of assassinating Brunhild. He
is let go to run back to Fredegund, where, of course, he is welcomed in
the typical Fredegundian way. As punishment for his failing to execute
Fredegund's plan, he is having his hands and feet cut off.
Fredegund seemingly does not tire of plans to assassinate her
enemies. In Book VIII, chapter 29, she again sends out clerics who are
supposed to kill Childebert II., the young boy who in the eyes of
Fredegund is the only reason her nemesis Brunhild still holds power 96.
But again, blades alone are not enough. In order to ensure that
everything is executed according to her will, she also smears the blades
with poison, so that if a mortal stroke failed to strike vital organs, the
effect of the poison could quickly bring on death.97

94 See HF 7.19.
95 HF 7.20. He tried to pretend to everyone that he was humble, valuable and obedient, and
devoted to the queen. But it was not long before they realized that he had been sent under
false pretenses. He was bound and beaten and, once he had confessed the secret mission,
was permitted to return to his patroness. When he disclosed to her what had happened and
told how he could not carry out her orders, he was punished by having his hands and feet
cut off. Murray, p.157.
96 See Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp.97ff for a detailed description of how the death of
Childebert would have meant a total loss of power for Brunhild as well.
97 Murray, p.186.
41

Fredegund gives exact instructions on how to carry out the deed:

'Accipite hos gladius et quantocius pergite ad Childeberthum
regem, adsimilantes vos esse mendicos. Cumque pedibus eius
fueritis strati, quasi stipem postulantes, latera eius utraque
perfodite, ut tandem Brunichildis, quae ab illo adrogantiam
sumit, eo cadente conruat mihique subdatur. Quod si tanta est
costodia circa puerum, ut accedere nequeatis, vel ipsam
interemite inimicam. Mercis quoque operis vestri haec erit, ut,
si mortui in hoc opere fueritis, parentibus vestris bona tribuam,
ipsosque muneribus ditans primus in regnum meum
constituam. Interim vos timorem omnem omittite, nec sit
trepidatio mortis in pectore. Noveritis enim, quod cunctos
homines haec causa continet. 98

Pretending to be beggars, they were supposed to kneel by the feet of

Childebert, who at the time was a mere fifteen years old, and then stab
him from both sides. If that proved to be impossible for reasons of too
many guards surrounding the young king, they should instead try to kill
Brunhild herself. Considering that according to Gregory Fredegund was
planning to have the king assassinated in order to rid Brunhild of the
power she still yielded, it is odd that she didn't order the clerics to kill
her in the first place. After these instructions, she gives a small speech
to boost the morale. The men are told to consider that what they were
about to do would be for the greater good, and in case of their death,
their relations would be rewarded and looked after. She then goes on to
say something which, in light of her position as a former queen, is
interesting:
'Armate viriletate animus et considerate saepius fortes viros in
bello conruere, unde nunc parentes eorum nobilis effecti opibus
inmensis cunctis supereminent cunctisque praecellent'.99

98 HF 8.29. 'Take these swords, she said, and go as quickly as possible to King Childebert
pretending you are beggars. Throw yourselves at his feet as if asking for alms and stab him
on both sides, so that at last Brunhild, who gets her presumption from him, shall be brought
down with his death and set beneath me. But if he is so well guarded by retainers that you
cannot approach, then kill Brunhild, my enemy. This shall be the reward for your action: if
you die in this enterprise, I shall confer on your relations benefits, and enriching them with
gifts, make them pre-eminent in my kingdom. Meanwhile banish every fear and be not
concerned about death. You know that this touches all people. Murray p.186.
99 HF 8.29.
42

As Murray translates:
Strengthen your hearts like men and reflect that fighting men
constantly fall in battle, and as a result their families, made
noble and surpassing all with infinite riches, are superior to
everyone.100

Here is a woman telling two clerics how they should strengthen their
hearts like men and lecturing them on the virtues and advantages for
their relatives of dying in battle. By doing this, she elevates herself
above these men when it comes to virilitude. Considering that
Fredegund in the above episode already used a cleric as an assassin, it
may well be that her choice for this sort of men was deliberate. Stripped
of their function as members of society who could hold their own in
armed battle, they proved to be of advantage and disadvantage at the
same time. Provided they would be recognized as clerics, enemies
would surely be less suspicious of foul play. But, and this is reflected in
above cited examples, they also proved to be unsuccessful assassins.
In Gregory' depiction of events, Fredegund makes use of yet another
weapon he happily attributes to her armory: witchcraft.
Cumque haec mulier loqueretur, clerici tremere coeperunt,
difficile potantes, haec iussa posse conplere. At illa dubius
cernens, medificatus potione direxit, quo ire praecepit;
statimque robor animorum adcrevit, promiseruntque se omnia
quae praeceperat impleturus. Nihil minus vasculum ab haec
potione repletum ipsos levare iubet, dicens: 'In die illa, cum
haec quae praecipio facetis, mane, priusquam opus incipiatur,
hunc potum sumite. Erit vobis magna constantia ad haec
peragenda'. 101102

Fredegund drugs the men with a potion, which seems to bestow

courage upon them and they are ready to do the deed. But Fredegund
wants to make sure her orders are carried out and hands them another
potion which she instructs them do drink on the day of the deed, so
100 Murray, p.186.
101 HF 8.29.
102 When the woman had spoken, the clerics began to shake, thinking it a difficult matter to
carry out this order. Seeing the waver, she drugged them with a potion and instructed them
on their mission. Immediately their courage increased and they promised to fulfill all her
commands. Nonetheless she ordered them to carry a small container filled with the drug.
Murray, p.186.
43

their courage would not leave them again, then sends them on their
way.
Again there is the element of what one would describe as witchcraft
nowadays, and what Gregory simply called heresy. The same way he
described how King Sigiberts assassins were killed by men bewitched
by Fredegund. In the eyes of a bishop, this must have been the ultimate
sign of wickedness in a person.
In the end, Fredegund's potions don't work as intended, because by
the time she sends the two men on their way, the plan has already been
uncovered103 and before reaching the king, the clerics are taken in by
Lord Rauching. A couple of days later, Fredegund sends a man to
investigate whether the plan had succeeded, who happens to be
arrested upon arrival as well. After being sent to King Childebert, they
all confess to the plan and are subsequently tortured, maimed and
killed.104

103 Murray, p.186.

104 HF 8.29.
44

3.1.2 Brunhild or Beauty lies in the Eyes of the

Beholder
In contrast it is interesting to look at Gregory's depictions of
Brunhild, the wife of Chilperic's brother Sigibert. Even though her main
political motivation during her early years as queen may have been
revenge for the death of her sister Galsvinth 105, Gregory seems not to
hold this against her.
The first mention of Brunhild is found in Book V, chapter 27, where
Gregory details Sigibert's courtship for Brunhild. In his description of
this Visigothic princess, Gregory is not shy to use ample words of praise
for her: Erat enim puella elegans opere, venusta aspectu, honesta
moribus atque decora, prudens consilio et blanda colloquio.106
Sigibert of course manages to convince her father, the Visigothic
King Athanagild, to give him his daughter as his wife, who is then sent
to Sigibert, laden with treasure. Gregory also notes satisfied quite
probably that Brunhild converted from Arianism to Catholicism. For a
bishop, this might also have laid the foundation for his favourable
reviews of her deeds.
In Book VI, chapter 4, Brunhild, then already widow after the murder
of Sigibert, manages to rescue Lupus, duke of Champagne, by rushing
in between the two armies of Lupus and his adversaries:

105 See MacNamara, Chastity, pp.202-204.

106 HF 4.28, Murray's translation, in its nonchalance, frees Gregory's description of most of its
praise: She was a well-mannered, good-looking girl, decent and well behaved, with good
judgement and a persuasive manner. p.58.
45

Quod cernens Brunichildis regina, condolens fidelis sui

insecutiones iniustas, praecingens se viriliter, inrupit medios
hostium cuneos, dicens: 'Nolite, o viri, nolite malum hoc facere,
nolite persequere innocentem; nolite pro uno hominem
committere proelium, quo solatium regionis intereat'. Haec illa
loquente, respondit Ursio: 'Recede a nobis, o mulier. Sufficiat
tibi sub viro tenuisse regnum; nunc autem filius tuus regnat,
regnumque eius non tua, sed nostra tuitione salvatur. Tu vero
recede a nobis, ne te ungulae equorum nostrorum cum terra
confodiant'. Haec et alia cum diutissime inter se protulissent,
obtenuit reginae industria, ne pugnarent.107

That Brunhild girds herself like a man does not seem to bother
Gregory. On the contrary, the heroic act of saving this one man's life is
much more important to Gregory than the idea that a woman is taking
a man's place in an armed conflict. In the end Brunhild does not
manage to keep the men from plundering Lupus' house, but at least
Lupus manages to escape to King Guntram, where he would be waiting
for Childebert to come of age108.
While Gregory is fervent in detailing how Fredegund kills off friend
and foe, his silence in regard to Brunhild's reactions is telling. In above
described attempt to kill Brunhild, Fredegund's reaction to the failed
plot is to maim the man who was unable to execute the plan. Brunhild
on the other hand simply beats him to coax a confession out of him but
then lets him return to Fredegund. 109 It may of course be speculated
that Brunhild was well aware of the way Fredegund was going to react
107 HF 6.4. Queen Brunhild found out about it, and distressed at the unjust attacks on her
loyal supporter, girded herself like a man and rushed in between the opposing battle
lines.'Men, don't do this evil,' she cried. 'Don't persecute the innocent; for the sake of one
man, don't engage in a battle that will destroy the forces of the region.' This brought a
response from Ursio. 'Get back, woman,' said he. 'It's enough for you to have held power
under your husband. Now your son rules. We preserve his kingdom as its guardians, not you.
Get back, or our horses' hooves will trample you into the ground.' After many more
exchanges of this kind, the queen's determination that they should not fight prevailed.
Murray, p.122-123.
108 Murray, p.123.
109 Compare Fouracre, Paul. "The nature of Frankish political institutions in the seventh
century." in: Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian Period. An Ethnographic Perspective,
ed. Ian N. Wood (Boydell Press: Woodbridge 1998): 285-301, p.295 and Fouracre, Paul.
"Attitudes towards violence in seventh- and eighth-century Francia in: Violence and society
in the early medieval west. Ed. by Guy Halsall, (Boydell Press: Woodbridge 1998): 60-75,
pp.60-71, where Fouracre expounds the role of violence, not only in political maneuverings,
but also low-level punishment for criminals. Generally, the notion of violence and torture in
Merovingian society was accepted. The rather impassive way of Gregory describing these
acts of torture is an indicator for that acceptance.
46

to the foiled plan, thus knowing that the man would not have too much
time left to enjoy the freedom she had given him. Whatever her
motivations were, they results of her actions are well reflected in
Gregory's reception of them.
Compared to the powers Fredegund yields, namely something
resembling dark magic that enables her to bewitch men so as to
assassin their enemies, Brunhild seems to possess the powers of
gratitude and friendliness. At the end of Book VII, Gregory mentions
how one Waddo, the former mayor of the palace to Rigunth, went to
Queen Brunhild to be welcomed in a very friendly manner:
Waddo maior domus Rigundis ad Brunichildem reginam transiit,
et ab ea susceptus, cum muneribus et gratia est demissus. 110

As to the question of what were the reasons for that amicability and
why it was not questioned by Gregory, considering that Rigunth was the
daughter of Brunhild's nemesis Fredegund, it should be noted that it
was probably not the worst of ideas for a queen to become friendly with
former allies of their enemies.
Another instance of Brunhild's generosity is described in Book IX,
where she gives Bertefred, a man for whose daughter she was a
godmother but who was now part of a pact which aim was to kill both
Brunhild and her son Childebert 111, the option of defecting, granting him
his life:
Sed Brunichildis regina mandatum misit Berthefredo, dicens:
'Disiungere ab homine inimico, et habebis vitam. Alioquin cum
eodem interibis'. Filia enim eius ex lavacro regina susciperat et
ob hoc misericordiam de eo habere voluit. Qui ait: 'Nisi morte
devellar ab eo, numquam a me relinquitur'.112

Bertefred does not take her up on the offer, and Gregory is once
more emphasizing the difference of character between Brunhild and
110 HF 7.43, Waddo, former mayor of the palace to Rigunth, went over to Queen Brunhild; she
welcomed him, gave him gifts, and sent him away with her favor. Murray, p.173.
111 HF 9.08-11.
112 HF 9.09.
47

Fredegund. Where Fredegund is ruthless even when it comes to her own

subordinates, Brunhild extends her hand to enemies on the basis of
past connections.

48

3.1.3 The Beauty versus the Beast

As I have established in above examples of Fredegund's and
Brunhild's deeds, Gregory's opinions about both Fredegund and Brunhild
were quite distinct. Apart from the actual contents of the narratives he
crafted about the women not considering whether they actually
happened in all the details he chose to embellish them with Gregory
also had his own vocabulary for each of the two women.
Introducing Brunhild, she is described as beautiful, intelligent and
eloquent, whereas Fredegund's first appearance is marked by her
alleged part in the murder of her rival Galsvinth. In the course of
Gregory's narrative, Fredegund's and Brunhild's deeds speak for
themselves, but are additionally adorned with Gregory's remarks. As an
example, his wrath descends on Fredegund after she has sought refuge
in church but doesn't , in his view, behave accordingly. Or Brunhild, who
happens to not only show loyalty for long-past favours or connections
but even forgives enemies at times. Especially in the case of Fredegund,
apart from the fact that there was an animosity brought about by
loyalty to another faction, Gregory does what Walter Pohl describes
thus:
Often, women were the objects of textual strategies directed
against the blurring of gender roles. In the case of the
Amazons, defining fighting women as belonging to a distinct
ethnic group was also a way of containing them, confining
them to a country distant in space and time. Similarly, many
powerful queens were depicted as Jezebels.113

113 Pohl, Gender and ethnicity, p.181.

49

3.1.4 Contrast: Fredegar

Considering how Gregory of Tours was quite possibly biased when it
came to the reception of Fredegund's deeds, it is interesting to take a
close look at how the chronicle of Fredegar fares in that regard.
Fredegar's chronicle, in contrast to Gregory's, only starts his original
content, the fourth book, with the detailing of the year 583 AD, whereas
Gregory's Decem Libri end with the year 591. 114 Still, there are quite a
few references to both Brunhild and Fredegund in Fredegar's chronicle
to warrant a comparison to Gregory's text. One aspect that needs to be
taken into consideration is the fact that Fredegund died quite some
years before Brunhild, which of course leaves more room for mentions
of Brunhild in the chronicle of Fredegar. Nevertheless, especially in light
of Gregory's favourable view of Brunhild, it is interesting to see whether
Brunhild fares similarly well in Fredegar's accounts.The first mention of
Brunhild by Fredegar is in his account of the year 598: Anno tercio
regni Teudeberti Wintrio dux, instigante Brunechilde, interficetur. 115
Incidentally, the accusation of Brunhild as the instigator of a murder is
the first we see of her in Fredegar's chronicle. And in chapter 19, the
murderous queen is, one might say in a logical turn of events, expelled
from Austrasia:

114 Even though Fredegar's Chronicle does of course cover the time before the year 853,
considering it was constructed as a world chronicle, the content was lifted from earlier
sources, not least Gregory's own Decem Libri. For reference see Ian N. Wood, "Fredegars
Fables in: Historiographie im frhen Mittelalter, eds. Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter
(Oldenbourg: Kln 1994): 359 366, pp.359-361.
115 In the third year, count Quintrio was murdered at the behest of Brunhild. Chronicle of
Fredegar, chapter 18. Latin text from Krusch, Bruno, ed. Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica:
Vitae sanctorum. In MGH: SRM 2. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani: Hannover, 1888. (digital).
English translations mine, from the German translation taken from Die Chronik Fredegars
und der Frankenknige, die Lebensbeschreibungen des Abts Columban, der Bischfe Arnulf
und Leodegar, der Knigin Balthilde. Otto Abel, Trans. In Geschichtschreiber der deutschen
Vorzeit. VII. Jahrhundert. Vol 2. Dyksche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, 1888. (digital)
50

Eo anno Brunechildis ab Austrasies eiecta est et in Arciacinsem

campaniam a quidam homini paupero singula reperitur.
Secundum eius peticionem ipsam ad Teuderico perduxit.
Teudericus aviam suam Brunechildem libenter recipiens,
gloriose honorat. Huius vicissitudine meretum episcopatum
Audicioderinsem, faciente Brunechilde, adsumpsit. Anno 5.
regni Teuderici iterum signa, que anno superiore visa fuerant,
globae igneae per caelum currentes et ad instar multitudinem
astarum igneum, ad occidentem apparuerunt. 116

Apparently, Brunhild's actions have made her rather unpopular

with the populace of Austrasia, but her grandson Theuderic is still happy
to give her shelter. And as Fredegar goes on to write, probably through
powers bestowed upon her by Theuderic, then King of Burgundy and
merely twelve years old, Brunhild simply gives a diocese to the man
who obviously rescued her and brought her to Theuderic. Then, in
chapter 21, Brunhild is again mentioned as the one responsible for the
murder of a nobleman:
Anno 7. regni Theuderici de concubina filius nascitur nomen
Sigybertus, et Aegyla patricius, nullis culpis extantibus,
instigante Brunechilde, legatus interficetur, nisi tantum
cupiditatis instincto, ut facultatem eius fiscus adsumerit.117

So apparently Brunhild, in Fredegar's eyes, is just as murderous as

Fredegund in Gregorys. In chapter 25, in addition to actions that again
are supposed to facilitate the death of a man she wants to get rid of,
she is also described as committing fornication:
Cum iam Protadius genere Romanus vehementer in palacium
ab omnibus veneraretur, et Brunechildis stubre gratiam eum
vellit honoribus exaltare, defuncto Wandalmaro duci, in pago
Ultraiorano et Scotingorum Protadius patricius ordenatur
instigatione Brunechilde. Ut Bertoaldus pocius interiret, eum
ripa Segona usque Ocianum mare per pagus et civitates fiscum
inquerendum dirigunt.118
116 In the very same year Brunhild was expelled by the Austrasians and found by a poor man
near Arcis in Campagnia, who at her behest brought her to Theuderic. Theuderic was happy
to take up his grandmother and held her in high regards. The man who found Brunhild was
rewarded by her with the diocese of Autisiodorum. See CF, ch.19.
117 In the 7th year, Sigibert was born to Theuderic and his wife, and Aegyla Patricius, was
bound and killed at the behest of Brunhild, for no other reason than her greed invoked by his
wealth. See CF, ch. 21.
118 Protadius, who was of a Roman family and who was in regard with everyone in the palace
and who was supposed to be lifted to honourable positions by Brunhild, who was also living
in fornication with him, was, after the death of count Waldemar, made Patricius of the district
51

Here, the chronicle adds impudent behavior to the accusations of

instigated murder. This, considering the power the church held over the
view on morals and peoples lives and the rate at which people were
killed for political and financial gain, might have been the more shocking
revelation to readers of that passage. The fact that Protadius, the man
Brunhild is supposedly living in fornication with, is in chapter 27 killed
by the army he keeps egging on to attack Theuderic's brother's army,
might then be seen as some sort of poetic justice to the author of the
chronicle and its readers.119
While these images portrayed of Brunhild aren't the most favourable
ones, the author of Fredegar's chronicle does not show much sympathy
for Fredegund either. In a chapter entitled About Fredegund, the
following is noted:
Eo anno Fredegundis cum filio Clothario regi Parisius vel
reliquas civitates rito barbaro occupavit et contra filius
Childeberti regis Teudeberto et Teuderico movit exercitum loco
nominante Latofao. Castra uterque ex adverso ponentes,
Chlotharius
cum suis super Theudebertum et Teudericum
inruens, eorumque exercito graviter trucidavit. Anno secundo
regni Teuderici Fredegundis moritur.120

Apparently, in the eyes of the chronicle's author, Fredegund was

also doing things the way it was custom for the Merovingian Franks,
namely to occupy cities violently. Unfortunately for this thesis and of
course owing to the above mentioned circumstance that Fredegund died
shortly after Fredegar's chronicle was penned, there are not many more
mentions of Fredegund in the chronicle. Therefore, the conclusion that
can be drawn from what we have seen in Fredegar's depiction of the
two women, is that Brunhild was not necessarily this near-saintly figure
of the Scotingians near Jura. But Bertoald, in order to bring about his death, was sent along
the Sigona down to the sea in order to investigate fiscal claims. CF, ch.24.
119 See CF, ch.27.
120 CF, ch.17: In the same year, Fredegund, together with her son, king Chlothar, violently
took possession of Paris and other cities, and moved with her army toward both sons of king
Childebert up to Latofaum, where Theuderic and Theudebert were defeated and suffered
great losses. In the second year of Theuderic's reign Fredegund died.
52

Gregory made her out to be. It gives no answers as to whether

Fredegund was the evil, treacherous woman Gregory depicted her as,
but it also cannot be corroborated.

3.1.5 Chilperic and Guntram as seen by Gregory

In the last chapter, it was examined how Gregory depicted
Fredegund and her antagonist Brunhild. It was shown how Gregory used
certain vocabulary to describe both women and how the difference in
perception was reflected not only in the actions described, but also in
the words employed to narrate these very actions. At this point the
question arises, whether this disparity in vocabulary used can also be
found in the depiction of their male counterparts, so to speak.

Choosing these male counterparts is fairly easy, considering for

example what I wrote in the chapter on Gregory's life. Chilperic,
husband of Fredegund, is regarded by Gregory as a destructive,
malevolent king, whereas Guntram, the oldest of the four brothers, is
held in high esteem by Gregory, not only, but also because of the
alleged role he plays as mediator between his remaining two brothers.
That Gregory was very likely biased towards Guntram due to his
position in the power-system of the Merovingian kingdoms, is an aspect
that needs to be stressed again and should not be forgotten when
discussing the roles of these kings in Gregory's text.
In this chapter, I will be detailing how Gregory uses his power
shaping a narrative of a supposedly good and a supposedly bad king.
According to the overall theme of my paper, namely how Gregory dealt
with the portrayal of women in his text, these findings will be contrasted
with the findings of the last chapter.

53

While I won't claim that this is a definite way of finding out bias
toward one gender or another, I do suppose that it is a way of showing
whether the alleged evilness of a character in Gregory's text is
enhanced or diminished by their gender.

54

3.1.6 Chilperic
The first time Chilperic is mentioned as an active participant of the
fates of the Merovingian kingdoms, is in book IV of Gregory's
Histories121, where Gregory details Chilperic's attempts at strengthening
his position after the death of his father King Chlothar I., who had at the
end of his reign consolidated the Merovingian kingdoms into one. 122
Chilpericus vero post patris funera thesaurus, qui in villa
Brannacum erant congregati, accepit et ad Francos utiliores
petiit ipsusque muneribus mollitus sibi subdidit. Et mox Parisius
ingreditur sedemque Childeberthi regis occupat; sed non diu ei
hoc licuit possedere; nam coniuncti fratres eius eum exinde
repulerunt, et sic inter se hii quattuor, id est Chariberthus,
Gunthramnus, Chilpericus atque Sigiberthus, divisionem
legitimam faciunt.123

In this short paragraph, Gregory manages to include several offences

Chilperic allegedly committed. The first and most grave is the quest to
seize as much power and territory as possible, so shortly after his
father's death124. The second offence, albeit not worded in the original
as strongly as in some translations125, is the softening up of highranking Franks to assure himself of their solidarity in an apparently
anticipated struggle for territory and power.

The final offence is

Chilperic's subsequent sacking of Paris, which Gregory words rather

laconically as an occupation.

121 HF 4.22.
122 See Geary, Transformation, p.119.
123 After the funeral of his father, Chilperic took possession of the treasures that were stored
in the royal villa of Berny. He then looked around for the most powerful Franks, softened
them up with gifts, and brought them under his authority. He soon entered Paris and took
over the residence of King Childebert, but he was not allowed to hold it for long. His brothers
joined forces and drove him from there. This is how the four kings, that is, Charibert,
Guntram, Chilperic, and Sigibert, came to make a lawful division among themselves.
Murray, pp.55-56.
124 An offence which in reality was part of what was expected of Chilperic as a king: to add
more territory to his kingdom.
125 For example in Lewis Thorpe's translation, which is not as literal as Murray's, where Murray
translates the action of giving money to high-ranking Franks as softening them up, very
close to the original text, Thorpe interprets it very directly as bribes. See Thorpe, p.217.
55

Even though Gregory's wording in this passage is not harsh, the

various offences details already give us an idea on which side Gregory's
loyalty lies.
It doesn't take long to find mention of Chilperic where Gregory is not
as subtle as before. In the next chapter already, namely chapter 23 in
Book IV, Chilperic's alleged tendency to abuse weaknesses of others is
pointed out by Gregory:
Nam post mortem Chlothari regis Chuni Gallias appetunt,
contra quos Sigyberthus exercitum dirigit, et gestum contra eos
bellum, vicit atque fugavit. Sed postea rex eorum amicitias
cum eodem per legatus meruit. Dum autem cum eis esset
turbatus Sigyberthus, Chilpericus, frater eius, Remus pervadit
et alias civitates, quae ad eum pertenebant, abstulit. Ex hoc
enim inter eos, quod peius est, bellum civile surrexit. Rediens
autem Sigyberthus victur a Chunis, Sessionas civitatem
occupat, ibique inventum Theodoberthum, Chilperici regis
filium, adpraehendit et in exilio transmittit. Accedens autem
contra Chilpericum, bellum commovit; quo victo atque fugato,
civitatis suas in sua dominatione restituit. Theodoberthum
vero, filium eius, apud Ponticonem villam custodire iussit per
annum integrum; quem postea, ut erat clemens, muneribus
ditatum patri reddidit sanum, data tamen sibi sacramenta, ne
umquam contra eum agere deberet. Quod postea, peccatis
facientibus, est inruptum.126

Chilperic, using his brother Sigibert's occupation with what Gregory

calls the Huns127, again takes over part of his brother's territory.
Gregory doesn't hesitate to call Chilperic the instigator of a civil war,
thereby putting all blame on him for the events that are about to
unfold.
126 After the death of King Chlothar, the Huns attacked Gaul. Sigibert led his forces against
them, and in the campaign, defeated them and put them to flight. Afterwards, their king sent
envoys and gained friendly relations with Sigibert. But while he was having troubles with the
Huns, his brother Chilperic overran Rheims and took away other cities that belonged to him.
What is worse, civil war broke out between them for this reason. Returning as victor over the
Huns, Sigibert took Soissons, where he discovered Theudebert, King Chilperic's son. He took
him into custody and sent him into exile. He brought his forces against Chilperic, whom he
defeated and put to flight, and re-established his authority over his cities. He ordered
Chilperic's son Theudebert to be kept for a whole year under guard at the villa at Ponthion;
but as he was merciful, he afterwards loaded him with gifts and sent him back safe and
sound to his father. He did this on the condition that Theudebert swear never again to act
against him. The oath was afterwards broken, due to sin. Murray, p.56.
127 Here Gregory uses the term huns for what were actually the Avars, another nomadic
people that by then was already a military force to be reckoned with. See Walter Walter. Die
Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk im Mitteleuropa, 567-822 n. Chr. CH Beck: Munich, 2002, p.4.
56

Of note is Gregory's portrayal of Sigibert. After the king manages to

recapture his cities and territory, he puts Chilperic's captured son,
Theudebert, under house arrest. After a year of arrest, Sigibert releases
Theudebert, and as Gregory notes, he even bestows gifts on him before
sending him back to his father. While not exactly a pattern, this
behaviour is very similar to how Gregory depicted that of. Whereas
Fredegund was quick to punish both friends and foes, Brunhild seemed
to hold no grudge even against persons trying to do her harm, and
neither does the good king Sigibert.128
The next chapter where Gregory mentions Chilperic is number 28 in
Book IV. It is titled About King Chilperic's wives and details Chilperic's
plan of marrying a Visigothic princess, just as his brother Sigibert had
done.129
Gregory goes on to make a pattern of Chilperic's thirst for territorial
war-mongering. In chapter 45 of Book IV 130, he notes how Chilperic
seizes the cities of Tours and Poitiers after the death of his brother
Charibert:
Nam post mortem Chariberthi, cum Chilpericus Toronus ac
Pectavis pervasissit, quae Sigybertho regi per pactum in
partem venerant, coniunctus rex ipse cum Gunthchramno
fratre suo, Mummolum elegunt, qui has urbes ad verum
dominium revocare deberet.131

Only after the two brothers Sigibert and Guntram join forces again,
can Chilperic be removed from the cities by the appointed Mummolus.
As Gregory notes, the two cities were rightfully part of Sigibert's
territory. Also, Gregory's wording becomes more direct. Where earlier
he was writing about the occupation of cities, now cities are overrun
by Chilperic.

128 See the chapter in this paper, Fredegund vs. Brunhild.

129 See Wood, Kingdoms, p.89.
130 HF 4.45.
131 When, after the death of Charibert, Chilperic had overrun Tours and Poitiers, which by
agreement had been allotted to King Sigibert, this king joined up with his brother Guntram,
and they chose Mummolus to restore these cities to their rightful authority. Murray, p.67.
57

Gregory goes on. In chapter 47 of Book IV 132, Chilperic sends out his
son Theudebert, the same who before being released by King Sigibert
after his house arrest promised to never attack him again 133, to
recapture the cities of Tours and Poitiers from Sigibert:
Chilpericus autem in ira commotus, per Theodoberthum filium
suum seniorem, qui a Sigybertho quondam adpraehensus
sacramentum dederat, ut ei fidelis esset, civitates eius
pervadit, id est Toronus, Pectavus vel reliquas citra Legere
sitas. Qui Pectavus veniens, contra Gundovaldum ducem
pugnavit. Terga autem vertente exercitu partis Gundovaldi,
magnam ibi stragem de populo illo fecit. Sed et de Toronicam
regionem maximam partem incendit et, nisi ad tempus manus
dedissent, totam continuo debellasset. Cummotu autem
exercitu, Lemovicinum, Cadurcinum vel reliquas illarum
propinquas pervadit, vastat, evertit; eclesias incendit,
ministeria detrahit, clericus interficit, monastiria virorum deicit,
puellarum deludit et cuncta devastat. Fuitque tempore illo peior
in eclesiis gemitus quam tempore persecutionis Diocliciani.134

And Theuderich doesn't disappoint Chilperic. Nor, presumably, does

Gregory in his depiction of the destruction caused by Theuderich and his
army. In colourful terms he describes how Theuderich lays waste to the
countryside and slaughters innocent people. The offences described are
grave, not simply in a militaristic matter. According to Gregory,
Theuderich lays waste to churches as well, robbing them of their
sacred vessels and mistreating monks and nuns alike. Gregory ends
the paragraph even with a comparison to the persecution of Christians
during the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian 135.

132 HF 4.47.
133 HF 4.23.
134 In anger Chilperic sent his eldest son Theudebert to overrun Sigibert's cities, Tours,
Poitiers, and other places lying on this side of the Loire. Theudebert had once been captured
by Sigibert and taken an oath to be loyal to him. Theudebert came to Poitiers and fought
against Duke Gundovald. His forces retreated and Theudebert slaughtered a great many
people there. He also burned most of the district of Tours, and would have destroyed all of it,
had not the inhabitants surrendered in time. Gathering his forces, he overran, laid waste,
and demolished the territories of Limoges, Cahors, and other regions round about them. He
burned the churches, took away the sacred vessels, killed clerics, drove monks from the
monasteries and treated the nuns shamefully, and everything waste. At that time, the sorrow
in the churches was greater than in the time of Diocletian's persecution. Murray, p.67.
135 Diocletian had issued four edicts that, among other things, even saw death as a penalty for
Christians. See Cynthia White, The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in
Contemporary Perspective. Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 2010, pp.83 88.
58

While it was Chilperic's son Theuderbert and his army that

committed these offences, it's very probable that Gregory saw blame
with Chilperic; both for making Theudebert break the oath he gave to
Sigibert and for the destruction of the cities, countryside and churches
he caused. That one of the areas destroyed was Tours, Gregory's own
residence, might have been another reason for Gregory's rather
extensive description of the events.
The woes of civil war go on and after the violent death of Sigibert,
Brunhild is on her own. Chilperic makes use of her vulnerability, and
during the first year of Childebert, Sigibert's son, he goes to Paris where
he apprehends Brunhild and her daughters:136
Anno igitur primo regni eius Chilpericus rex Parisius venit
adpraehensamque Brunichildem apud Rodomaginsem civitatem
in exilio trusit thesaurisque eius, quos Parisius detulerat,
abstulit; filias vero eius Meledus urbe tenire praecipit.137

Brunhild is sent into exile and her daughters are detained in Meaux,
near Paris. While it is not surprising that Chilperic wanted to consolidate
his power by trying to get rid of yet another disrupting force in the
person of Brunhild, it seems quite telling that Gregory puts so much
emphasis on the way Chilperic treats Brunhild and her daughters.
That Chilperic was prone to act irreverently towards churches,
monasteries and the clergy can already be derived from Gregory's
recount of the destruction and defilement I mentioned above. In
chapter 26 of Book V138, Gregory also recounts how Chilperic wanted to
fine clergy and the poor of the city of Tours, even though it wasn't
custom for clergy to be drafted into an army:

136 HF 5.1.
137 In the first year of Childeberth's reign, King Chilperic came to Paris, seized Brunhild and
sent her to Rouen in exile. He took away the treasures that she had brought to Paris and
ordered her daughters detained at Meaux. Murray, p.76.
138 HF 5.26.
59

Post haec Chilpericus rex de pauperibus et iunioribus eclesiae

vel basilicae bannos iussit exigi, pro eo quod in exercitu non
ambulassent. Non enim erat consuetudo, ut hi ullam
exsolverent publicam functionem. Post haec Varochus
obliviscens promissionis suae, volens inrumpere quod fecerat,
Eunium episcopum Veneticae urbis ad Chilpericum regem
dirigit. At ille ira commotus, obiurgatum eum exilio damnare
praecipit.139

When, as a direct result of this insult, a bishop is sent to Chilperic about

the matter, Chilperic becomes irate and simply sends him into exile. 140
Then, in tune with the purported greed described by Gregory in
above chapter, he begins chapter 28 of Book V with the note that
Chilperic's imposing of new taxes had led many people to leave his
kingdom. He then goes on to narrate of a revolt that culminates in the
burning of the assessment register, the death of the referendary
allegedly only saved by brave clergymen. Nevertheless, according to
Gregory, Chilperic's ire over the revolt causes him to punish the people
by torturing them; even the clergymen are supposedly falsely
accused of being part of the mob and subsequently tortured. In the end,
Gregory notes laconically, Chilperic imposes even harsher taxes. 141
That Chilperic was not only prone to waging war, torturing and greed,
Gregory shows in chapter 44 of Book V. 142 He describes how Chilperic
has written a circular that proscribes how the holy trinity should be
viewed, namely not as three separate entities but rather as just one. He
tells Gregory about it, who goes on to tell him of the wrongness of his
assumptions. After a dispute with another bishop, the king decides to
abandon his plan.

139 Afterward Chilperic ordered that the ban be extracted from the poor and servants of the
cathedral [of Tours] and basilica [of Saint Martin] because they had not served in the army.
But it was not custom for them to carry out any public service. After these events, Waroch,
forgetting about his promise and wishing to break his agreement, sent Eunius, bishop of
Vannes, to King Chilperic. But the king became angry and, after scolding the bishop, ordered
him to be exiled. Murray, p.101.
140 In Book VII, chapter 42, Gregory also writes in more detail about a decree which saw fines
for not joining the military. In this chapter he also stresses how he refused to pay.
141 HF 5.28.
142 HF 5.44.
60

Gregory, in a rather obvious attempt of ridiculing the literary

ambitions of the king, finishes the chapter by noting Chilperic's other
writings:
Scripsit alios libros idem rex versibus, quasi Sedulium secutus;
sed versiculi illi nulla paenitus metricae conveniunt ratione.
Addit autem et litteras litteris nostris, id est w, sicut Graeci
habent, ae, the, uui, quarum caracteres hi sunt:

Image 1

Et misit epistulas in universis civitatibus regni sui, ut sic pueri

docerentur ac libri antiquitus scripti, planati pomice,
rescriberentur.143

The scorn for Chilperic's writing abilities is evident, even though

Gregory seems to show at least recognition for Chilperic's ambitions to
enhance the language with new letters.
The final mention of the alive Chilperic is in book VI, where Gregory
details the circumstances leading to his death. I will quote the whole of
the chapter 46 here, in order to then break it down into what Gregory
created as a summary of the worst deeds of Chilperic:
His itaque cum haec praeda pergentibus, Chilpericus, Nero
nostri temporis et Herodis, ad villam Calensim, quae distat ab
urbe Parisiaca quasi centum stadiis, accedit ibique venationes
exercit. Quadam vero die regressus de venatione iam sub
obscura nocte, dum de equo susceperitur et unam manu super
scapulam pueri reteniret, adveniens quidam eum cultro percutit
sub ascellam iteratoque ictu ventrem eius perforat; statimque
profluente cupia sanguinis tam per os quam
per aditum
vulneris, iniquum fudit spiritum. Quam vero malitiam gesserit,
superior lectio docet. Nam regiones plurimas sepius devastavit
atque succendit; de quibus nihil doloris, sed letitia magis
143 The King also wrote other books in imitation of Sedulius. But those poor verses follow no
acceptable form of meter at all. He also added letters to our alphabet, namely w as in greek,
ae, the, and wi, which are written by the following characters: [see above graphic]. And he
sent letters to all the cities of his kingdom, telling them that boys should be taught these
letters and that books written in ancient times should be erased with pumice and rewritten.
Murray, p.112.
61

habebat, sicut quondam Nero, cum inter incendia palatii

tragidias decantaret. Persaepe hominis pro facultatibus eorum
iniuste
punivit. In cuius tempore pauci quodammodo
episcopatum clerici meruerunt. Erat enim gulae deditus, cuius
deus venter fuit. Nullumque sibi adserebat esse prudentiorem.
Conficitque duos libros, quasi Sidulium meditatus, quorum
versiculi debilis nullis pedibus subsistere possunt, in quibus,
dum non intellegebat, pro longis sillabas breves posuit et pro
breves longas statuebat, et alia opuscula vel ymnus sive
missas, quae nulla ratione suscipi possunt. Causas pauperum
exosas habebat. Sacerdotes Domini assiduae blasphemabat,
nec aliunde magis, dum secricius esset, exercebat ridicola vel
iocos quam de eclesiarum episcopis. Illum ferebat levem, alium
superbum, illum habundantem, istum luxoriosum; illum
adserebat elatum, hunc tumidum, nullum plus odio quam
eclesias habens. Aiebat enim plerumque: 'Ecce
pauper
remansit fiscus noster, ecce divitiae nostrae ad eclesias sunt
translatae; nulli penitus nisi soli episcopi regnant; periet honor
noster et translatus est ad episcopus civitatum'. Haec agens,
adsiduae testamenta, quae in eclesias conscripta erant,
plerumque disrupit, ipsasque patris sui praeceptiones, potans,
quod non remanerit
qui voluntatem eius servaret, saepe
calcavit. Iam de libidine atque luxoria non potest repperire in
cogitatione, quod non perpetrasset in opere, novaquae semper
ad ledendum populum ingenia perquaerebat; nam, si quos hoc
tempore culpabilis repperisset, oculos eis iobebat erui. Et in
praeceptionibus, quas ad iudicis pro suis utilitatibus dirigebat,
haec addebat: 'Si quis praecepta nostra contempserit,
oculorum avulsione multetur'. Nullum umquam pure dilexit, a
nullo dilectus est, ideoque, cum spiritum exalasset, omnes
eum reliquerunt sui. Mallulfus autem Silvanectensis episcopus,
qui iam tertia die in tenturio resedebat et ipsum videre non
poterat, ut eum interemptum audivit, advenit; ablutumque
vestimentis melioribus induit, noctem in hymnis deductam, in
nave levavit et in basilica sancti Vincenti, quae est Parisius,
sepelivit, Fredegunde regina in ecclesia derelicta.144
144 HF 6.46. While they continued on their way with this plunder, Chilperic, the Nero and
Herod of our time, went to his villa of Chelles about one hundred stades distant from Paris
and there went hunting. One day, returning from the hunt after dusk, he was being helped
down from his horse and had one hand on a retainer's shoulder, when a man came up and
stabbed him with a knife under the armpit and with a second stroke pierced his stomach. As
a flood of blood poured from the king's mouth and the open wound, his wicked life at once
came to an end.
The text above shows the evil that he did. For he frequently laid waste and burned many
districts; and he had no feeling of anguish in doing this but rather joy, like Nero before him,
when he recited tragedies as the palace burned. He often punished men unjustly to get their
wealth. In his time few clerics were promoted to episcopal office. He was a glutton and his
god was his belly. He used to claim that no one was wiser than he. He wrote two books on
the model of Sedulius, but their feeble little verses cannot stand on their own feet at all, for
in his ignorance he put short syllables for long, and long syllables or short. He wrote small
pieces also, hymns and masses, which cannot reasonably be used. He hated the interests of
the poor. He was constantly blaspheming the priests of the Lord, and when he was in private,
he derided and ridiculed no one more than the bishops of churches. He called this one a
lightweight, that one arrogant, another was a spendthrift, and this one a lecher. He would
62

This final account of Chilperic by Gregory is fascinating in its

thoroughness. Not only does he detail the wrongful deeds of the king,
he also asserts a few things that, even with all the connections he had
to the court, he was quite certainly unable to have known. At the
beginning Gregory calls Chilperic the Nero and Herod of his time. Of all
the accounts about Chilperic devised by Gregory, this is by far the most
memorable one. An example for his infamy is the very fact that the
chapter on him exists. Were it not for these words and the strength with
which Gregory asserts Chilperic's malevolence, it would be buried in the
main body of the text and much less blatant.
The act of Chilperic's murder is described matter-of-factly, only to be
ended with the mention of Chilperic's wicked life coming to an end
with that act. After this description, Gregory starts his final summary of
what he deems as Chilperic's legacy to the world. Next to his criticism
of Chilperic's hesitance to promote clerics to episcopacy, he chides the
king for his gluttony, claiming that his god was his belly.
He then derides Chilperic for his inability to create proper poetry. His
syllables are either too short or too long. It is interesting to note here
that in contrast to the chapter described above, in which Gregory
mentions Chilperic's literary ambitions, he now finds fault with his
writing which he didn't find earlier. This and what follows now leads to
claim that this or that bishop was proud or haughty, because he hated nothing more than
churches.
Look! Our fisc has been left poor, he often used to say, and our wealth has been
transferred to the churches. No one rules at all except the bishops; our office will perish and
has been ceded to the bishops of the cities.
This being his view, he would constantly invalidate wills made in favor of churches, and he
trampled underfoot the dispositions of his own father, thinking that one was left to preserve
his wishes. As to lust and debauchery, nothing can be thought of that he did not realize in
deed. He was always looking for new means to injure people; at this time, if he found any
one guilty, he would order his eyes torn out. In the directions he sent to his judges on
matters touching his interests, he would add, if anyone disregards our orders, let his eyes
be torn out as punishment.
He never loved anyone sincerely and was loved by no one, with the result that, when he
breathed his last, all his followers abandoned him. Mallulf, bishop of Senlis, who had been
sitting in his tent for three days, unable to see him, came when he heard of his death. He
washed him and clothed him in better garments. After spending the night singing hymns, he
took him by boat to Paris and buried him in the basilica of Saint Vincent.
Queen Fredegund was left in the cathedral church. Murray, pp.145-146.
63

the assumption that Gregory's text about the dead king was not really
based on observances, but rather on Gregory's annoyances with the
king, something which Guy Halsall calls the a standardized image of
der schlechte Knig145.
Gregory even adorns his text with direct speech, claiming that
Chilperic used to ridicule the church and the bishops. One wants to
speculate whether Gregory had this information beforehand, saving it
for when it was time to write this sort of obituary, or whether he really
just made this up as he went along.
One gets the same impression when reading what Gregory has to
say about the king's love life. Not only does Gregory state that the king
has

never

loved

anyone,

notion

which

may

still

be

quite

understandable when looking at the various deeds Chilperic allegedly

did. But Gregory also claims that Chilperic was not loved by anyone.
This is an assertion which is obviously difficult for anyone to ascertain.
Gregory claims that in regard to lust and debauchery, Chilperic has
done everything that can be thought of. Now, while it's still a far stretch
for a cleric to claim he would be able to think of the same things that
pertain to lust and debauchery a king would, it can be fairly assumed
that Gregory would have no absolute knowledge of how far Chilperic
actually went through with every lustful and debaucherous thing he had
ever dreamt of. Again, this goes to show that Gregory simply added this
to an obituary he wrote in order to drive home a certain point.
Why exactly Gregory saw the need to do this at this very juncture in
his text will be explained in the second part of this chapter, in which I
will examine the depiction of Guntram in Gregory's tale, but, as Guy
Halsall mentions, whatever praise and condemnation Gregory gave in
his Histories was always part of an act of self-preservation regarding his
position as the bishop of Tours.146
145 See Halsall, Nero and Herod, pp.338.
146 See Halsall, Hero and Nerod, p.350.
64

3.1.7 Guntram
As seen in the above part of this chapter, Gregory's description of
Chilperic was far from positive. On the contrary: especially after
Chilperic is violently murdered, Gregory reiterates the things Chilperic
allegedly had done to deserve the title of, among other things, Nero of
our time.
As antagonistically as Chilperic is portrayed, as favourably he
portrays Guntram, the oldest of the four main brothers. In this part of
the chapter I will look at the portrayal of Guntram in detail, citing
various passages that emphasise how Gregory wanted Guntram to be
viewed by the readers of his text.
As one of the five brothers he received part of the Merovingian
kingdom after the death of his father Chlothar, and made Orlans his
capital.147
He is first mentioned by Gregory in Book IV of the Histories, when
telling about the children of King Chlothar, and later when he describes
how the kingdom is divided among the then five sons of the late King
Chlothar. The first mention that shows a positive leaning towards
Guntram is in chapter 25 of book IV. As was Gregory's custom, he
includes an account of the women of the king:
Gunthchramnus autem rex bonus primo Venerandam,
cuiusdam suorum ancillam, pro concubina toro subiunxit; de
qua Gundobadum filium suscepit. Postea vero Marcatrudem,
filiam Magnarii, in matrimonium accepit. Gundobadum vero
filium suum Aurilianis transmisit. Aemula autem Marcatrudis
post habitum filium in huius morte crassatur; transmissum, ut
aiunt, venenum in potu maedificavit. Quo mortuo, ipsa iudicio
Dei filium, quem habebat, perdidit et odium regis incurrit,
demissaque ab eodem, ne multo post tempore mortua est. Post
quam Austerchilde cognomento Bobillam accepit, de qua
iterum duos filios habuit, duorum senior Chlotharius, minor
Chlodomeris dicebatur.148
147 HF 4.21.
148 Good King Guntram at first took to bed as a concubine Veneranda, a slave of his followers;
by her he had a son Gundobald. Afterwars he married Marcatrude, daughter of Magnachar.
65

What is interesting here is that the first standalone mention of the

king includes the adjective good. While the they were mainly in
connection with the way Chilperic had tried to take advantage of the
demise of his father Chlothar, there is no real reason for Gregory to
attest to Guntram any sort of benevolence.

The chapter goes on detailing the various wives and concubines of

Guntram. While it may be a coincidence, it seems telling that Gregory
recounts the tale of Maractrude, the first wife of Guntram, who allegedly
poisoned his son Gundobald, son of Guntram's concubine Veneranda. As
Gregory even mentions in his text, the poisoning is not a fact but rather
based on hearsay, as is obviously emphasized by the inclusion of so
they say in the text.
Then, not surprisingly in the context of the vengeful God Gregory
prayed to, the son Guntram had with Marcatrude was killed. Gregory
doesn't say how, but the lack of any description lets one assume that it
was indeed natural causes that ended the boy's life.
Depicting Guntram as an extension of God's wrath, the king suddenly
hates Marcatrude and drives her away. As Gregory then goes on, she
died not long after.
It is interesting to observe how Gregory, in a chapter of about twenty
lines, creates a first impression of Guntram by employing a few simple
narrative techniques: First, without any apparent reason, Guntram is
named the good king. Then, there is a woman who makes use of what
I have described in earlier chapters already as a female way of
murdering, that is, poisoning the victim. And finally, after the
He sent his son Gundobald to Orleans. After Marcatrude had a son, she jealously set out to
bring about Gundobald's death, poisoning him with a doctored drink, so they say. Following
his death, by the judgement of God, she lost the son she had and incurred the hatred of the
king. Sent away by him, she died not long after. After her Guntram took Austrechild, also
named Bobilla. By her he again had two sons; the older of them was called Chlothar and the
younger Chlodomer. Murray, pp.56-57.
66

judgement of God that includes a sentence of killing that woman's son

in return, Guntram is depicted as the direct extension of this god by
driving her away, leaving her to her own fate, which, ultimately, is
death.
One chapter later, Gregory goes on to detail the wives of King
Charibert, the unlucky fifth brother, whose early demise also
described in this chapter - should be the cause of yet another war
between the remaining four brothers.149 After the death of Charibert,
one of his wives, Theudogild, sends a messenger to Guntram, offering
herself as a wife to the king. Guntram seems to like the idea:
Quibus rex hoc reddidit in responsis: 'Accedere ad me ei non
pigeat cum thesauris suis. Ego enim accipiam eam faciamque
magnam in populis, ut scilicet maiorem mecum honorem quam
cum germano meo, qui nuper defunctus est, potiatur'. At illa
gavisa, collectis omnibus, ad eum profecta est. Quod cernens
rex, ait: 'Rectius est enim, ut hi thesauri penes me habeantur,
quam post hanc, quae indigne germani mei torum adivit'. Tunc,
ablatis multis, paucis relictis, Arelatinsi eam monasthirio
distinavit.150

While seemingly willing to take in the woman and marry her at first, it
turns out that Guntram is simply playing a ruse. As soon as he sees the
treasure she has brought, he relieves her of most of her possessions
and simply sends her off to a monastery. The rest of the chapter
describes Theudogild's efforts to escape from the monastery by
marrying a Goth. A plan that is ultimately thwarted by the abbess.
Theudogild is sent to prison, where, according to Gregory, she dies after
a while after suffering considerably.151
What is interesting in this chapter is the total and utter lack of
149 Even though Charibert apparently died of a natural cause, Gregory sees it as yet another
revenge of God, who apparently was angered by the fact that Charibert had had the gall to
marry the sister of Merofled, one of his earlier wives. See HF 4.26.
150 The king gave them this response, Let her have no worry about coming to me with her
treasure. For I will marry her and make her a great woman in everyone's eyes. Rest assured
she will have greater honor with me than with my brother who has just died. Very pleased,
she gathered up everything and went to him. When the king saw what she brought, he said,
It's better for this treasure to be in my hands than under the control of this woman who was
unworthy to lie in my brother's bed. Then, having taken away much and left little, he sent
her to a monastery at Arles. Murray, p.57.
151 See HF 4.26.
67

compassion shown by Gregory for the fate of the woman. Likewise,

there is no attempt by Gregory to depict the actions of Guntram in any
sort of moral way. Instead, the recount of Theuogild's fate seems like a
mere chronicle. The implications of this are difficult to interpret. It could
of course mean that Gregory simply described the usual fate of the wife
of a dead king during the Merovingian era. As was I pointed out in my
earlier chapter on Fredegund and Brunhild, it seemed to have been
imperative to a queen whose king had died to find alliances among
powerful Franks or other kings in order to keep her status or, as in this
case, even her freedom and ultimately her life.
Theudogild had tried to do just that, but had overestimated the
benevolence of Guntram. This opposes the notion of the good king
described in the chapter above, but Gregory does not seem to notice.
Gregory seems to put Guntram above doubt in these matters. Even
when he is detailing the civil war between the brothers, Guntram's
actions seem to be above reproach. As it so happens in chapter thirty of
Book IV, Guntram's brother Sigibert seeks to seize control of the city of
Arles. As Guntram hears of this, he sends his own troops who, with the
aid of a ruse by the bishop of Arles, manage to defeat the troops of
Sigibert. Gregory ends the chapter with the following sentece: Ac sic
Gunthchramnus rex, recepta urbe illa, iuxta consuetudinem bonitatis
suae

Avennicam

ditionibus

fratres

sui

restituit. 152

Apparently,

Guntram's usual good will extended to the fates of cities more than to
the fates of women.
It should also be mentioned that a few chapters later, in Book IV,
chapter 45153, Guntram joined up with his brother Sigibert against their
brother Chilperic, who after the death of Charibert tries to annex Tours
and Poitiers.154
152 See HF 4.30 And so King Guntram, having recovered Arles, with his usual good will,
restored Avignon to his brother's authority. Murray, p.62.
153 See HF 4.45.
154 In order to give a picture of how brittle these alliances were, it should also be mentioned
that a mere two chapters later, Guntram again seemed to have had a falling out with
Sigibert. Even later, the alliances between Guntram, Chilperic and Sigibert changed again in
68

In chapter 17 of Book IV, Guntram is again portrayed as a just, albeit

brutal, defender of women. At the beginning of this chapter, Gregory
simply states that Guntram killed the sons of Magnachar after they had
said hurtful and disrespectful things against Guntram's wife at the time,
Austrechild.155 The context of this deed is quite complicated, something
that Gregory maybe conveniently does not care to elaborate on.
Because as a matter of fact said Magnachar was the father of Guntram's
first wife, Marcatrude, whose alleged poisoning of Guntram's son I
described above. Magnachar, at the time of the slaying of his sons, was
already dead.
In the same chapter, Guntram also loses his two sons. Therefore,
when a few lines down there is the question who will take in the son of
his then murdered brother Sigibert, Childebert, does the following:
Gunthchramnus rex ait: 'Evenit inpulso peccatorum meorum, ut
absque liberis remanerem, et ideo peto, ut hic nepus meus mihi
sit filius'. Et inponens eum super cathedram suam, cunctum ei
regnum tradedit, dicens: 'Una nos parma protegat unaque asta
defendat. Quod si filius habuero, te nihilhominus tamquam unum
ex his reputabo, ut illa cum eis tecumque permaneat caretas,
quam tibi hodie ego pollicior, teste Deo'.156
Apparently, Guntram does feel the need to repent, or at least
Gregory has that impression, thus adopting his nephew. Contrary to
how Gregory usually elaborates on the sins that lead to such a decision,
he does not mention anything here. Apparently, he is content with the
King's admission that he indeed is not without sin.
In chapter 35 of Book V, Guntram becomes as Gregory sees it
the victim of his ruthless wife Austrechild. The wife of King Guntram is
nearing her life's end after illness, and according to Gregory, she asks of
a rather volatile period of the civil war. See e.g. HF 4.49-4.50.
155 See HF 5.17.
156 King Guntram said, It has happened that through my sins I have been left without
children, and so I ask that this nephew of mine be my son. And setting him upon his own
seat, Guntram handed over to him his while kingdom. Let a single shield protect us, he
said, and a single spear defend us. Should I have sons, I will nevertheless regard you as
one of them, so that, God as my witness, you will keep the love I promise you today, sharing
it with them. see Murray, p.88-89.
69

the King to slay the doctors who had tended to her, claiming it was their
tinctures that killed her. After she has died, Guntram fulfills her wish 157:

Rex vero, peracto ex more iusticio, oppressus iniquae coniugis

iuramento, implevit praeceptum iniquitatis. Nam duos medicos,
qui ei studium adhibuerant, gladio ferire praecepit; quod non sine
peccato facto fuisse, multorum censit prudentia.158

So even though Guntram committed an obvious sin, Gregory more or

less exonerates him, because he was only fulfilling the wish of a woman
Gregory repeatedly calls wicked, unhappy and evil 159. The oath
that his wife took from him while on her deathbed is what binds him,
thus he is unable to not grant her the wish of killing two of the
physicians who tended to her when she was dying.
Additional signs of Guntram's general benevolence can be found in
Book VI, chapter 4 (A quo benigne susceptus, cum eo latuit,
expectans, ut Childeberthus ad legitimam perveniret aetatem. 160) or in
book VI, chapter 36:
Tunc rex Guntchramnus, ut erat benignus et profluus ad
miserandum, multa ei munera contulit, dans etiam epistolas
per omnes episcopos regni sui, ut peregrinum aliquid pro Dei
intuitu consolarentur.161

One intriguing remark by Gregory stands out in Book VII, chapter 5.

In this very short chapter, Gregory explains how Guntram went to Paris
after the murder of his brother Chilperic, after Chilperic's widow
Fredegund sent him a message, begging of him to do so:

157 See HF 5.35.

158 When the usual period of mourning was over, the king, forced by the oath to his wicked
wife, complied with her evil instructions. He ordered the two physicians who had attended
her to be executed. In the considered opinion of many, this was not done without sin.
Murray, p.107.
159 See HF 5.35.
160 [...]fled to King Guntram, who welcomed him. He remained with the king in hiding, waiting
for Childebert to come of age. Murray, p.123.
161 Thereupon King Guntram kindly as ever, and swift to pity, loaded the Bishop with presents.
At the same time he wrote round to all the bishops in his kingdom, telling them for the love
of God to do what they could for this exile. Thorpe, p.369.
70

Fredegundis igitur regina, accepto consilio, legatos ad

Gunthchramnum regem mittit, dicens: 'Veniat dominus meus et
suscipiat regnum fratris sui. Est', inquid, 'mihi infans parvolus,
quem in eius ulnis ponere desiderans, me ipsam eius humilio
dicioni'. Conperto autem Gunthchramnus rex de fratris excessu
amarissime flevit. Moderato quoque planctu, conmoto exercitu,
Parisius dirigit. Cumque ille infra muros susceptus fuisset,
Childeberthus rex, nepus eius, ab alia advenit parte.162

The passage that catches the eye is the one about Guntram weeping
upon receiving the message from Fredegund. Gregory seems intent
upon portraying Guntram not only as a just king, but also as a man
capable of feeling remorse for the death of a brother, whose latest quest
in life had been to defeat him for the sake of more power and a larger
kingdom. Then, in order to show that even though Guntram was a
sensitive man, he did not lack the necessary sensibility as well, he
describes how Guntram assembles an army and marches toward Paris,
to make the best of his brother's early demise.
But Gregory's greatest endorsement of the king comes in Book IX,
chapter 21, aptly named: Of the benevolence and kindheartedness of
the king163. The chapter starts off with the following sentence: Ipse
autem rex, ut saepe diximus, in elymosinis magnus, in vigiliis atque
ieiuniis prumptus erat.164 This praise of the king seems almost routine
at this point of Gregory' narration. But the story he tells goes on to
display even more of Guntrams almost unbelievable spiritual impact.
When Marseilles is struck by an especially virulent case of the plague,
Guntram not only prays and gives to charity but also inadvertently
manages to cure a woman with a piece of his garment. The story is told
by Gregory as hear-say. A woman manages to get hold of a piece of the
162 Queen Fredegund took advice and sent envoys to King Guntram with this message: Let
my lord come and take the kingdom of his brother. I have a small infant, whom I wish to
place in his arms; as for myself, I bow to his authority. When Gruntram learned of his
brother's passing, he wept quite bitterly, but when his grief subsided, he mustered an army
and marched to Paris. He had already been received within the walls when his nephew King
Childbert arrive from another direction. Murray, p.148.
163 See HF 9.21.
164 King Guntram, as we have frequently said, was generous in almsgiving and disposed to
vigils and fasting. Murray, p.209.
71

kings garment when following the throng of people he is in, and, after
soaking it in hot water gives that water to her son to drink. The boy,
who had been lying in bed sick with a fever, is miraculously cured.
Gregory, even though he does not have proof for the story, apparently
believes it, or at least wanted to convey in his text that he believed it:
[] Quod non habetur a me dubium, cum ego ipse saepius
larvas inergia famulante nomen eius invocantes audieram ac
criminum propriorum gesta, virtute ipsius discernente,
fatere.165

Even if at this point there were some doubt as to how Gregory wants
this king to be seen, it would have all but dissolved by now. Not only is
the king benevolent, kind and wise, he is also such a near-saintly figure
that parts of his garment alone seem to be enough to cure people.

165 I do not doubt this story, since I myself have heard the demons of those possessed being
compelled by the wonderful power of this man to call out his name and confess their own
crimes. Murray, p.214
72

3.1.8 Conclusion
My intention in the above chapters was to compare not only the
difference in wording and description when it came to good versus evil,
but also how these differences again compare to each other when put
towards male or female protagonists.
What is obvious is the very direct animosity towards Chilperic and
Fredegund, whereas Guntram and Brunhild are described mostly by the
virtues, not their vices. Of course, as Ian Wood points out in his essay
The Secret Histories of Gregory of Tours, Gregory is also critical of
Guntram at times166, but it pales next to the criticism Gregory pours out
over Chilperic.
As Dick Harrison points out, Gregory employs with the depiction of
Fredegund the stereotype of the bad girl: one murderous plot follows
the next, and many people suffer under the cruel rule of Fredegund. 167
As shown in the subchapter about Brunhild, Gregory also employs the
stereotype of the good girl, where for example beauty is used as one
identifying aspect of this kind of woman.
In looking at the way he portrays the kings instead, it's clear that
there are no such stereotypes with which to actually portray these men.
They are, by and large, described by actions and deeds usually
attributed to men anyway. Murdering, waging war or torture seemed to
perturb Gregory not half as much when done by Chilperic than when
done by Fredegund. This can be observed by looking at the number of
times Gregory concentrates on writing about these acts, as compared to
the instances of cruelty perpetrated by the kings.

166 Ian N. Wood, "The secret histories of Gregory of Tours" in: Revue belge de philologie et
d'histoire 71.2 (1993): pp.253-270, pp. 260f.
167 See Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.343.
73

3.2 Rights
3.2.1 Division between legal positions
The division between the various legal positions of which free,
unfree, half-free are just some - is not entirely clear-cut. Especially
when it comes to the definition of freemen and freewomen pertaining to
Romans and Franks, there exist exhaustive studies.168
Whether a member of the Merovingian society can actually be called
aristocratic or not is still a matter of dispute. According to Reinhold
Kaiser's examination of a multitude of various, sometimes conflicting
studies, aristocratic attributes could be the absence of taxation, status
by birth, a proximity to kings and a proclivity to holding an office. 169
As Kaiser goes on, the differentiation between and sometimes within
the statuses of free and unfree is similarly difficult to grasp. In this
chapter I will follow their characterization in Gregory of Tours' works as
observed by Margarete Weidemann.170

168 See Guy Halsall, Settlement and social organization: the Merovingian region of Metz.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002, pp.21-32.
169 See Reinhold Kaiser, Das rmische Erbe und das Merowingerreich. Vol. 26. Oldenbourg
Wissenschaftsverlag: Oldenbourg, 2004, pp.96-100.
170 She thusly differentiates between frees who own land which includes people, taxation and
war-duty, jurisdiction at a county-court and finally people who work with their own hands,
not having anyone to do this kind of work for them. As for unfrees, she describes them as
property of a master, without legal jurisdiction, meaning they can't be tried by and can't go
to court. See Margarete Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken
Gregors von Tours. Habelt, 1982, pp.295-306.
74

3.2.2 Royalty and Aristocracy

Due to the nature of a history of events in a kingdom, the most
prominent depictions are those of members of either royal families or
aristocracy. This holds true for Gregory's narrative as well. Apart from
the queens and the women married to ruling parties, Gregory also
portrays events that were influenced largely by Merovingian, or in the
case of Brunhild and Galsvinth, Visigothic princesses. 171 This chapter will
see various examples of aristocratic and royal women's rights, divided
into married, divorced and unwed women.
3.2.2.1 Marriage

There is one issue pertaining to marriage, which must be addressed

before delving deeper into the subject matter. That issue is the division
of marriage into Muntehe and Friedelehe. Wemple defines marriages
which were unofficial as Friedelehe and supports the thesis that these
types

of

marriage

were

an

established

institution

during

the

Merovingian and Carolingian era. But as Ruth Mazzo Karras points out
quite convincingly, these divisions are the product of later scholars and
based only on circumstantial evidence which under closer scrutiny does
not hold up.172
Before detailing the depictions of the wives of aristocratic men in
Gregory's Histories, an obstacle, as observed by Ian Wood should be
mentioned:

the

wives

and

relations

of

Merovingian

kings

were

sometimes named in sources, but apart from these, not a lot is known
about them.173 Of course, as can be gleaned from my earlier chapters,
Gregory wrote in quite some detail about certain queens like Brunhild
and Fredegund. Other queens are also named throughout his Histories,
171 Wood, Kingdoms, p.120.
172 See Ruth Mazo Karras, "The history of marriage and the myth of Friedelehe" in: Early
Medieval Europe 14.2 (2006): 119-151. for a detailed analysis of the evidence that pointed
to a division and her refuting of these claims.
173 Wood, Kingdoms, p.121.
75

but their roles - at least according to Gregory are secondary. Only

anecdotal evidence of their actual existence ensured their place on the
family trees of the Merovingians.

Some of these anecdotes will be

called upon here to give not a thorough picture of the role of married
women in the aristocracy, but serve to show how Gregory decided to
portray their roles.
Women in Merovingian society played a major role in marriage
alliances. Though maybe sounding like a truism, but it has to be noted
that women were pivotal when it came to instilling loyalty with the
family a loyalty that often had a slant to the maternal side of the
family.174
While many of these alliances served their purpose well, Gregory's
Histories are filled with episodes where things went terribly wrong. An
example of such a bond gone wrong is that of Ingund and her marriage
to

the

son

of

Leuvigild,

Hermenegild.

Initially

welcomed

by

Hermenegild's mother Goiswinth, her Arian mother-in-law was bent on

having Ingund converted to Arianism. Ingund refused, but, as Gregory
describes it, was simply thrown into the baptizing pool by her irate
mother-in-law. Still, Ingund does not forsake her beliefs, and when she
takes court at a town her father-in-law has given the couple, she even
convinces her husband Hermenegild to convert to catholicism. The
subsequent events, mired by personal and political animosities, result in
Hermenegild being thrown into prison by his own father. 175 Ingund,
protected by the imperial guard, dies of a natural death with her small
son in Carthage, on the way to the emperor, while her husband is
murdered in prison.176
In this episode, it becomes clear that women were not only married
in order to secure the family lines, but were also, as Jane Tibbetts
Schulenburg puts it, emissaries for the church. 177 The way Gregory
174
175
176
177

Wemple, p.52.
HF 5.38.
HF 8.28.
See Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg, Forgetful of their sex: female sanctity and society, ca. 50076

describes it, it is also apparent that he commends the woman for

standing up for her faith. Hence, the death of her husband he also
described as that of a martyr.

Another account of marriage alliances gone wrong is found in Book

IX, chapter 25, and exemplifies how the fate of a princess relied solely
on her family's decisions. Here178, the fate of Chlodosind, King
Childebert's sister, and the defeat of the Austrasian kingdom by the
Lombards,

are

depicted.

According

to

Gregory,

Chlodosind

was

promised to the Lombards, but King Childebert changed his mind after
learning that the Visigoths had converted to Catholicism. So, instead of
giving Chlodosind to the Lombards, he decided to wage war on them.
This was a decision that proved to be fatal for the Frankish forces, which
were, according to Gregory, utterly destroyed.
Gregory describes this episode in his usual detached way, the focus
being on the defeat of the Franks by the Lombards. Chlodosind was
later married to the Visigothic King Reccared.179
The way Gregory chronicles the fates of the various princesses of the
Merovingian kingdoms is a reflection of that notion. While, for example,
the marriage of an unfree with a free was more than just frowned upon,
the use of princesses as mere pawns in geo-political schemings was not.
The aforementioned unfortunate nature of Galsvinth's marriage to
Chilperic and its violent end 180 demonstrates the volatile nature of a
woman's position at the court of a Merovingian king very well.
How fragile marriages were and what dangers lurked whenever a
woman had gained power through marriage is also displayed well by
Gregory in book IX, chapter 28. There Gregory recounts the story of
Faileuba, wife of Childebert II. A plot was discovered by the woman
1100. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2001, p.191.
178 HF 9.25.
179 HF 9.16-9.20.
180 See the chapter in this paper on Fredegund.
77

herself, which as its main goal had to removal of Brunhild and Faileuba,
in order to also remove their influence from Childebert and his heirs. 181
Had Faileuba, according to Gregory, not discovered the plot herself, she
might have been driven out of court, and even lost control over her own
son, as Dick Harrison notes.182
For my purpose here, this chapter contains something else that is
noteworthy. When it is uncovered that the plot to remove Faileuba was
instigated by the nurse Septimima and one Droctulf, both are swiftly
bound and beaten. Them comes the confession by Septimia:
Nec mora, extensi inter stipites cum vehementius caederentur,
profititur Septimina, virum suum Iovium maleficiis interfecisse
ob amorem Droctulfi ipsumque secum scorto miscere. 183

The woman, as she is confessing to the plot, also confesses to having

killed her husband. The manner of how she killed him witchcraft is
telling again. We saw this way of murdering in the chapter above with
Fredegund before. So the question arises, why she would confess to
such a crime. Was it the torturing device which led her to tell them not
only what they wanted to hear about the plot but also whatever their
interlocutors wanted to hear in addition to it? Or was it maybe just
Gregory embellishing the story in order to make it more plausible for his
audience. As detailed with Fredegund, bad deeds often were the result
not of inherent evil with women, but mainly a byproduct of witchcraft.
As Suzanne Wemple points out, polygyny and concubinage were both
factors in creating moral double standards for the sexes when it came
to sexual relationships.184 While women were supposed to be faithful, it
was not unusual for a male member of the aristocracy to have a second,
third or more wives and still other relationships with different women. 185
So how does Gregory, as a cleric, depict the act of a man breaking his
181 HF 9.38.
182 See Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.148.
183 Without delay they were spread between posts and beaten severely. Septimina confessed
that she had killed her husband Jovius by witchcraft out of love for Droctulf, with whom she
played the whore. Murray, p.19.
184 A fact which, unfortunately, still holds true nowadays.
185 Wemple, p.38.
78

wedding vows? There is one episode in Book IX, chapter 27 in which

one Duke Amalo finds his death, which rivals the most sordid of
episodes in world history when it comes to betrayal and death in the
course of said betrayal. The story, according to Gregory 186, goes as
follows:
Duke Amalo sends his wife away to look into the affairs of one of his
estates. Shortly after his wife has left, he develops a liking for a girl of
free birth. He lets his servants bring her to his bed, in the course of
which she is beaten bloody. Duke Amalo and the girl fight some more,
which results in bloodshed on Amalo's part as well. For some reason,
they both fall asleep. When the girl wakes up, she goes for Amalo's
sword and splits his head with it. When his servants rush in to kill the
girl, the dying man cries out to leave her be, as he had been the one
who had done her harm. The servants comply and the girl manages to
escape, not just from Amalo's house, but as far away as Chalon-surSane, 35 miles from where she had been taken. There she throws
herself at the king's feet and begs forgiveness, which he grants her. He
also goes so far as to make it known, that the girl must not be harmed
by anyone of Amalo's family. Gregory adds at the end of his account
that for some reason or other God managed to save the girl's virginity
throughout that whole ordeal.
It is important to note how Gregory displays seeming naivety when
describing the events: Amalo quoque dux, dum coniugem in alia villa
pro exercenda utilitate dirigit, in amorem puellolae cuiusdam ingenuae
ruit.187
The notion that the Duke sent away his wife and only later felt the
need to force himself on a young girl is rather impassively described
and its face value accepted by Gregory. It was not uncommon for a wife
to look after her husband's estates 188, but what for the modern reader
186 HF 9.27.
187 Duke Amalo sent his wife away to one of his other estates to look after his affairs. Then he
was seized with a desire for a young girl of free birth. Thorpe, p.513.
188 See Wemple, p.99.
79

looks like a cunning or rather conniving setup seemed not to perturb

Gregory in the slightest. Being part of Merovingian society and the
upper echelons, Gregory undoubtedly had a good understanding of the
above mentioned double moral standards and the lack of reflection in
his wording is a sign that he simply didn't care to put a focus on the fact
that there was a man who had set in motion a plan to betray his wife.
When it comes to purported or actual infidelity of women, Gregory's
stance seems quite different. The laws governing adultery were clear
about this: if a woman committed adultery, her husband could divorce
her, if the man committed adultery, the wife could do no such thing. 189
In book VI, chapter 16, Gregory details an arranged marriage. A man
named Pappolenus had been engaged to the niece of Felix, bishop of
Nantes. For a reason not explained by Gregory, Felix had disapproved of
the marriage and brought about the separation of Pappolenus and his
niece to subsequently send her to a nunnery. It is not clear from
Gregory's writing whether the niece sent servants for Pappolenus to
rescue her while Felix was still alive, or after his death. But the result
was the same: Pappolenus went to get the girl from the nunnery and
married her, by then, Felix had died. 190 What is interesting about this
arrangement is hinted at in Gregory's last sentence of the chapter:
Quod ille non abnuens, adsumptam de monastirio puellam suo
coniugio copolavit, regalibusque munitus praeceptionibus,
timere parentum distulit moenas.191

As will be detailed later in this chapter, unmarried women were

basically under the power of their family. To have a king meddle in
these inter-familiary affairs seems fairly uncommon.
Unfortunately, Gregory gives no further insight into how this
involvement by the king came about.
189 See Wemple, p.42.
190 HF 6.15.
191 HF 6.16 He organized her escape from the nunnery, and married her. He had the King's
formal approval, so that she was able to disregard the threats of her relations. Thorpe,
p.347.
80

While men having sexual relations with a multitude of women and

their unfaithfulness of men was regarded by Gregory as a minor
aberration, women had to adhere to strict laws governing their faith. 192
There were other laws that governed what would happen to men who
sexually assaulted (free) women. That said, women who were raped
rarely pressed charges, but would rather keep still to conceal their
shame or, in drastic cases, kill themselves. 193 If a woman was accused
of adultery or leaving her husband, massive repression could in some
cases lead to the same fate.
One episode in Gregory's Histories is a haunting example how even
only the suspicion of adultery could drive a woman into suicide. In book
V, chapter 32, Gregory recounts the story of a woman accused of
leaving her husband and having relations of some sort with another
man:
Apud Parisius autem mulier quaedam ruit in crimine,
adserentibus multis, quasi quod, relicto viro, cum alio
misceretur. Igitur parentes illius accesserunt ad patrem,
dicentes: 'Aut idoneam redde filiam tuam, aut certe moriatur,
ne stuprum hoc generi nostro notam infligat'. 'Novi', inquit
pater, 'ego filiam meam bene idoneam; nec est verum verbum
hoc, quod mali homines proloquuntur. Tamen ne crimen
consurgat ulterius, innocentem eam faciam sacramento'. Et illi:
'Si', inquiunt, 'est innoxia, super tumulum hoc beati Dionisi
martyris sacramentis adfirma'. 'Faciam', inquit pater. 194

The woman is suspected of adultery and the family of her husband

wants to retaliate by killing her. Now that the woman is not with her
husband anymore, the burden of protecting her is again upon her
father. Her father is ready to swear an oath that his woman is innocent.
The family agrees to this, but as it so happens, things get a lot messier
192 See Wemple, p.38.
193 See Wemple, p.40.
194 HF 5.32 In Paris a woman who had left her husband was accused by a number of people of
living with another man. The husband's relations went to the woman's father and said:
'Either you must prove your daughter's innocence or else let her die, for we cannot permit
her adultery to bring disgrace upon our family.' 'I know that my daughter is completely
innocent,' answered the father. 'There is no truth at all in this rumour which is being spread
by malicious people. I will prove her innocence by an oath and so stop the accusation going
any farther.' 'If she really is innocent,' they replied, 'swear an oath to that effect on the tomb
of Saint Denis, the martyr.' 'I will certainly do so,' said her father. Thorpe, p.295.
81

afterwards. When the father does as promised, the family of the

husband accuses him of perjury and start to attack him inside the
church. Chaos ensues between the two feuding parties. They fight in
the church, thereby desecrating it. Eventually they are sent to the court
of King Chilperic, who in turn leaves it to the local bishop to try them.
They pay a fine so as not to be excluded from communion. The woman
in the focus of this feud however, kills herself shortly before her trial. 195
The title, De basilica sancti Dionisii iniuriata per mulierem, that is:
The desecration of the church of St.Dionysius because of a woman, is
telling: its concern lies with the desecration of the church, not the
woman whose fate is sealed by it. It is not as important for Gregory as
the fact that the church, as he bemoans it, is not fit for service for a
while due to the desecrating fight that happened between the two
families.

A final example of how a woman, even if she wasn't part of the

royalty, could move and decide freely, independent from her husband.
Said woman was Berthegund, who, at the behest of her mother
Ingitrude, left her husband to join her mother's nunnery. 196
While here husband does try to get her back, his actions are
thwarted not least by her brother, a bishop, who claims the marriage
was not even legal in the first place, as her parents had not given
consent.197

So he decides to leave the woman to do as she pleases,

until Berthegund's brother dies. She has a change of heart, but for
some reason, her husband does not take her back. As Harrison writes:

195 See HF 5.32.

196 See HF 9.33.
197 As Gregory notes in the same line, this claim comes about thirty years too late, as
Berthegund and her husband had been married for at least three decades then.
82

Her actions in the year 585 were dictated by her own wishes,
not by the wishes of her husband and certainly not by the
wishes of her mother. [] why did her husband not attempt to
reclaim her as his wife after this? We will never know the
answer to the second question; he may have died or grown
tired of hunting her and simply married someone else. 198

What he also points out is the fact that the woman only had the
ability to openly disregard the wishes of her husband by having access
political, economical and ecclesiastical resources. 199 Without these, even
a woman with a will as strong as Berthegund, would usually not have
been able to leave her husband to pursue her own interests the way
Berthegund did.
There will be more about Berthegund and her difficult relationship
with her mother in the later chapter about mother-child relationships.
3.2.2.2 Unmarried

The social protection of unmarried women was attributed to their

fathers, while that of married women was their husband's duty 200. In the
absence of a father, Dick Harrison extends this protection also to the
male members of the family of a woman201.
In this chapter, I will look at two different ways this unmarried status
could come about, as in the cases of divorced and widowed women.
Both give us the opportunity to shed light on how the rights of women
depended on and how they differed from those of men, and how this
reflected in Gregory's writing.
One special case was the revolt of the nuns at Poitiers, an episode
which takes up considerable space in Gregory's Histories and involves
two princesses, Basina and Chlothild. The princesses had started a
revolt at the nunnery, and after their trial and excommunication, they
accused in front of the King Childebert the Abbess of Poitiers of many
transgressions, amongst others with a man dressed in womens clothing
198
199
200
201

See
See
See
See

Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.192.

Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.194.
Wemple, p.27.
Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.205.
83

or of plotting to kill Fredegund. None of these accusations could be

proven. Both princesses were later pardoned by the king, as detailed in
Book X, chapter 20:
In hoc sinodo Basina, Chilperici regis filia, quam supra cum
Chrodielde a communione remotam diximus, coram episcopis
solo prostrata, veniam petiit, promittens se cum caritate
abbatissae monasterium ingredi ac de regulam nihil
transcendere. Chrodieldis autem obtestata est, quod,
Leobovera abbatissa in hoc monasterium commorante, ibidem
numquam ingrederetur. Sed utrisque rex veniam inpertire
deprecatus est, et sic in communione receptae, Pectavo regredi
iussae sunt, scilicet ut Basina in monasterio, ut praefati sumus,
regrediretur, Chrodieldis vero in villa, quae quondam Waddonis
superius memorati fuerat, sibi a rege concessa, resederet. 202

3.2.2.2.1 Divorced

For men in the Merovingian period getting divorced was a simple

procedure. The different laws had slightly differing views on what
constituted reason for divorce, but to those who wanted it, it was a
simple task to find those. While under Roman law, the only grounds
there were for divorce were adultery, sorcery or procuring prostitutes,
Germanic law allowed for divorce if a woman could not bear children or
had committed any serious crime. Women fared far worse. Adultery by
the husband was not a reason, both in Roman and Germanic law.
Among the only breaches that allowed for a lawful divorce were
pederasty

and

homicide

and

the,

even

then,

rather

outlandish

accusation of necromancy. Unilateral divorce was possible for both men

and women, but it was much more difficult to achieve and under greater
sacrifice for women than for men.203

202 At this same council Basina, the daughter of King Chilperic, who, as I have told you, had
recently been excommunicated in company with Clotild, threw herself at the bishop's feet
and begged for forgiveness. She promised to return to her nunnery, to live there in peace
with her Abbess and to observe all the provisions of the Rule. Clotild, on the other hand,
swore that she would never go back to the nunnery as long as Leubovera remained there as
Abbess. The King asked that they might both be pardoned. They were received once more
into communion and ordered to return to Poitiers. Basina went back into her nunnery, as I
have said. The country estate which I have described as having belonged formerly to Waddo
was conveyed to Clotild in gift by the King and she went to live there. Thorpe, p.580.
203 See Wemple, pp.42-43.
84

Looking at Gregory's Histories, there is only one case of a successful

unilateral divorce and it is a very early one. The Saxon princess Basina,
married to King Bisinus, leaves her husband and marries King Childeric
instead:204
His ergo regnantibus, simul Basina illa, quam supra
memoravimus, relicto viro suo, ad Childericum venit. Qui cum
sollicite interrogaret, qua de causa ad eum de tanta regione
venisset, respondisse fertur: 'Novi', inquid, 'utilitatem tuam,
quod sis valde strinuus, ideoque veni, ut habitem tecum. Nam
noveris, si in transmarinis partibus aliquem cognovissem
utiliorem tibi, expetissem utique cohabitationem eius'. At ille
gaudens eam sibi in coniugio copulavit. Quae concipiens,
peperit filium vocavitque nomen eius Chlodovechum. Hic fuit
magnus et pugnatur egregius.205

An ironic turn, as pointed out by Joe-Ann MacNamara and Suzanne

Wemple, is that the above mentioned Clovis (and the rulers who
followed in his footsteps) issued codes that infringed on the freedoms
his mother had had.206
Gregory certainly didn't see the irony in his description of Basina's
divorce or if he did, decided not to let his readers in on it. In fact, he
describes her leaving of her husband, a king at that, as if she had gone
for a simple stroll to the seaside. Of course, she was not simply
marrying another man, but also humiliating her husband in the course
of it. The explanation for Gregory's unperturbed attitude in this instance
could simply be that these events occurred long before his time and had
a near-mythical quality to it and so rendered obsolete any qualms a
bishop like Gregory might have had.207
204 HF 2.12.
205 During the reigns of Bisinus and Childeric, Basina, whom we mentioned above, left her
husband and came to Childeric. He very carefully questioned her as to why she had come. I
know your warlike qualities, she said,and that you are quite restless, and so I have come to
live with you. And you should know that were I to find out about someone more warlike than
you across the seas I would have no qualms about seeking out his companionship. He
cheerfully married her. She conceived and gave birth to a son whom she called Clovis. He
was a great man and an outstanding warrior. Murray, p.5.
206 See Jo-Ann MacNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple. "Marriage and divorce in the Frankish
kingdom." in: Women in Medieval Society (1976): 95-124, p.100. With high probability, the
Pactus Legis Salicae was issued by Clovis, and Clovis' letters to his bishops constitute the
earliest piece of datable Merovingian legislature. Compare Wood, Kingdoms, p.118.
207 This is one of the reasons why I have focused on the Books describing events during
Gregory's time. It gives a much clearer picture of Gregory's mindset when the events he
85

An interesting case is that of Tetradia, the widow of one Desiderius.

It is a complicated story of men wanting to marry Tetradia, but the core
of the events is this: Tetradia was married to Count Eulalius, who
happened to be a terrible husband: sleeping with the servants, beating
his wife when returning from night-long bouts of excess and stealing
her jewelery. The nephew of the man wants to save the woman (and
marry her), but he iss afraid for her life, so he sends her away to Duke
Desiderius. She leaves, taking most of her husband's jewelery, as well
as one of her sons. As Eulalius finds out, he kills his nephew. Desiderius
hears of this and conveniently enough his wife has died as well. So he
decides to marry Tetradia. It gets even more complicated then.208
Gregory goes on to randomly recount various misemeanours and
crimes of Eulalius, before recounting how in a deal Eulalius sent off one
of his sons to become a priest. Finally, Gregory explains how Eulalius
sued his ex-wife Tetradia, on the basis of her stealing his possessions.
Tetradia is found guilty and ordered to pay back four times the sum of
what she took, but then left free to live with what she had inherited by
her father (who, according to Gregory, was of humble origin). 209
The chapter is interesting not least for the description of how the
divorce between the woman Tetradia and Count Eulalius was effected.
Believing the account of Gregory, the woman simply left her husband
and found shelter with another man.

describes are not meddled with by time and tradition.

208 HF 10.8.
209 See Brown, p.25 for a discussion of this episode in light of Gregory's role as a
representative of God on earth, uncovering the deeds of miscreants like Eulalius.
86

3.2.2.2.2 Widowed

Gregory's Histories are spotted with widowed queens, not least due
to the fact that Merovingian kings were surprisingly often murdered or
dying in combat. Symptomatic for the difficult relationship with power
widows had are the following two examples of Brunhild's actions.
How a widowed queen could still wield power is shown in Book VI,
chapter 4 of Gregory's Histories.210 This episode, detailed in the chapter
about Fredegund211, displays not only Gregory's respect for the woman
who fends off adversaries not unlike her late husband would have done,
it also displays the sort of power a widowed queen could still enjoy.
Brunhild still stands up against the men threatening her supporter
Lupus and it doesnt come to a fight. The men do plunder his house and
drive him into exile, but Brunhild's intervention most probably kept him
from being killed.
But Brunhild's power as a widow wasn't all-encompassing: in a later
chapter Gregory mentions how at the synod of Mcon, Brunhild lodged
a complaint with King Childebert about her daughter Ingund, who was
still detained in Africa. Her complaint was largely ignored. 212 It is
important to note that Ingund wasn't just Brunhild's daughter, she was
also the king's sister. A few chapters later Gregory describes the death
of both Ingund and her husband Hermenegild.213
Of course, the real fall from power was much more obvious in 613
when Brunhild, after the death of Theuderic, her grandson, was
suddenly without a supporter. Chlothar II, son of her greatest adversary
Fredegund, took revenge on her by subjecting her to cruel humiliation
and killing her in a most atrocious manner. 214

210
211
212
213
214

HF 6.4.
See the chapter Fredegund in this paper.
HF 8.21.
HF 8.28.
See Wemple, pp.66-67.
87

3.2.3 The People

3.2.3.1 Free

Given their much smaller importance to historic events, there are

less episodes in Gregory's Histories pertaining to the free, but some
valuable details are still to be extricated from Gregory's tales. One of
these is the story of Domnola, the wife to one Nectarius and daughter of
the bishop of Rennes. Domnola was in a territorial quarrel with Bobolen,
Fredegund's referendary, about a vineyard, which she claimed she had
inherited from her father. In the course of the dispute, Bobolen has her
and her servants, man and woman, killed.
Multa enim mala hoc tempore gesta sunt. Nam Domnola,
relicta quondam Burgulini, quae fuit filia Victuri Redonensis
episcopi, quam Nectarius' matrimonio copulaverat, intentione
de vineis cum Boboleno, referendario Fredegundis, habebat.
Audiens autem ea in his vineis advenisse, misit nuntius
obtestantes, ne ingredi penitus in hac possessione
praesumeret. Quod illa dispiciens et res patris sui fuisse
proclamans, ingressa est. Tunc ille, commota seditione, super
eam cum armatis viris inruit. Qua interfecta, vineas vindecavit
resque deripuit et tam viros quam mulieres qui cum ea erant
interfecit gladio, nec remansit ex his, nisi qui fuga labi potuit. 215

Gregory later details in chapter 43 of the same Book how by orders of

King Childebert, Bobolen and everyone involved in the slaughtering
were punished.216
This episode is interesting for a few reasons, the first of which is
Domnola's inheritance of her father's vineyard. It shows that nonaristocratic women were indeed in a position to have material wealth at
215 HF 8.32. Many wicked deeds were done at this time. Domnola, daughter of Victor, bishop
of Rennes, widow of the late Burgolen, and afterwards wife of Nectarius, had a dispute with
Bobolen, Fredegund's referendary, over vineyards. When he heard she was visiting the
vineyards, he sent a message objecting to her daring to enter the property. She disregarded
the message, and announcing that the property had belonged to her father, entered it.
Thereupon Bobolen caused a commotion, attacking her with armed men. He killed her,
claimed the vineyards, and seized property. The men and women with her were put to the
sword, with no survivors but those who fled. Murray, p.193.
216 See HF 8.43.
88

their disposal. The second is that there is an instance of a woman in

power. Nectarius does not appear in this episode, and Gregory obviously
doesn't expect him to. From what we gather through Gregory's writing,
Domnola is the one quarreling with Bobolen, while her husband is
curiously absent. It should be mentioned that Nectarius had been the
centre of Fredegund's ire before. In chapter 15 of book VII, Gregory
details how Fredegund tries to have Nectarius incarcerated, which plan
is thwarted by his brother Badegisil, bishop of Le Mans.217
It is important to note that Domnola is not treated differently from a
man, because of or rather, despite her gender. While in the royal
echelons, an attack on a woman might have been warranted simply by
the power she yields, in this case it is rather curious how unscrupulously
Bobolen attacks and kills not just her, but also her servants. 218 An
attempt at an explanation could be made by considering the above
mentioned altercation between Fredegund and Nectarius. It is therefore
possible that in absence of her husband, Domnola suffered for the
unsuccessful plan of Fredegund to have her husband sent to jail. The
fact that Bobolen was Fredegund's referendary suggests this.
In Book VI, chapter 36, Gregory's describing an incident of, in the
modern eye, horrible injustice, serves as yet another example for the
inequality in treatment of the sexes:

217 See HF 7.16.

218 For a discussion of the actual power of a female member of a royal Merovingian family, see
Guy Halsall, Settlement, pp.63-66.
89

Clericus quidam extitit ex Cinomannica urbe, luxuriosus nimis

amatorque mulierum et gulae ac fornicationis omnique
immunditiae valde deditus. Hic mulieri cuidam saepius scorto
commixtus, comam capitis totondit, mutatoque virili habitu,
secum in alia civitate deduxit, ut suspicio auferetur adulterii,
cum inter incognitos devenisset. Erat enim mulier ingenua
genere et de bonis orta parentibus. Conperto autem post dies
multos propinqui eius quae acta fuerant, ad ulciscendam
humilitatem generis sui velocius properant, repertumque
clericum vinctum custodiae mancipant, mulierem vero ignem
consumunt. Et, sicut cogit auri sacra famis, clericum sub pretio
venundari procurant, ea videlicet ratione, ut aut esset qui
redimeret, aut certe morti addiceretur obnoxius. Cumque haec
Aetherio episcopo delata fuissent, misericordia motus, datis XX
aureis, eum ab imminenti exemit interitu.219

The priest's immoral behaviour in this instance is referenced multiple

times in this short paragraph of Gregory's narration. While the short
story about this immoral priest is there to exemplify the moral status of
Aetherius, the Bishop of Lisieux, it is utterly devoid of any criticism by
Gregory of the family's actions against the woman. He does point out
the danger for the priest, whose life was on the line, the fate of the
woman namely her being killed is only referenced by fact: she is
burned alive.
The small extent of words spent on this episode, allows us to assume
that this way of reinstating the lost honour of the family was both within
legal and moral bounds, in Gregory's and his contemporaries' view. It
has been shown in other instances of Gregory's narrations,that he does
point out lawless behaviour, so the fate of the woman in this case must
have been within social, moral and legal boundaries.
219 There lived in the town of Le Mans a certain priest, who was fond of fine living and who
was always having affairs with women, a gluttonous man, much given to fornication and
other forms of immorality. There was one particular woman with whom he had intercourse
regularly. He persuaded her to have her hair cut short, dressed her up as a man and went off
with her to another city, thinking that when he was among strangers he would not be
suspected of immorality. She was a woman of free birth and she came from a good family. A
long time passed, but eventually her relations came to realize what had happened. They
hastened to avenge the dishonour done to their family. They laid hands on the priest, tied
him up and had him thrown into prison. The woman they burned alive. The lust for gain,
which afflicts us all, is so irresistible that they eventually tried to sell the priest for ransom,
thinking that someone would assuredly pay something to bail him out. Had they failed, they
would have had him killed. As it was the news reached Aetherius. He was moved to
compassion and paid over twenty pieces of gold to save the priest from immediate
execution. Thorpe, pp.366-367.
90

As the chapter progresses, it becomes clearer that the priest is not

just a fornicator, but also lacking basic loyalty. He makes advances
towards a woman whose son he teaches, but she quickly tells on him
and the priest is again about to be attacked by an angry mob.
Aetherius, as before, saves the priest's life. The priest's thankfulness
seems limited, as he is conspiring with others to kill Aetherius, a plot
which is detailed over the rest of this lengthy account and which,
fortunately for its target, fails.220

3.2.3.2 Unfree

Regarding the rights and legal positions of the unfree woman, there
is one very prominent story to be found in Gregory's Book V, chapter 3:
Gregory recounts the tale of Rauching, who in his own right seemed to
be according to Gregory most inclined to violence and depravity. 221
The story is of one of Rauching's maids, who gets married to another
serf without her master's knowledge and consent. 222 As Rauching finds
out about this, he is made to swear an oath that he would not do them
any harm by the priest who married the maid. Rauching does so, but it
is a most devious kind of oath:
At ille, cum diu ambiguus cogitatione siluisset, tandem
conversus ad sacerdotem, posuit manus suas super altarium
cum iuramento, dicens, quia: 'Numquam erunt a me separandi,
sed potius ego faciam, ut in hac coniunctione permaneant,
quia, quamquam mihi molestum fuerit, quod absque mei
consilii coniventia ista sint gesta, illud tamen libens amplectur,
quod nec hic ancillam alterius neque haec extranei servum
acceperit'.223
220 HF 6.36.
221 HF 5.03.
222 As an unfree, the woman was legally speaking Rauching's property. Any change in the value
which marriage would have meant was therefore his rightful concern.
223 Rauching remained silent for a while, not knowing quite what to think, but at last, turning
to the bishop, he placed his hand upon the altar and swore an oath. They will never be
parted by me, he said, but I shall see to it that they remain in this union, because, although
I am annoyed that this was connived at without my consent, still I am happy with the fact
that neither of them has married the slave of another master. Murray, p.78.
91

Rauching honours this oath, but in a very literal sense. Right after
leaving the church at which he has given this oath, he has his servants
cut down a tree, hollow it out and then makes his servants bury the
newlywed alive inside the tree.
Et statim iussit elidere arborem truncatamque colomnam eius
per capita cuneo scissam praecipit excavare; effossamque in
altitudine trium aut quattuor pedum humum, deponi vas iubet
in foveam. Ibique puellam ut mortuam conponens, puerum
desuper iactare praecipit, positoque operturium, fossam humo
replevit sepelivitque eos viventes, dicens, quia: 'Non frustravi
iuramentum meum, ut non separarentur hi in sempiternum'. 224

The priest, realizing his error of judgment in trusting the oath of

Rauching, comes running but only manages to save the man. The maid
has died.225 Rauching's rather horrible fate is later detailed in chapter 9
of book IX, but there is no reference to any immediate repercussions
the man had to suffer for his affront. As is detailed in Margarete
Weidemann's cultural history of the Merovingians, unfrees were indeed
regarded as property. Hence, Gregory regards Rauching's actions as
reprehensible, but rather for deceiving the priest than his taking the life
of his maid226.
In contrast to that, Gregory also describes how an unfree woman
could end up becoming free and in the process amass riches, which is
detailed in chapter 44 of Book VII. It is of rather startling content: 227
Fuit tunc temporis mulier, quae spiritum phitonis habens
multum praestabat dominis divinando questum eoque in gratia
proficit, ut, ab his libera facta, suis voluntatibus laxaretur. Si
quis enim aut furtum aut aliquid mali perferret, statim haec,
quo fur abiit, cui tradedit vel quid ex hoc fecerit, edicebat.
Congregabat cotidie aurum argentumque, procedens in
ornamentis, ita ut putaretur esse aliquid divinum in populis.
Sed cum Agerico Veridunense episcopo haec nuntiata fuissent,
224 He at once ordered a tree to be felled and limbed, the trunk split with wedges driven in to
its ends and hollowed out. He had the hollowed trunk placed in a trench dug in the ground to
a depth of three or four feet. He laid the girl out in it as if she were dead and the male slave
thrown in on top. Putting the lid in tree trunk, he filled in the trench. Murray, p.78.
225 See HF 5.3.
226 See Weidemann, pp.283-289.
227 HF 7.44.
92

misit ad conpraehendendum eam. Quam adprehensam et ad se

adductam, iuxta id quod in Actibus legimus apostolorum,
cognovit in eam inmundum spiritum esse phitonis. Denique
cum exorcismum super eam diceret ac frontem oleo sancto
perungueret, exclamavit daemonium et quid esset prodidit
sacerdoti. Sed cum per eum a puella non extruderetur, abire
permissa est. Cernens vero puella, quod in loco illo habitare
non possit, ad Fredegundem reginam abiit ibique et latuit. 228

This episode is peculiar for a few things: first, there is a woman who
allegedly possesses the power of divination and is therefore set free by
her masters to go about and make a living from this power. It could be
attributed to Gregory's sometimes terse style that he does not comment
more on this and the fact that the woman does seem to possess
supernatural powers, but it is nevertheless strange to see someone like
Gregory, who as mentioned in the introductory chapters about his life,
had no soft spot for the supernatural outside the realm of the Church,
not writing about this further. Maybe her acceptance at Fredegund's
court had something to do with Gregory's reluctance to judge her more
harshly.
The second puzzling element is the failed exorcism of the woman.
Here Gregory finds the time to point out that her divinations were in
fact against current interpretations of the Bible, but as Ageric, the
bishop of Verdun, tries to exorcise these perceived evil spirits, he is
simply said to have failed. In a startling turn of events, the bishop
simply lets the woman go who then finds refuge with Queen Fredegund.
As Gregory's Histories show, exorcisms usually ended far worse, not
unusually in death for the exorcised.
228 There was, at this time, a woman who had a spirit of divination and won great gain for her
owners by prophesying and she won such favor from them that she was set free and left to
her own devices. And if any one suffered from theft or any wrongdoing would at once tell
where the thief had gone, to whom he had given the property, or what he had done with it.
She gathered together gold and silver every day and went forth in rich clothing so that she
was thought among the people to be something divine But when this was reported to Ageric,
bishop of Verdun, he sent to arrest her. When she was arrested and brought to him he
perceived, according to that which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that there was in her
an unclean spirit of divination. And when he said a formula of exorcism over her and
anointed her forehead with holy oil, the demon cried out and revealed to the bishop what it
was. But since he could not drive it from the woman she was allowed to go. And the woman
saw that she could not dwell in the place and she went off to queen Fredegund and remained
hid. Thorpe, p. 426.
93

What we see in this episode is the fact that unfree women could, if
so decided upon, be let free by their masters, but were still targets for
other powerful people especially those who were part of the clergy.
Manumission, the act of freeing a slave, was rather rare during
Merovingian times and the church did in fact prohibit the freeing of
slaves working for the church, in order not to weaken their economic
position.229

229 See Rachel Stone, Morality and masculinity in the Carolingian empire. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge. 2011. p.185.

94

3.3 Relationships within families

Due to the nature of Gregory's subject matter, which focused mostly
on the ruling parties of the Merovingian kingdom, the relationships
detailed are often those between members of the same royal family.
The following chapter will try to shed some light on the way Gregory
looked at and described these relationships.
Were they mainly dominated by the social status of those involved,
or did the fact that they were related play any part in their interactions
with each other? How did the role of the mother determine the position
of the woman, and how far was the desire to further the family lines in
relation to furthering the well-being of the ones it concerned?
The first sub-chapter will be dealing with the relationship between
mother and child, the second with the position of the father. The
relationship through marriage has been discussed in the above chapter
on rights of married women in some detail already.

95

3.3.1 Mother and Child

Before delving into relationships between mothers and children in
Gregory's Histories, the following quote on studying the history of
parenting in the Middle Ages should be noted:
The history of parenting and childhood confronts us with a
series of questions in which notions of the natural - here
understood as the biological - and the socially constructed
must be raised to the forefront of the historian's consciousness.
We need to define childhood, to explore the relational nature of
conceptions of childhood, motherhood and father-hood. We
must acknowledge the presence of other forms of parenting,
such as pro-parenting and grandparenting, and utilise them in
our quest to define both the limits and the interplay of the
natural and the social. We must [] face the epistemological
problems which that history poses: what and how can we
know?230

So while this sub-chapter is not at all intended as a thorough look

into parenting during the time of the Merovingian Franks, it is important
to keep remembering that what we perceive as normal when it comes
to an area as intimate but also all-encompassing as parenthood, might
not have been the norm with the Merovingian Franks. Still, some of the
instances laid out below may still, even with differently applied
standards, paint a seemingly bleak picture of relationships between
mothers and their children. That this is mainly owed due to a lack of
real data about everyday life during the period of the Merovingian
Franks is laid out by Albrecht Classen:
Depending on the textual genre, we find more or less
information about children, and general, absolutist statements
about the status of children in the Middle Ages can hardly be
formulated because much depends on the cultural framework,
the historical and geographic period, the religious background,
and the philosophical orientation of the chronicler. Not
surprisingly, both the history of mentality and the history of
everyday life of the age of the Merovingians and the
Carolingians, for instance, and hence the history of childhood,
continue to be serious desiderata.231
230 See Pauline Stafford, "Review article: Parents and children in the early middle ages." in:
Early Medieval Europe 10.2 (2001): 257-271, pp.257.
231 See Albrecht Classen, Childhood in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Walter de
Gruyter: Berlin, 2005, p.28.
96

That said, the following quote by Dick Harrison shows how the role of
mother was in fact not just one of many, but probably the most
important role for a royal woman:
As has been demonstrated many times in this study, royal
motherhood was far more important than royal marriage. A
king's wife could be discarded and locked up in a convent. The
king's mother, on the other hand, was destined to remain a
powerful individual for as long as she or her royal sons were
alive, either at the royal court or (as in the case of Clovis I's
widow, Chlothild) at a residence of her own.232

As Harrison goes on, the example of Faileuba and the plot to remove
her from court, which I have described in an earlier chapter, show how
her enemies saw her position as the mother of the heir of the
Austrasian throne as too strong. And plots to remove mothers by force
from the court weren't the only pitfalls of that position. Audovera, whom
we met earlier as a wife of Chilperic, had a position at court which was
promising, but after both Fredegund and Galsvinth becoming new wives
of Chilperic, she'd lost not only her position of queen, but her children
too lost their status as rightful heirs to the throne.
Even for a queen as powerful as Brunhild, losing control over her
son, or rather the heir of her kingdom, can be a dangerous situation. In
Book VI, chapter 4, she is openly threatened by Ursio as being
powerless, now that her son, Childebert II, is being guarded by the
aristocracy until he has come of age and is able to reign by himself (it is
the year 581, six years after the murder of his father, the late King
Sigibert).233
As with most topics in his Histories, when it comes to the aristocracy
and royalty, Gregory's depiction of the bond between mother and child
is not an entirely consistent one. It can be assumed that personal
disposition played a far larger part in the relationship between child and
mother than any societal boundaries or laws dictated.
232 Harrison, Age of Abbesses and Queens, p.351.
233 See HF 6.4.
97

One of the most glaring examples of a difficult relationship is

Fredegund's und Rigunth's relationship. Rigunth, who was Fredegund's
only daughter, was supposed to be married off to Spain, and sent off
with a substantial dowry, but as word reaches her entourage that her
father has been murdered, her dowry is stolen. A furious Fredegund
manages to bring her back unharmed, which puts Rigunth back under
her mother's control.234 Rigunth's subsequent behaviour reflects her
displeasure with such an arrangement.
The animosity between mother and daughter culminates in a scene
of attempted murder by Fredegund. Rigunth, fed up with her mother
and her supposed moral superiority, ridicules her about her upbringing
and they both quarrel and fight continously. Here is Gregory's account
of what happens then:
'Quid mihi molesta es, filia? Ecce res patris tui, quae penes me
habentur, accipe et utere ut libet'. Et ingressa in registo,
reseravit arcam monilibus ornamentisque praetiosis refertam.
De qua cum diutissime res diversas extrahens filiae adstanti
porregeret, ait ad eam: 'Iam enim lassata sum; inmitte tu',
inquid, 'manum et eiece, quod inveneris'. Cumque illa, inmisso
brachio, res de arca abstraheret, adpraehenso mater operturio
arcae, super cervicem eius inlisit. Quod cum in fortitudine
praemeret atque gulam eius axis inferior ita adterreret, ut
etiam oculi ad crepandum parati essent, exclamavit una
puellarum, quae erat intrinsecus, voce magna, dicens: 'Currite,
quaeso, currite; ecce! domina mea a genetrice sua graviter
suggillatur'. Et inrumpentes cellolam, qui coram foribus eorum
praestulabantur adventum, erutam ab imminente interitu
puellam adduxerunt foris. Post ista vero inter easdem
inimicitiae vehementius pullulantes, et non de alia causa
maxime, nisi quia Rigundis adulteria sequebatur, semper cum
eisdem rixae et caedes erant.235
234 See HF 7.39.
235 Why do you annoy me so, daughter? said her mother. Here, take the things of your
father that I have in my possession and do with them as you please. She went into the
storeroom and opened a chest full of necklaces and costly jewelery. When for some time she
had taken various items from the chest and handed them to her daughter, who was standing
by, she said, I am tired now. You put in your hand and take out what you find. As Rigunth
thrust her arm in and was taking things from the chest, her mother seized hold of the lid and
slammed it down on her daughter's neck. She forced it down and the chest's lower edge
pressed against Rigunth's throat so that even her eyes were ready to burst. One of the
female servants who was in the storeroom shouted out, Please come quickly, come quickly.
My mistress is being throttled to death by her mother. Those waiting for them to come out
burst into the room, rescued the girl from imminent death, and took her outside. After this
affair the hostility between mother and daughter increased in intensity. There were continued
quarrels, and blows were exchanged between them. The main reason for the trouble was
98

There is no passage in Gregory's Histories that rivals this display of a

troubling relationship between mother and daughter or even parent and
child and there are many troubling relationships in Gregory's
Histories. The sheer enmity between Rigunth, the Visigothic bride who
wasn't236, and her mother, the queen who came from the ashes and
never managed to rid her image of it, is palpable in every sentence. It is
also
Now Gregory's account may have been as embellished as those
numerous passages mentioned earlier 237, but that there was indeed bad
blood between mother and daughter seem plausible enough. There is no
further mention of Rigunth for the remaining one Book of Gregory's
Histories, so we don't know what became of her. The fact that Gregory
downplays the trouble within the relationship of mother and daughter
by referencing alleged adulterous relationships as the cause is either a
sign of naivety or a lack of interest in the real cause. Considering
Gregory's propensity for exact analyses of situations, it is most probably
a lack of interest to rouse any sort of empathy for Fredegund in his
readers. She was, after all, Gregory's archetype of the bad queen.
As Ian Wood also points out in his essay The Secret Histories of
Gregory of Tours, Fredegund's relationship to her other children wasn't
unencumbered by a certain ambiguity:

Rigunth's fondness for adulterous relationships. Murray, p.217.

236 For an analysis of this episode and the events preceding it, mainly Rigunth's marriage that
failed to happen, see Julia Hrmann, Die Historiae Gregors von Tours als Quelle fr
Geschlechterrollen und Geschlechterbeziehung im frhen Mittelalter dargestellt am Verhltnis
der Eltern zu ihren Shnen und Tchtern in: Frauen und Geschlechter. Bilder - Rollen Realitten in den Texten antiker Autoren zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, eds. Robert
Rollinger and Christoph Ulf (Bhlau Verlag: Wien, Kln, Weimar 2006) 245-74, pp.260-61
237 Compare the chapter in this paper on the relationship between Fredegund and Brunhild.
99

She appears to her best advantage in support of her children.

Attempting to prevent them dying of plague by burning the
tax-registers, torturing the supposed killers of her son
Theuderic, helping Rigunth before and after her uncompleted
journey to Spain, protecting Chlothar after Chilperic's murder,
making offerings to ensure his survival, and ultimately having
him baptised. Yet even in her relations with her children she is
not entirely laudable; she wanted her child Samson, who had
contracted dysentry to be killed, while yet unbaptised, for fear
that she might be infected.238

Especially the episode about the death of Fredegund's son Theuderic,

recounted by Gregory in book VI, chapter 35, is a powerful display of
Fredegund's wrath and, one might argue, dedication to her son, even
though what is related as grief might simply be pure blood-lust.
After her son Theuderic has died of fever, Fredegund is convinced he
is the victim of witchcraft and poison, so she rounds up a few women of
the town and starts torturing them:
Interea adpraehensis mulieribus urbis Parisiacae tormentis
adplicat ac verberibus cogit fatere quae noverant. At ille
confitentur se maleficas esse, et multos occumbere leto se
fecisse testatae sunt, addentes illud, quod nulla ratione credi
patior: 'Filium', aiunt, 'tuum, o regina, pro Mummoli praefecti
vita donavimus'.239

Interesting in this chapter is also the fact that Gregory later on quite
openly confesses to not believing what was said about Mummolus being
the instigator of the murder of Theuderic. While he at times during the
course of the Histories expresses doubt about what is relayed to him,
this time it's actual incredulity. Whether he really did not believe that
witchcraft or sorcery were involved, or whether his remark was meant
to openly accuse the queen of justifying her torture through claims of
such, is unclear. Considering how open Gregory was to claims of
238 Wood, Secret histories, p.258.
239 Meanwhile women were arrested in the city of Paris. The queen applied torture to them,
forcing them with the beatings to confess what they knew. They admitted that they were
witches and testified that they had caused many to die, adding something I cannot believe
for any reason. 'Queen, we offered your son in exchange for Mummolus the prefect,' they
said. Murray, p.138.
100

witchcraft and how unsympathetic he was towards women accused of it,

it may well be that he decided to include this remark simply to spite the
queen.
In one episode recounted by Gregory, the mother in fact gives away
her son to the king in order to help in yet another quarrel over
succession. Gregory tells the story of Gundovald, an alleged son of
Chlothar I. His mother presents the boy to Childebert I. and offers him
to the king, as he has no son. He does take him in, but when Chlothar
hears of this, he demands from his brother to send back the boy. The
boy comes back, but the fashion of the boy's hair puts off his father,
who proclaims it's not his son after all. When Chlothar dies, Gundovald
is sent to yet another king, ordered to cut his hair as was done by
Chlothar after returning from Childebert, until he finally settles in
Constantinople.240 The actual recount of Gundovald the usurper is not
the most interesting part here, but rather the way his mother tries to
turn him into an heir of one of the kings. As we've seen above, being
the mother of a king or the heir of a king gave a woman a powerful
position, something Gundovald's mother most possibly desired. We have
no more information about Gundovald in Gregory's Histories, in fact,
there is no information about him at all anywhere besides the Histories.
Consequently, there is no more information about his mother either, so
we are at a loss to understand whether she was someone actually
intimate with the king or simply a woman who saw her chance at a
position she couldn't have achieved by any other means.
Incidentally, a reference that pertains to fathers and their children
can be found in another chapter concerned with Gundovald, who in an
off-hand remark about his marriage states the following241:
iuncxit; ibique uxorem accipiens, duos filius generavi. Qua mortua,
adsumptis mecum liberis, Constantinopolim abii.

242

240 See HF 6.24.

241 See HF 7.36.
242 There I married and became the father of two sons. When my wife died, I took my children
with me and went off to Constantinople. Murray, p.168.
101

According to Gundovald's tale, he married, fathered two sons, and

after his wife died, took his sons with him. The way this is phrased, it is
insinuated that Gundovald did not see his sons nor his wife very often.
The woman was responsible for the children and only when she died did
the husband take responsibility for his sons.
The most prominent mother-daughter relationship portrayed in
Gregory's Histories is that of Ingitrude and Berthegund. It is not exactly
clear whether they were related to the Merovingians at all, but as
Ingitrude is referenced in Gundovald's speech, from which the above
excerpt about his sons is taken, she was obviously someone who had
close connections to the court.243
The story of the two women is rife with conflict, and has been
summarized well by Dick Harrison before 244: In short, the mother,
Ingitrude, founder of a nunnery in Tours, wants to have her daughter
come and join her, by any means necessary. But Berthegund is married
and hesitant, which leads to Ingitrude employing a number of tricks to
make her daughter bow to her will. Berthegund finally caves in, but
over a series of bad decisions, scheming on her mother's part and
intervention by her brother, a bishop, finally lands at a low point as
described by herself in chapter 33 of book IX:245
'Vae mihi, quae audivi consilio matris meae iniquae. Ecce!
frater meus obiit; ecce! a viro derelicta sum, a filiis separata;
et quo ibo infilex, vel quid faciam?'246

In her quest to regain her status, she is trying to procure as much

from her father's inheritance as possible, but Ingitrude gets in her way
again. Only when her mother dies does Berthegund manage to collect
her father's inheritance, as well as her mother's, in full. In the end, she
243 See HF 6.36.
244 See Harrison, Age of Abbesses and Queens, pp.186-194.
245 See HF 9.33.
246 What a fool I have been,' she said, 'to listen to the advice of my stupid mother! Now my
brother is dead, my husband has left me and I am cut off from my children. How unhappy I
am! Where shall I go, and what shall I do? Thorpe, p.520.
102

returns to Poitiers, never to be heard of again, at least in Gregory's

Histories.

As pointed out by Harrison247, the relationship between Ingitrude and

Berthegund was mostly based on an overpowering mother and a
probable mutual propensity for greed. While Berthegund at first resists
her mother's call to join her at the nunnery, she gives in later. The
death of her brother then sparks her interest in the inheritance of her
father, turning her against her mother. The quarrel between the two
women, in the end, turned into a conflict which more resembles the
conflicts between magnates of the time than a dispute between mother
and daughter.
As for an actual connection between the mother and the daughter
based on what we would nowadays regard as a healthy relationship,
nothing of this has been noted by Gregory.
While Wemple states that it was important to be on good terms with
one's relations especially for times of need, this most probably only
pertained to children, siblings or cousins, but not necessarily to mothers
and their children. Wemple does, for example, cite Berthegund's contact
with her brother as an example for siblings helping each other out when
in need.248 In light of how her brother was maybe more interested in
helping out his mother's aim of getting Berthegund to join the convent
than to help her out escaping her husband, Wemple's argument seems
only slightly dubious.
Ingitrude first and foremost had the desire to set up a convent and
hand down the position of abbess to one of her relatives: a hereditary
convent, so to speak. As she failed to secure her daughter for this
position, she put in place a niece.249
247 See Harrison, Age of Abbesses and Queens, p.193.
248 See Wemple, p.58.
249 See HF 10.12. That, in the end, did not deter Berthegund from relieving the convent of all
its possessions after Ingitrude's death, which is an apt example of no innate love lost
between relatives during the time of the Merovingians.
103

An interesting display of power by a mother is described by Gregory in

book X, chapter 5:
Ipsi quoque Chuppa, iterum commotis quibusdam de suis,
filiam Badigysili quondam Caenomannensis episcopi diripere
sibi in matrimonio voluit. Inruens autem nocte cum coneo
sociorum in villam Maroialensi, ut voluntatem suam expleret,
praesensit eum dolumque eius Magnatrudis matrisfamilias,
genetrix scilicet puellae; egressaque cum famulis contra eum,
vi reppulit, caesis plerisque ex illis, unde non sine pudore
discessum est.250

Chuppa, a Count under the reign of the late King Chilperic, tries to
steal a girl to marry her, but his plans are thwarted by the mother of
the girl. Gregory's description, especially his claiming how it was a
discreditable affair, sounds slightly crushed, as if he hadn't minded a
different outcome but couldn't for good reason just write so.
The reason for this could lie in the fact that the mother of said girl
was Magnatrude, the widow of the late bishop Badegisel. Both bishop
and wife had been responsible for ferociously cruel attacks, thievery
and, according to Gregory, overall malicious deeds. 251 It could well be
that Gregory saw the episode of the daughter's thwarted abduction
simply as yet another instance of brutality on the part of Magnatrude,
and not a motive as honorable as one would suspect.
That a mother would also simply abandon her children seemed to
have happened as well. In Book IX, chapter 19, Gregory recounts the
murder of Sichar, an, according to Gregory, unruly and violent men no
older than twenty.252 He is killed by Chramnesind, who had been in
conflict with Sichar before, as detailed by Gregory earlier. 253

250 On another occasion this same Chuppa assembled some of his men and tried to carry off
as his bride the daughter of Badegisel, the late Bishop of Le Mans. With a band of followers
he broke into a country house at Mareil to accomplish his design, but when the girl's mother,
Dame Magnatrude, came to hear of his plans, she assembled her servants and sallied forth
against him. Several of Chuppa's men were killed. He himself escaped, but it was a pretty
discreditable affair. Thorpe, p.553.
251 HF 8.39.
252 HF 9.19.
253 HF 7.47.
104

After Chramnesind has split the head of Sichar, his servants quickly
take off and, according to Gregory, his wife does the same:
Tranquilla quoque, coniux Sichari, relictis filiis et rebus viri sui
in Toronico sive in Pectavo, ad parentes suos Mauriopes vicum
expetiit; ibique et matrimonio copulata est.254

What could have been the reason for her to desert her children and
property? Gregory gives no hint, as he doesn't seem concerned with the
outcome of this marriage, but rather with how the king deals with
Chramnesind's murder. Most probably she was afraid to suffer the same
fate of her husband and leaving the children behind might have been
the only solution. Considering that she didn't have any advantage from
having born heirs the way someone in the higher echelons of the
Merovingians might have had, her decision could have been purely
motivated by self-preservation.

254 Tranquilla, Sichar's wife, abandoned her children and her husband's property in Tours and
Poitiers, and went off to join her own relations in the village of Pont-sur-Seine. There she
married again. Thorpe, p.502.
105

3.3.2 Women and relatives

As Harrison points out, apart from husband and children, one more
aspect that allowed a woman to enjoy certain political and social
advantages was a family who could provide support. For some women
this support was not given, for example Fredegund who came from a
poor family, and was therefore needed to be gained via other means;
Others had it secured via their position.255
Keeping in touch with your relations if no other political allies were
present was essential in order to stay strong in ones position, especially
if it was one as high as that of a queen. Galsvinth and Brunhild, both
Visisgothic princesses, had to make sure to keep in touch with relatives,
as they were far away from their core family, which in any other case
would have provided safety and security.256
The two following examples of how brothers impacted the lives of
their sisters will close this chapter.
As mentioned before when detailing the relationship of Berthegund
with her mother257, she received support from her brother. While the
good nature of this support could be discussed more thoroughly,
considering he was most probably trying to make his sister subject to
the will of their mother, it can be seen as an example of one pillar of
support for women. Brothers, after their fathers the most powerful
relatives of a woman, had a crucial role in protecting their well-being
and the honour of a woman during these times. Especially for royalty,
where it was very important to uphold the honour of a woman, and
even more so if she was not yet married or supposed to hold any
position of power.258
255 See Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.353.
256 See Harrison, Abbesses and Queens, p.347.
257 See this thesis, chapter Rights.
258 How important this is becomes apparent when Fredegund is accused of being an adultress
by King Guntram. Threehundred members of the aristocracy have to swear and oath that the
father of her, Chlothar, is indeed Chilperic and not another man. See HF 8.9.
106

Another example of brothers defending the honour of a woman can

be found in Book V, chapter 17. Gregory there describes how King
Guntram killed the two sons of Magnachar, because apparently they had
made hateful remarks about his wife. Why they made hateful remarks,
Gregory does not explain in this chapter, but it becomes apparent when
looking at chapter 25 in Book IV. Gregory names the various wives of
King Guntram, one of them being Marcatrude, the daughter of said
Magnachar.259 Gregory also details in this chapter Marcatrude's fall from
grace at the court of Guntram, due to the alleged poisoning of
Guntram's son from an earlier marriage. She dies soon after being
expelled from court.
The two sons of Magnachar were thus the brothers of Marcatrude,
and the hateful remarks against King Guntram's wife were most
probably less directed towards the other queen than

against King

Guntram and his treatment of Marcatrude. His killing the two men
shows how harsh not only the reaction to such an affront was, but also
how adamant the brothers of Marcatrude must have argued on behalf of
their sister, even though she had already passed by then. What, apart
from defending their sisters honour, they could have gained from this is
not clear, as there is no reference about the role they had played in
regard to Guntram and his kingdom. It is not beyond reason to expect
that they were indeed trying to posthumously defend the honour of
their sister, especially since the reasons for her ousting were dubious.
As Murray notes, the later chronicle of Fredegar cites even more
reasons for why Marcatrude was expelled from court:
Reasons for Guntram's dismissal of Marcatrude. She was too
fat, but the excuse used to dismiss her was her mother's
misbehavior as a slut and concocter of potions.260

Even though what was written in the Fredegar chronicle may have
been very far from the actual reasons of why she was expelled, these
additions and the reasons cited by Gregory show how relatively easy it
259 See HF 4.25.
260 See Murray, p.236.
107

was to get rid of a wife, if the need arose. In such an instance, it was
the woman's relatives who were supposed to keep up hers and her
familys honour. Whether the offences of Marcatrude's brothers were
directly in relation to her ousting from the court is not discernible, but
considering that Gregory never mentioned them before, it can be
deduced that they were indeed killed for trying to restore the honour of
their sister and therefore their family.

108

4 Conclusion
In the course of this paper I have looked at the way women were
portrayed by Gregory of Tours: their relationships, their status at court,
their means of strengthening or keeping their positions of power.
Gregory of Tours and his important role as the historiographer of the
Merovingian Franks is now undisputed, but in his position as both a
member of a male dominated society and someone who had not only
intimate knowledge of the courts but also was directly affected by them,
his writings need to be viewed in that light.
A large part of this paper is devoted to the depiction of queens and
their if we want to call them so male counterparts in stereotyping.
The example for the bad queen was Fredegund, as the good queen
the obvious choice was Brunhild. To anyone familiar with the women in
Gregory's Histories, this is a logical choice, as documented especially in
Dick Harrison's monograph. The different amounts of admirations for
the queens present in Gregory's writings are glaring and obvious.
As no surprise then comes the insight from this chapter that the
differences in depicting the males and females were indeed based on
generally assumed gender stereotypes: the evil deeds of Fredegund are
almost always combined with notions of witchcraft or some sort of black
magic and shine a bad light on her character. Her male counterpart in
malevolence, King Chilperic, on the other hand, is characterized mainly
by the violent traits of a male member of the ruling class: For them,
violence to strengthen their position was a necessary evil, and did not
need witchcraft in order to be justified. Neither is their character much
blackened by their violent acts, since they are seen as part of the male
behaviour and a necessity.
The characterization of the good queen, Brunhild, as compared to
that of Fredegund, also focused on female traits, for example her fair
109

looks which Gregory found necessary to emphasize.

In contrast to these descriptions of the most powerful of the
Merovingian queens, the overall description of women in Gregory's
Histories is diverse and not generally along specific stereotypes.
In the examples I provided in the chapter Rights, the women
Gregory mentions or writes about are of diverse background, but share
the fact that they live in a society that is undoubtedly ruled by men.
Even when, as in the example of Brunhild, they can still retain power
after their dominant protector, in her case her husband, is gone, usually
women were almost always dependent on either male members of their
own family or husbands. As for the lower classes of society, women did
not easily gain power and as the example of Rauching and his maid
shows, life was fraught with seemingly random violence towards unfree
women.
By looking at the rights bestowed upon women through heritage or
status, some of my examples showed how marriage could be a stepping
stone to greater power, as for Fredegund, as well as a step towards
doom, as for Galsvinth or Marcatrude.
As was marriage, bearing children was also a crucial factor in
determining whether women could gain or retain power. Especially in
these questions of power and heritage, Gregory's depictions show little
regard for relationships between mothers and their children in the way
we would expect from our modern standpoint.
Also as the final chapter shows, relatives such as brothers held the
role to uphold not only a woman's position of power and status, but also
to retain the family's honour by avenging her death, maltreatments or,
as one of the presented examples showed, even her part in an illicit
relationship.

110

The examples in this thesis show that Gregory of Tours' descriptions

of women, and his omission of otherwise expected depictions, were
influenced by his own status as a cleric, his position at court and by
stereotypes prevalent in his time.

111

112

Bibliography
Sources

Die Chronik Fredegars und der Frankenknige, die

Lebensbeschreibungen des Abts Columban, der Bischfe Arnulf
und Leodegar, der Knigin Balthilde. Otto Abel, Trans. In
Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit. VII. Jahrhundert. Vol 2.
Dyksche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, 1888. (digital)

Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Ed. L. Thorpe.

Penguin Books: London, 1974.

Krusch, Bruno, ed. Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica: Vitae

sanctorum. In MGH: SRM 2. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani:
Hannover, 1888. (digital)

Krusch, Bruno, ed. Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Historiarum.

MGH: SRM 1. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani: Hannover, 1951.
(digital)

Kurze Friedrich, ed. Reginonis Abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon.

MGH: SRG. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani: Hannover, 1890.
(digital)

Saint Gregory (Bishop of Tours). The Merovingians. Ed. Alexander

C. Murray. Broadview Press: Peterboro, Ontario, 2006.

Literature

Bateson, Mary. "Origin and early history of double monasteries"

in: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 13.1 (1899): 137198.

Bitel, Lisa. Gender in History in: Women and gender in medieval

Europe: an encyclopedia Vol. 14., ed. Margret Schaus,
(Routledge: New York 2006): 313-314.

Brown, Peter. Gregory of Tours: Introduction in: The World of

Gregory of Tours, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and
Early Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Brill:
Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2002): 1-28.

113

Classen, Albrecht. Childhood in the Middle Ages and the

Renaissance. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2005.

Eckenstein, Lina. Woman under monasticism. Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge, 1972.

Fouracre, Paul. "The nature of Frankish political institutions in the

seventh century" in: Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian
Period. An Ethnographic Perspective ed. Ian N. Wood (Boydell
Press: Woodbridge 1998): 285-301.

Fouracre, Paul. "Attitudes towards violence in seventh- and

eighth-century Francia in: Violence and society in the early
medieval west ed. Guy Halsall (Boydell Press: Woodbridge 1998):
60-75.

Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany. The Creation and

Transformation of the Merovingian World. Oxford University
Press: New York, Oxford, 1988.

Goffart, Walter A. The narrators of barbarian history (AD 550800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon.
Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1988.

Halsall, Guy. Settlement and social organization: the Merovingian

region of Metz. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002.

Halsall, Guy. "Nero and Herod? The death of Chilperic and

Gregorys writing of history" in: The World of Gregory of Tours,
Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and Early Modern
Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Leiden, Boston,
Cologne 2002): 337-50.

Harrison, Dick. The age of abbesses and queens: gender and

political culture in early medieval Europe. Nordic Academic Press:
Lund, 1998.

Heinzelmann, Martin. Gregory of Tours: history and society in the

sixth century. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001.

Hrmann, Julia. Die Historiae Gregors von Tours als Quelle fr

Geschlechterrollen und Geschlechterbeziehung im frhen
Mittelalter dargestellt am Verhltnis der Eltern zu ihren Shnen
und Tchtern in: Frauen und Geschlechter. Bilder - Rollen Realitten in den Texten antiker Autoren zwischen Antike und
Mittelalter eds. Robert Rollinger and Christoph Ulf (Bhlau Verlag:
Wien, Kln, Weimar 2006): 245-74.
114

Kaiser, Reinhold. Das rmische Erbe und das Merowingerreich.

Vol. 26. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag: Oldenbourg, 1993.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. "The history of marriage and the myth of

Friedelehe" in: Early Medieval Europe 14.2 (2006): 119-151.

MacNamara, Jo-Ann, and Suzanne F. Wemple. "Marriage and

divorce in the Frankish kingdom" in: Women in Medieval Society
(University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia 1976): 95-124.

MacNamara, Jo-Ann. "Chastity as a Third Gender in the History

and Hagiography of Gregory of Tours in: The World of Gregory of
Tours, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval and Early Modern
Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Brill: Leiden,
Boston, Cologne 2002): 199-209.

Merta, Brigitte. Darstellung von Frauen des merowingischen

Hauses in frhmittelalterlichen Quellen. Vienna, 1985.

Murray, Jacqueline. "One Flesh, Two Sexes, Three Genders?" in:

Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe: New Perspectives
(University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia 2008): 34-51.

Pohl, Walter. Die Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk im Mitteleuropa, 567822 n. Chr. CH Beck: Munich, 2002.

Pohl, Walter. Gender and ethnicity in the early middle ages, in:
From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, ed. Thomas F.X.
Noble (Routledge: New York 2006): 168-88.

Reimitz, Helmut. Geschlechterrollen und Genealogie in der

frnkischen Historiographie in: Frauenbild und Geschlechterrollen
bei antiken Autoren an der Wende von der Sptantike zum
Mittelalter, ed. Christoph Ulf and Robert Rollinger (Studienverlag:
Innsbruck 2006): 335-354.

Reimitz, Helmut. Social networks and identities in Frankish

historiography. New aspects of the textual history of Gregory of
ToursHistoriae in: The Construction of Communities in the Early
Middle Ages Texts, Resources and Artifacts, eds. Richard
Corradini, Max Diesenberger, Helmut Reimitz (Leiden: Boston
2002): 229-268.

115

Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. Forgetful of their sex: female sanctity

and society, ca. 500-1100. University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
2001.

Stafford, Pauline. "Review article: Parents and children in the

early middle ages" in: Early Medieval Europe 10.2 (2001): 257271.

Stone, Rachel. Morality and masculinity in the Carolingian empire.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2011.

Stuard, Susan Mosher. Women in medieval history &

historiography. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia,
1987.

Weidemann, Margarete. Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach

den Werken Gregors von Tours. Verlag des RmischGermanischen Zentralmuseums: Bonn, 1982.

Wemple, Suzanne F. Women in Frankish Society. University of

Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1981.

White, Cynthia. The Emergence of Christianity: Classical

Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. Fortress Press:
Philadelphia, 2010.

Wickham, Chris. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the
Mediterranean 400-800. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005.

Wood, Ian N. "Gregory of Tours and Clovis." Revue belge de

philologie et d'histoire 63.2 (1985): 249-272.

Wood, Ian N. "The secret histories of Gregory of Tours" in: Revue

belge de philologie et d'histoire 71.2 (1993): 253-270.

Wood, Ian N. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751. Longman:

London, New York, 1994.

Wood, Ian N. "Fredegars Fables in: Historiographie im frhen

Mittelalter, eds. Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter
(Oldenbourg: Vienna, Munich 1994): 359-366.

Wood, Ian N. "The individuality of Gregory of Tours" in: The World

of Gregory of Tours, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions. Medieval
and Early Modern Peoples, eds. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood
(Brill: Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2002): 29-46.
116

Images used

Image 1: Krusch, Bruno, ed. Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis

Historiarum. MGH: SRM 1. Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani:
Hannover, 1951, p. 254.

Abbreviations
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
SRM Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum
SRG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum
HF Historiae Francorum
CF Chronicle of Fredegar

117

118

Abstract
Gregor von Tours, Bischof und Chronist, gilt mit seinen Decem Libri
als die wichtigste narrative Quelle fr die Zeit der merowingischen
Franken. Ursprnglich als Weltchronik konzipiert, sind v.a. die letzten
fnf

Bcher

jene

Quelle,

die

am

meisten

Aufschluss

ber

die

merowingischen Franken geben.

Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit Gregors Wahrnehmung von Frauen und
der Art und Weise, welchen Einfluss diese Wahrnehmung auf seine
Darstellungen von Frauen in den Historien haben knnte.
Durch seine Nhe zum kniglichen Hof hatte Gregor von Tours
Einsicht in die Machenschaften der herrschenden Schicht, daher nehmen
in seinen Historien vor allem Kniginnen und Vertreterinnen der
aristokratischen Stnde einen greren Raum ein.
Durch die Anekdoten Gregors, welche durch sein Auge fr Details
und seine Erzhlkunst als seine Strke gelten, ist es aber auch mglich,
teilweise Nheres ber den Status der Frauen in niederen Schichten zu
erfahren. So sind in dieser Arbeit Beispiele nicht nur der groen
Kniginnen wie Brunhild und Fredegund zu finden, sondern auch jene,
die das Los unfreier Frauen exemplifizieren sollen.
Gerade auch die Position von Frauen, welche entweder durch
Scheidung oder Verwitwung auf sich selbst gestellt waren, wird in dieser
Arbeit

untersucht.

Dabei

wird

der

Frage

nachgegangen,

welche

Mglichkeiten sich auch fr diese Frauen geboten hatten, weiterhin ihre

bisherigen Machtpositionen erhalten zu knnen. Augenmerk wird dabei
auch darauf gerichtet, wie Gregor diese Anstrengungen bewertet,
beziehungsweise, ob berhaupt Wertungen vorgenommen werden.
Schlielich werden auch die Beziehungen von Frauen mit ihren
Familienmitgliedern betrachtet, und welche Position Gregor gerade in
Hinsicht auf ein heutiges Verstndnis solcher Beziehungen bezieht.

119

120

Lebenslauf
PERSNLICHE DATEN
=====================================================================================================================================================================================

Name:
Geburstdatum:
Geburtsort:
Staatsbrgerschaft:

Richard Hemmer
14.08.1980
Graz
sterreich

AUSBILDUNG
=====================================================================================================================================================================================

2013

Abschluss Diplomstudium Geschichte

seit 2003

Studium der Japanologie

seit 2001

Studium der Geschichte und Anglistik

1999

Matura Bundesgymnasium Blumenstrae, Bregenz

1996-1997

Auslandsjahr Shawnee Mission NW High School, Kansas

121