A Source Book of Mediæval History
by unknown · English · Gutenberg #39227 · 1,173,768 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Source Book of Mediæval History
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A Source Book of Mediæval History
Editor: Frederic Austin Ogg
Release date: March 21, 2012 [eBook #39227]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39227
Credits: E-text prepared by Melissa McDaniel and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIÆVAL HISTORY ***
E-text prepared by Melissa McDaniel and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://www.archive.org/details/sourcebookofmedi00oggfuoft
Transcriber's note:
Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original
document have been preserved. Obvious typographical errors
have been corrected.
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIAEVAL HISTORY
Documents Illustrative of European Life and Institutions
from the German Invasions to the Renaissance
Edited by
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, A.M.
Assistant in History in Harvard University
and Instructor in Simmons College
[Illustration]
New York .:. Cincinnati .:. Chicago
American Book Company
Copyright, 1907, by
Frederic Austin Ogg
Entered at Stationers' Hall, London
W. P. 4
PREFACE
This book has been prepared in consequence of a conviction, derived
from some years of teaching experience, (1) that sources, of proper
kind and in carefully regulated amount, can profitably be made use of
by teachers and students of history in elementary college classes, in
academies and preparatory schools, and in the more advanced years of
the average high school, and (2) that for mediaeval history there
exists no published collection which is clearly adapted to practical
conditions of work in such classes and schools.
It has seemed to me that a source book designed to meet the
requirements of teachers and classes in the better grade of secondary
schools, and perhaps in the freshman year of college work, ought to
comprise certain distinctive features, first, with respect to the
character of the selections presented, and, secondly, in regard to
general arrangement and accompanying explanatory matter. In the
choice of extracts I have sought to be guided by the following
considerations: (1) that in all cases the materials presented should
be of real value, either for the historical information contained in
them or for the more or less indirect light they throw upon mediaeval
life or conditions; (2) that, for the sake of younger students, a
relatively large proportion of narrative (annals, chronicles, and
biography) be introduced and the purely documentary material be
slightly subordinated; (3) that, despite this principle, documents of
vital importance, such as _Magna Charta_ and _Unam Sanctam_, which
cannot be ignored in even the most hasty or elementary study, be
presented with some fulness; and (4) that, in general, the rule should
be to give longer passages from fewer sources, rather than more
fragmentary ones from a wider range.
With respect to the manner of presenting the selections, I have
sought: (1) to offer careful translations--some made afresh from the
printed originals, others adapted from good translations already
available--but with as much simplification and modernization of
language as close adherence to the sense will permit. Literal, or
nearly literal, translations are obviously desirable for maturer
students, but, because of the involved character of mediaeval writings,
are rarely readable, and are as a rule positively repellent to the
young mind; (2) to provide each selection, or group of selections,
with an introductory explanation, containing the historical setting of
the extract, with perhaps some comment on its general significance,
and also a brief sketch of the writer, particularly when he is an
authority of exceptional importance, as Einhard, Joinville, or
Froissart; and (3) to supply, in foot-notes, somewhat detailed aid to
the understanding of obscure allusions, omitted passages, and
especially place names and technical terms.
For permission to reprint various translations, occasionally verbatim
but usually in adapted form, I am under obligation to the following:
Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin and Co., publishers of Miss Henry's
translation of Dante's _De Monarchia_; Messrs. Henry Holt and Co.,
publishers of Lee's _Source Book of English History_; Messrs. Ginn and
Co., publishers of Robinson's _Readings in European History_; Messrs.
Charles Scribner's Sons, publishers of Thatcher and McNeal's _Source
Book for Mediaeval History_; Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons, publishers of
Robinson and Rolfe's _Petrarch_; and Professor W. E. Lingelbach, of
the University of Pennsylvania, representing the University of
Pennsylvania _Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of
European History_.
In the preparation of the book I have received invaluable assistance
from numerous persons, among whom the following, at least, should be
named: Professor Samuel B. Harding, of the University of Indiana, who
read the entire work in manuscript and has followed its progress from
the first with discerning criticism; Professor Charles H. Haskins, of
Harvard University, who has read most of the proof-sheets, and whose
scholarship and intimate acquaintance with the problems of history
teaching have contributed a larger proportion of whatever merits the
book possesses than I dare attempt to reckon up; and Professors
Charles Gross and Ephraim Emerton, likewise of Harvard, whose
instruction and counsel have helped me over many hard places.
The final word must be reserved for my wife, who, as careful
amanuensis, has shared the burden of a not altogether easy task.
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
INTRODUCTION
THE NATURE AND USE OF HISTORICAL SOURCES
[Sidenote: The question of authority in a book of history]
If one proposes to write a history of the times of Abraham Lincoln,
how shall one begin, and how proceed? Obviously, the first thing
needed is information, and as much of it as can be had. But how shall
information, accurate and trustworthy, be obtained? Of course there
are plenty of books on Lincoln, and histories enough covering the
period of his career to fill shelf upon shelf. It would be quite
possible to spread some dozens of these before one's self and, drawing
simply from them, work out a history that would read well and perhaps
have a wide sale. And such a book might conceivably be worth while.
But if you were reading it, and were a bit disposed to query into the
accuracy of the statements made, you would probably find yourself
wondering before long just where the writer got his authority for this
or that assertion; and if, in foot-note or appendix, he should seem to
satisfy your curiosity by citing some other biography or history, you
would be quite justified in feeling that, after all, your inquiry
remained unanswered,--for whence did this second writer get _his_
authority? If you were thus persistent you would probably get hold of
the volume referred to and verify, as we say, the statements of fact
or opinion attributed to it. When you came upon them you might find it
there stated that the point in question is clearly established from
certain of Lincoln's own letters or speeches, which are thereupon
cited, and perhaps quoted in part. At last you would be satisfied that
the thing must very probably be true, for there you would have the
words of Lincoln himself upon it; or, on the other hand, you might
discover that your first writer had merely adopted an opinion of
somebody else which did not have behind it the warrant of any
first-hand authority. In either case you might well wonder why,
instead of using and referring only to books of other later authors
like himself, he did not go directly to Lincoln's own works, get his
facts from them, and give authority for his statements at first hand.
And if you pushed the matter farther it would very soon occur to you
that there are some books on Lincoln and his period which are not
carefully written, and therefore not trustworthy, and that your author
may very well have used some of these, falling blindly into their
errors and at times wholly escaping the correct interpretation of
things which could be had, in incontrovertible form, from Lincoln's
own pen, or from the testimony of his contemporaries. In other words,
you would begin to distrust him because he had failed to go to the
"sources" for his materials, or at least for a verification of them.
[Sidenote: The superiority of direct sources of knowledge]
How, then, shall one proceed in the writing of history in order to
make sure of the indispensable quality of accuracy? Clearly, the first
thing to be borne in mind is the necessity of getting information
through channels which are as direct and immediate as possible. Just
as in ascertaining the facts regarding an event of to-day it would be
desirable to get the testimony of an eye-witness rather than an
account after it had passed from one person to another, suffering more
or less distortion at every step, so, in seeking a trustworthy
description of the battle of Salamis or of the personal habits of
Charlemagne, the proper course would be to lay hold first of all of
whatever evidence concerning these things has come down from Xerxes's
or Charlemagne's day to our own, and to put larger trust in this than
in more recent accounts which have been played upon by the imagination
of their authors and perhaps rendered wholly misleading by errors
consciously or unconsciously injected into them. The writer of history
must completely divest himself of the notion that a thing is true
simply because he finds it in print. He may, and should, read and
consider well what others like himself have written upon his subject,
but he should be wary of accepting what he finds in such books without
himself going to the materials to which these writers have resorted
and ascertaining whether they have been used with patience and
discrimination. If his subject is Lincoln, he should, for example,
make sure above everything else, of reading exhaustively the letters,
speeches, and state papers which have been preserved, in print or in
manuscript, from Lincoln's pen. Similarly, he should examine with care
all letters and communications of every kind transmitted to Lincoln.
Then he should familiarize himself with the writings of the leading
men of Lincoln's day, whether in the form of letters, diaries,
newspaper and magazine articles, or books. The files, indeed, of all
the principal periodicals of the time should be gone through in quest
of information or suggestions not to be found in other places. And, of
course, the vast mass of public and official records would be
invaluable--the journals of the two houses of Congress, the
dispatches, orders, and accounts of the great executive departments,
the arguments before the courts, with the resulting decisions, and the
all but numberless other papers which throw light upon the practical
conditions and achievements of the governing powers, national, state,
and local. However much one may be able to acquire from the reading of
later biographies and histories, he ought not to set about the writing
of a new book of the sort unless he is willing to toil patiently
through all these first-hand, contemporary materials and get some
warrant from them, as being nearest the events themselves, for
everything of importance that he proposes to say. This rule is equally
applicable and urgent whatever the subject in hand--whether the age of
Pericles, the Roman Empire, the Norman conquest of England, the French
Revolution, or the administrations of George Washington--though,
obviously, the character and amount of the contemporary materials of
which one can avail himself varies enormously from people to people
and from period to period.
[Sidenote: Indirect character of all historical knowledge]
History is unlike many other subjects of study in that our knowledge
of it, at best, must come to us almost wholly through indirect means.
That is to say, all our information regarding the past, and most of it
regarding our own day, has to be obtained, in one form or another,
through other people, or the remains that they have left behind them.
No one of us can know much about even so recent an event as the
Spanish-American War, except by reading newspapers, magazines and
books, talking with men who had part in it, or listening to public
addresses concerning it--all indirect means. And, of course, when we
go back of the memory of men now living, say to the American
Revolution, nobody can lay claim to an iota of knowledge which he has
not acquired through indirect channels. In physics or chemistry, if a
student desires, he can reproduce in the laboratory practically any
phenomenon which he finds described in his books; he need not accept
the mere word of his text or of his teacher, but can actually behold
the thing with his own eyes. Such experimentation, however, has no
place in the study of history, for by no sort of art can a Roman
legion or a German comitatus or the battle of Hastings be reproduced
before mortal eye.
[Sidenote: An "historical source" defined]
[Sidenote: Written sources]
For our knowledge of history we are therefore obliged to rely
absolutely upon human testimony, in one form or another, the value of
such testimony depending principally upon the directness with which it
comes to us from the men and the times under consideration. If it
reaches us with reasonable directness, and represents a well
authenticated means of studying the period in question from the
writings or other traces left by that period, it is properly to be
included in the great body of materials which we have come to call
historical sources. An historical source may be defined as any product
of human activity or existence that can be used as direct evidence in
the study of man's past life and institutions. A moment's thought will
suggest that there are "sources" of numerous and widely differing
kinds. Roughly speaking, at least, they fall into two great groups:
(1) those in writing and (2) those in some form other than writing.
The first group is by far the larger and more important. Foremost in
it stand annals, chronicles, and histories, written from time to time
all along the line of human history, on the cuneiform tablets of the
Assyrians or the parchment rolls of the mediaeval monks, in the
polished Latin of a Livy or the sprightly French of a Froissart. Works
of pure literature also--epics, lyrics, dramas, essays--because of the
light that they often throw upon the times in which they were written,
possess a large value of the same general character. Of nearly equal
importance is the great class of materials which may be called
documentary--laws, charters, formulae, accounts, treaties, and official
orders or instructions. These last are obviously of largest value in
the study of social customs, land tenures, systems of government, the
workings of courts, ecclesiastical organizations, and political
agencies--in other words, of _institutions_--just as chronicles and
histories are of greatest service in unraveling the _narrative_ side
of human affairs.
[Sidenote: Sources other than in writing]
Of sources which are not in the form of writing, the most important
are: (1) implements of warfare, agriculture, household economy, and
the chase, large quantities of which have been brought to light in
various parts of the world, and which bear witness to the manner of
life prevailing among the peoples who produced and used them; (2)
coins, hoarded up in treasuries or buried in tombs or ruins of one
sort or another, frequently preserving likenesses of important
sovereigns, with dates and other materials of use especially in fixing
chronology; (3) works of art, surviving intact or with losses or
changes inflicted by the ravages of weather and human abuse--the tombs
of the Egyptians, the sculpture of the Greeks, the architecture of the
Middle Ages, or the paintings of the Renaissance; (4) other
constructions of a more practical character, particularly
dwelling-houses, roads, bridges, aqueducts, walls, gates, fortresses,
and ships,--some well preserved and surviving as they were first
fashioned, others in ruins, and still others built over and more or
less obscured by modern improvement or adaptation.
[Sidenote: Various ways of using sources]
These are some of the things to which the writer of history must go
for his facts and for his inspiration, and it is to these that the
student, whose business is to learn and not to write, ought
occasionally to resort to enliven and supplement what he finds in the
books. As there are many kinds of sources, so there are many ways in
which such materials may be utilized. If, for example, you are
studying the life of the Greeks and in that connection pay a visit to
a museum of fine arts and scrutinize Greek statuary, Greek vases, and
Greek coins, you are very clearly using sources. If your subject is
the church life of the later Middle Ages and you journey to Rheims or
Amiens or Paris to contemplate the splendid cathedrals in these
cities, with their spires and arches and ornamentation, you are, in
every proper sense, using sources. You are doing the same thing if you
make an observation trip to the Egyptian pyramids, or to the excavated
Roman forum, or if you traverse the line of old Watling Street--nay,
if you but visit Faneuil Hall, or tramp over the battlefield of
Gettysburg. Many of these more purely "material" sources can be made
use of only after long and sometimes arduous journeys, or through the
valuable, but somewhat less satisfactory, medium of pictures and
descriptions. Happily, however, the art of printing and the practice
of accumulating enormous libraries have made possible the indefinite
duplication of _written_ sources, and consequently the use of them at
almost any time and in almost any place. There is but one Sphinx, one
Parthenon, one Sistine Chapel; there are not many Roman roads, feudal
castles, or Gothic cathedrals; but scarcely a library in any civilized
country is without a considerable number of the monumental _documents_
of human history--the funeral oration of Pericles, the laws of
Tiberius Gracchus, Magna Charta, the theses of Luther, the Bill of
Rights, the Constitution of the United States--not to mention the all
but limitless masses of histories, biographies, poems, letters,
essays, memoirs, legal codes, and official records of every variety
which are available for any one who seriously desires to make use of
them.
[Sidenote: The value of sources to the student]
But why should the younger student trouble himself, or be troubled,
with any of these things? Might he not get all the history he can be
expected to know from books written by scholars who have given their
lives to exploring, organizing, and sifting just such sources? There
can be no question that schools and colleges to-day have the use of
better text-books in history than have ever before been available, and
that truer notions of the subject in its various relations can be had
from even the most narrow devotion to these texts than could be had
from the study of their predecessors a generation ago. If the object
of studying history were solely to acquire facts, it would, generally
speaking, be a waste of time for high school or younger college
students to wander far from text-books. But, assuming that history is
studied not alone for the mastery of facts but also for the broadening
of culture, and for certain kinds of mental training, the properly
regulated use of sources by the student himself is to be justified on
at least three grounds: (1) Sources help to an understanding of the
point of view of the men, and the spirit of the age under
consideration. The ability to dissociate one's self from his own
surroundings and habits of thinking and to put himself in the company
of Caesar, of Frederick Barbarossa, or of Innocent III., as the
occasion may require, is the hardest, but perhaps the most valuable,
thing that the student of history can hope to get. (2) Sources add
appreciably to the vividness and reality of history. However
well-written the modern description of Charlemagne, for example, the
student ought to find a somewhat different flavor in the account by
the great Emperor's own friend and secretary, Einhard; and, similarly,
Matthew Paris's picture of the raving and fuming of Frederick II. at
his excommunication by Pope Gregory ought to bring the reader into a
somewhat more intimate appreciation of the character of the proud
German-Sicilian emperor. (3) The use of sources, in connection with
the reading of secondary works, may be expected to train the student,
to some extent at least, in methods of testing the accuracy of modern
writers, especially when the subject in hand is one that lends itself
to a variety of interpretations. In the sources the makers of history,
or those who stood close to them, are allowed to speak for themselves,
or for their times, and the study of such materials not only helps
plant in the student's mind the conception of fairness and
impartiality in judging historical characters, but also cultivates the
habit of tracing things back to their origins and verifying what
others have asserted about them. So far as practicable the student of
history, from the age of fourteen and onwards, should be encouraged to
develop the critical or judicial temperament along with the purely
acquisitive.
[Sidenote: Simplicity of many mediaeval sources]
In preparing a source book, such as the present one, the purpose is to
further the study of the most profitable sources by removing some of
the greater difficulties, particularly those of accessibility and
language. Clearly impracticable as anything like historical "research"
undoubtedly is for younger students, it is none the less believed that
there are abundant first-hand materials in the range of history which
such students will not only find profitable but actually enjoy, and
that any acquaintance with these things that may be acquired in
earlier studies will be of inestimable advantage subsequently. It is
furthermore believed, contrary to the assertions that one sometimes
hears, that the history of the Middle Ages lends itself to this sort
of treatment with scarcely, if any, less facility than that of other
periods. Certainly Gregory's Clovis, Asser's Alfred, Einhard's
Charlemagne, and Joinville's St. Louis are living personalities, no
less vividly portrayed than the heroes of a boy's storybook. Tacitus's
description of the early Germans, Ammianus's account of the crossing
of the Danube by the Visigoths and his pictures of the Huns, Bede's
narrative of the Saxon invasion of Britain, the affectionate letter
Stephen of Blois to his wife and children, the portrayal of the
sweet-spirited St. Francis by the Three Companions, and Froissart's
free and easy sketch of the battle of Crecy are all interesting,
easily comprehended, and even adapted to whet the appetite for a
larger acquaintance with these various people and events. Even solid
documents, like the Salic law, the Benedictine Rule, the Peace of
Constance, and the Golden Bull, if not in themselves exactly
attractive, may be made to have a certain interest for the younger
student when he realizes that to know mediaeval history at all he is
under the imperative necessity of getting much of the framework of
things either from such materials or from text-books which essentially
reproduce them. It is hoped that at least a reasonable proportion of
the selections herewith presented may serve in some measure to
overcome for the student the remote and intangible character which the
Middle Ages have much too commonly, though perhaps not unnaturally,
been felt to possess.
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
CHAPTER I.--THE EARLY GERMANS
1. A Sketch by Caesar 19
2. A Description by Tacitus 23
CHAPTER II.--THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION
3. The Visigoths Cross the Danube (376) 32
4. The Battle of Adrianople (378) 37
CHAPTER III.--THE HUNS
5. Description by a Graeco-Roman Poet and a Roman Historian 42
CHAPTER IV.--THE EARLY FRANKS
6. The Deeds of Clovis as Related by Gregory of Tours 47
7. The Law of the Salian Franks 59
CHAPTER V.--THE ANGLES AND SAXONS IN BRITAIN
8. The Saxon Invasion (cir. 449) 68
9. The Mission of Augustine (597) 72
CHAPTER VI.--THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
10. Pope Leo's Sermon on the Petrine Supremacy 78
11. The Rule of St. Benedict 83
12. Gregory the Great on the Life of the Pastor 90
CHAPTER VII.--THE RISE OF MOHAMMEDANISM
13. Selections from the Koran 97
CHAPTER VIII.--THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CAROLINGIAN DYNASTY OF
FRANKISH KINGS
14. Pepin the Short Takes the Title of King (751) 105
CHAPTER IX.--THE AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE
15. Charlemagne the Man 108
16. The War with the Saxons (772-803) 114
17. The Capitulary Concerning the Saxon Territory (cir. 780) 118
18. The Capitulary Concerning the Royal Domains (cir. 800) 124
19. An Inventory of one of Charlemagne's Estates 127
20. Charlemagne Crowned Emperor (800) 130
21. The General Capitulary for the _Missi_ (802) 134
22. A Letter of Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad 141
23. The Carolingian Revival of Learning 144
CHAPTER X.--THE ERA OF THE LATER CAROLINGIANS
24. The Oaths of Strassburg (842) 149
25. The Treaty of Verdun (843) 154
26. A Chronicle of the Frankish Kingdom in the Ninth Century 157
27. The Northmen in the Country of the Franks 163
28. Later Carolingian Efforts to Preserve Order 173
29. The Election of Hugh Capet (987) 177
CHAPTER XI.--ALFRED THE GREAT IN WAR AND IN PEACE
30. The Danes in England 181
31. Alfred's Interest in Education 185
32. Alfred's Laws 194
CHAPTER XII.--THE ORDEAL
33. Tests by Hot Water, Cold Water, and Fire 196
CHAPTER XIII.--THE FEUDAL SYSTEM
34. Older Institutions Involving Elements of Feudalism 203
35. The Granting of Fiefs 214
36. The Ceremonies of Homage and Fealty 216
37. The Mutual Obligations of Lords and Vassals 220
38. Some of the More Important Rights of the Lord 221
39. The Peace and the Truce of God 228
CHAPTER XIV.--THE NORMAN CONQUEST
40. The Battle of Hastings: the English and the Normans 233
41. William the Conqueror as Man and as King 241
CHAPTER XV.--THE MONASTIC REFORMATION OF THE TENTH, ELEVENTH,
AND TWELFTH CENTURIES
42. The Foundation Charter of the Monastery of Cluny (910) 245
43. The Early Career of St. Bernard and the Founding of
Clairvaux 250
44. A Description of Clairvaux 258
CHAPTER XVI.--THE CONFLICT OVER INVESTITURE
45. Gregory VII.'s Conception of the Papal Authority 261
46. Letter of Gregory VII. to Henry IV. (1075) 264
47. Henry IV.'s Reply to Gregory's Letter (1076) 269
48. Henry IV. Deposed by Gregory (1076) 272
49. The Penance of Henry IV. at Canossa (1077) 273
50. The Concordat of Worms (1122) 278
CHAPTER XVII.--THE CRUSADES
51. Speech of Pope Urban II. at the Council of Clermont
(1095) 282
52. The Starting of the Crusaders (1096) 288
53. A Letter from a Crusader to his Wife 291
CHAPTER XVIII.--THE GREAT CHARTER
54. The Winning of the Great Charter 297
55. Extracts from the Charter 303
CHAPTER XIX.--THE REIGN OF SAINT LOUIS
56. The Character and Deeds of the King as Described by
Joinville 311
CHAPTER XX.--MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITY
57. Some Twelfth Century Town Charters 325
58. The Colonization of Eastern Germany 330
59. The League of Rhenish Cities (1254) 334
CHAPTER XXI.--UNIVERSITIES AND STUDENT LIFE
60. Privileges Granted to Students and Masters 340
61. The Foundation of the University of Heidelberg (1386) 345
62. Mediaeval Students' Songs 351
CHAPTER XXII.--THE FRIARS
63. The Life of St. Francis 362
64. The Rule of St. Francis 373
65. The Will of St. Francis 376
CHAPTER XXIII.--THE PAPACY AND THE TEMPORAL POWERS IN THE
LATER MIDDLE AGES
66. The Interdict Laid on France by Innocent III. (1200) 380
67. The Bull "Unam Sanctam" of Boniface VIII. (1302) 383
68. The Great Schism and the Councils of Pisa and Constance 389
69. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) 393
CHAPTER XXIV.--THE EMPIRE IN THE TWELFTH, THIRTEENTH, AND
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
70. The Peace of Constance (1183) 398
71. Current Rumors Concerning the Life and Character of
Frederick II. 402
72. The Golden Bull of Charles IV. (1356) 409
CHAPTER XXV.--THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR
73. An Occasion of War between the Kings of England and France 418
74. Edward III. Assumes the Arms and Title of the King of
France 421
75. The Naval Battle of Sluys (1340) 424
76. The Battle of Crecy (1346) 427
77. The Sack of Limoges (1370) 436
78. The Treaties of Bretigny (1360) and Troyes (1420) 439
CHAPTER XXVI.--THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE
79. Dante's Defense of Italian as a Literary Language 445
80. Dante's Conception of the Imperial Power 452
81. Petrarch's Love of the Classics 462
82. Petrarch's Letter to Posterity 469
CHAPTER XXVII.--FORESHADOWINGS OF THE REFORMATION
83. The Reply of Wyclif to the Summons of Pope Urban VI.
(1384) 474
A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIAEVAL HISTORY
CHAPTER I.
THE EARLY GERMANS
1. A Sketch by Caesar
One of the most important steps in the expansion of the Roman Republic
was the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar just before the middle of the
first century B.C. Through this conquest Rome entered deliberately
upon the policy of extending her dominion northward from the
Mediterranean and the Alps into the regions of western and central
Europe known to us to-day as France and Germany. By their wars in this
direction the Romans were brought into contact with peoples concerning
whose manner of life they had hitherto known very little. There were
two great groups of these peoples--the Gauls and the Germans--each
divided and subdivided into numerous tribes and clans. In general it
may be said that the Gauls occupied what we now call France and the
Germans what we know as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, and
Austria. The Rhine marked a pretty clear boundary between them.
During the years 58-50 B.C., Julius Caesar, who had risen to the
proconsulship through a long series of offices and honors at Rome,
served the state as leader of five distinct military expeditions in
this country of the northern barbarians. The primary object of these
campaigns was to establish order among the turbulent tribes of Gauls
and to prepare the way for the extension of Roman rule over them. This
great task was performed very successfully, but in accomplishing it
Caesar found it necessary to go somewhat farther than had at first been
intended. In the years 55 and 54 B.C., he made two expeditions to
Britain to punish the natives for giving aid to their Celtic kinsfolk
in Gaul, and in 55 and 53 he crossed the Rhine to compel the Germans
to remain on their own side of the river and to cease troubling the
Gauls by raids and invasions, as they had recently been doing. When
(about 51 B.C.) he came to write his _Commentaries on the Gallic War_,
it is very natural that he should have taken care to give a brief
sketch of the leading peoples whom he had been fighting, that is, the
Gauls, the Britons, and the Germans. There are two places in the
_Commentaries_ where the Germans are described at some length. At the
beginning of Book IV. there is an account of the particular tribe
known as the Suevi, and in the middle of Book VI. there is a longer
sketch of the Germans in general. This latter is the passage
translated below. Of course we are not to suppose that Caesar's
knowledge of the Germans was in any sense thorough. At no time did he
get far into their country, and the people whose manners and customs
he had an opportunity to observe were only those who were pressing
down upon, and occasionally across, the Rhine boundary--a mere fringe
of the great race stretching back to the Baltic and, at that time, far
eastward into modern Russia. We may be sure that many of the more
remote German tribes lived after a fashion quite different from that
which Caesar and his legions had an opportunity to observe on the
Rhine-Danube frontier. Still, Caesar's account, vague and brief as it
is, has an importance that can hardly be exaggerated. These early
Germans had no written literature and but for the descriptions of them
left by a few Roman writers, such as Caesar, we should know almost
nothing about them. If we bear in mind that the account in the
_Commentaries_ was based upon very keen, though limited, observation,
we can get out of it a good deal of interesting information concerning
the early ancestors of the great Teutonic peoples of the world to-day.
Source--Julius Caesar, _De Bello Gallico_ ["The Gallic War"],
Bk. VI., Chaps. 21-23.
[Sidenote: Their religion]
=21.= The customs of the Germans differ widely from those of the
Gauls;[1] for neither have they Druids to preside over religious
services,[2] nor do they give much attention to sacrifices. They
count in the number of their gods those only whom they can see, and
by whose favors they are clearly aided; that is to say, the Sun,
Vulcan,[3] and the Moon. Of other deities they have never even
heard. Their whole life is spent in hunting and in war. From
childhood they are trained in labor and hardship....
[Sidenote: Their system of land tenure]
=22.= They are not devoted to agriculture, and the greater portion
of their food consists of milk, cheese, and flesh. No one owns a
particular piece of land, with fixed limits, but each year the
magistrates and the chiefs assign to the clans and the bands of
kinsmen who have assembled together as much land as they think
proper, and in whatever place they desire, and the next year compel
them to move to some other place. They give many reasons for this
custom--that the people may not lose their zeal for war through
habits established by prolonged attention to the cultivation of the
soil; that they may not be eager to acquire large possessions, and
that the stronger may not drive the weaker from their property;
that they may not build too carefully, in order to avoid cold and
heat; that the love of money may not spring up, from which arise
quarrels and dissensions; and, finally, that the common people may
live in contentment, since each person sees that his wealth is kept
equal to that of the most powerful.
[Sidenote: Leaders and officers in war and peace]
=23.= It is a matter of the greatest glory to the tribes to lay
waste, as widely as possible, the lands bordering their territory,
thus making them uninhabitable.[4] They regard it as the best
proof of their valor that their neighbors are forced to withdraw
from those lands and hardly any one dares set foot there; at the
same time they think that they will thus be more secure, since the
fear of a sudden invasion is removed. When a tribe is either
repelling an invasion or attacking an outside people, magistrates
are chosen to lead in the war, and these are given the power of
life and death. In times of peace there is no general magistrate,
but the chiefs of the districts and cantons render justice among
their own people and settle disputes.[5] Robbery, if committed
beyond the borders of the tribe, is not regarded as disgraceful,
and they say that it is practised for the sake of training the
youth and preventing idleness. When any one of the chiefs has
declared in an assembly that he is going to be the leader of an
expedition, and that those who wish to follow him should give in
their names, they who approve of the undertaking, and of the man,
stand up and promise their assistance, and are applauded by the
people. Such of these as do not then follow him are looked upon as
deserters and traitors, and from that day no one has any faith in
them.
[Sidenote: German hospitality]
To mistreat a guest they consider to be a crime. They protect from
injury those who have come among them for any purpose whatever, and
regard them as sacred. To them the houses of all are open and food
is freely supplied.
2. A Description by Tacitus
Tacitus (54-119),[6] who is sometimes credited with being the greatest
of Roman historians, published his treatise on the _Origin, Location,
Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany_ in the year 98. This was about a
century and a half after Caesar wrote his _Commentaries_. During this
long interval we have almost no information as to how the Germans were
living or what they were doing. There is much uncertainty as to the
means by which Tacitus got his knowledge of them. We may be reasonably
sure that he did not travel extensively through the country north of
the Rhine; there is, in fact, not a shred of evidence that he ever
visited it at all. He tells us that he made use of Caesar's account,
but this was very meager and could not have been of much service. We
are left to surmise that he drew most of his information from books
then existing but since lost, such as the writings of Posidonius of
Rhodes (136-51 B.C.) and Pliny the Elder (23-79). These sources were
doubtless supplemented by the stories of officials and traders who had
been among the Germans and were afterwards interviewed by the
historian. Tacitus's essay, therefore, while written with a desire to
tell the truth, was apparently not based on first-hand information.
The author nowhere says that he had _seen_ this or that feature of
German life. We may suppose that what he really did was to gather up
all the stories and reports regarding the German barbarians which were
already known to Roman traders, travelers, and soldiers, sift the true
from the false as well as he could, and write out in first class Latin
the little book which we know as the _Germania_. The theory that the
work was intended as a satire, or sermon in morals, for the benefit of
a corrupt Roman people has been quite generally abandoned, and this
for the very good reason that there is nothing in either the
treatise's contents or style to warrant such a belief. Tacitus wrote
the book because of his general interest in historical and
geographical subjects, and also, perhaps, because it afforded him an
excellent opportunity to display a literary skill in which he took no
small degree of pride. That it was published separately instead of in
one of his larger histories may have been due to public interest in
the subject during Trajan's wars in the Rhine country in the years 98
and 99. The first twenty-seven chapters, from which the selections
below are taken, treat of the Germans in general--their origin,
religion, family life, occupations, military tactics, amusements, land
system, government, and social classes; the last nineteen deal with
individual tribes and are not so accurate or so valuable. It will be
found interesting to compare what Tacitus says with what Caesar says
when both touch upon the same topic. In doing so it should be borne in
mind that there was a difference in time of a century and a half
between the two writers, and also that while Tacitus probably did not
write from experience among the Germans, as Caesar did, he nevertheless
had given the subject a larger amount of deliberate study.
Source--C. Cornelius Tacitus, _De Origine, Situ, Moribus, ac
Populis Germanorum_ [known commonly as the "Germania"], Chaps.
4-24, _passim_. Adapted from translation by Alfred J. Church
and William J. Brodribb (London, 1868), pp. 1-16. Text in
numerous editions, as that of William F. Allen (Boston, 1882)
and that of Henry Furneau (Oxford, 1894).
[Sidenote: Physical characteristics]
=4.= For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes
of Germany are free from all trace of intermarriage with foreign
nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like
none but themselves. Hence it is that the same physical features
are to be observed throughout so vast a population. All have fierce
blue eyes, reddish hair, and huge bodies fit only for sudden
exertion. They are not very able to endure labor that is
exhausting. Heat and thirst they cannot withstand at all, though to
cold and hunger their climate and soil have hardened them.
[Sidenote: Their weapons and mode of fighting]
=6.= Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the
nature of their weapons.[7] Only a few make use of swords or long
lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a _framea_),
with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that
the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or
distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a
shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of
missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense
distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They
make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked
with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets,[8] and just one or
two here and there a metal or leather helmet.[9] Their horses are
neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling
movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward
so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that
none may be left behind another. On the whole, one would say that
the Germans' chief strength is in their infantry. It fights along
with the cavalry, and admirably adapted to the movements of the
latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked
from the entire youth of their country and placed in front of the
battle line.[10] The number of these is fixed, being a hundred from
each _pagus_,[11] and from this they take their name among their
countrymen, so that what was at the outset a mere number has now
become a title of honor. Their line of battle is drawn up in the
shape of a wedge. To yield ground, provided they return to the
attack, is regarded as prudence rather than cowardice. The bodies
of their slain they carry off, even when the battle has been
indecisive. To abandon one's shield is the basest of crimes. A man
thus disgraced is not allowed to be present at the religious
ceremonies, or to enter the council. Many, indeed, after making a
cowardly escape from battle put an end to their infamy by hanging
themselves.[12]
[Sidenote: The Germans in battle]
=7.= They choose their kings[13] by reason of their birth, but
their generals on the ground of merit. The kings do not enjoy
unlimited or despotic power, and even the generals command more by
example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they take a
prominent part, if they fight in the front, they lead because they
are admired. But to rebuke, to imprison, even to flog, is allowed
to the priests alone, and this not as a punishment, or at the
general's bidding, but by the command of the god whom they believe
to inspire the warrior. They also carry with them into battle
certain figures and images taken from their sacred groves.[14] The
thing that most strengthens their courage is the fact that their
troops are not made up of bodies of men chosen by mere chance, but
are arranged by families and kindreds. Close by them, too, are
those dearest to them, so that in the midst of the fight they can
hear the shrieks of women and the cries of children. These loved
ones are to every man the most valued witnesses of his valor, and
at the same time his most generous applauders. The soldier brings
his wounds to mother or wife, who shrinks not from counting them,
or even demanding to see them, and who provides food for the
warriors and gives them encouragement.
[Sidenote: Their popular assemblies]
=11.= About matters of small importance the chiefs alone take
counsel, but the larger questions are considered by the entire
tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people the
affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. Except in the
case of a sudden emergency, the people hold their assemblies on
certain fixed days, either at the new or the full moon; for these
they consider the most suitable times for the transaction of
business. Instead of counting by days, as we do, they count by
nights, and in this way designate both their ordinary and their
legal engagements. They regard the night as bringing on the day.
Their freedom has one disadvantage, in that they do not all come
together at the same time, or as they are commanded, but two or
three days are wasted in the delay of assembling. When the people
present think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by
the priests who, on these occasions, are charged with the duty of
keeping order. The king or the leader speaks first, and then others
in order, as age, or rank, or reputation in war, or eloquence, give
them right. The speakers are heard more because of their ability to
persuade than because of their power to command. If the speeches
are displeasing to the people, they reject them with murmurs; if
they are pleasing, they applaud by clashing their weapons together,
which is the kind of applause most highly esteemed.[15]
[Sidenote: The chiefs and their companions]
=13.= They transact no public or private business without being
armed, but it is not allowable for any one to bear arms until he
has satisfied the tribe that he is fit to do so. Then, in the
presence of the assembly, one of the chiefs, or the young man's
father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear.
These arms are what the toga is with the Romans, the first honor
with which a youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as
merely a member of a household, but afterwards as a member of the
state. Very noble birth, or important service rendered by the
father, secures for a youth the rank of chief, and such lads attach
themselves to men of mature strength and of fully tested valor. It
is no shame to be numbered among a chief's companions.[16] The
companions have different ranks in the band, according to the will
of the chief; and there is great rivalry among the companions for
first place in the chief's favor, as there is among the chiefs for
the possession of the largest and bravest throng of followers. It
is an honor, as well as a source of strength, to be thus always
surrounded by a large body of picked youths, who uphold the rank of
the chief in peace and defend him in war. The fame of such a chief
and his band is not confined to their own tribe, but is spread
among foreign peoples; they are sought out and honored with gifts
in order to secure their alliance, for the reputation of such a
band may decide a whole war.
[Sidenote: The German love of war]
=14.= In battle it is considered shameful for the chief to allow
any of his followers to excel him in valor, and for the followers
not to equal their chief in deeds of bravery. To survive the chief
and return from the field is a disgrace and a reproach for life. To
defend and protect him, and to add to his renown by courageous
fighting is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory;
the companions must fight for the chief. If their native state
sinks into the sloth of peace and quiet, many noble youths
voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both
because inaction is disliked by their race and because it is in war
that they win renown most readily; besides, a chief can maintain a
band only by war, for the men expect to receive their war-horse and
their arms from their leader. Feasts and entertainments, though not
elegant, are plentifully provided and constitute their only pay.
The means of such liberality are best obtained from the booty of
war. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plow the earth and to wait
for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the glory
of wounds. Indeed, they actually think it tame and stupid to
acquire by the sweat of toil what they may win by their blood.[17]
[Sidenote: Life in times of peace]
=15.= When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the
chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep
and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give
over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land
to the women, the old men, and the weaker members of the family,
while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is
strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so
averse to peace.[18] It is the custom of the tribes to make their
chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the
means of support.[19] The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts
from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals,
but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor,
trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to
accept money also.
[Sidenote: Lack of cities and towns]
=16.= It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no
cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected
close together.[20] They live scattered about, wherever a spring,
or a meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not
arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and
joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an
open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire,
or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone
or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are
mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although
occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is
so clear and bright that it resembles painting, or a colored
design....
[Sidenote: Their food and drink]
=23.= A liquor for drinking is made out of barley, or other grain,
and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers along
the river-bank[21] also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a
simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled
milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of
cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In
quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are
supplied with as much as they desire to drink, they will be
overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.
[Sidenote: German amusements]
=24.= At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of
amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and
lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives
them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive
profit or pay, for, however reckless their pastime, its reward is
only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make
games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so
venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other
resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake
even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery
and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself
to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistency in a bad
practice, though they themselves call it honor. Slaves thus
acquired the owners trade off as speedily as possible to rid
themselves of the scandal of such a victory.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In chapters 11-20, immediately preceding the present passage,
Caesar gives a comparatively full and minute description of Gallic life
and institutions. He knew more about the Gauls than about the Germans,
and, besides, it was his experiences among them that he was writing
about primarily.
[2] The Druids were priests who formed a distinct and very influential
class among the Gauls. They ascertained and revealed the will of the
gods and were supreme in the government of the tribes. Druids existed
also among the Britons.
[3] By Vulcan Caesar means the German god of fire.
[4] Of the Suevi, a German tribe living along the upper course of the
Danube, Caesar says: "They consider it their greatest glory as a nation
that the lands about their territories lie unoccupied to a very great
extent, for they think that by this it is shown that a great number of
nations cannot withstand their power; and thus on one side of the
Suevi the lands are said to lie desolate for about six hundred
miles."--_Gallic War_, Bk. IV., Chap. 3.
[5] This statement is an instance of Caesar's vagueness, due possibly
to haste in writing, but more likely to lack of definite information.
How large these districts and cantons were, whether they had fixed
boundaries, and how the chiefs rendered justice in them are things we
should like to know but are not told.
[6] All dates from this point, unless otherwise indicated, are A.D.
[7] In reality iron ore was abundant in the Germans' territory, but it
was not until long after the time of Tacitus that much use began to be
made of it. By the fifth century iron swords were common.
[8] Coats of mail.
[9] Defensive armor for the head and neck.
[10] See Caesar's description of this mode of fighting.--_Gallic War_,
Bk. I., Chap. 48.
[11] The canton was known to the Romans as a _pagus_ and to the
Germans themselves as a _gau_. It was made up of a number of
districts, or townships (Latin _vicus_, German _dorf_), and was itself
a division of a tribe or nation.
[12] A later law of the Salian Franks imposed a fine of 120 _denarii_
upon any man who should accuse another of throwing down his shield and
running away, without being able to prove it [see p. 64].
[13] Many of the western tribes at the time Tacitus wrote did not have
kings, though in eastern Germany the institution of kingship seems to
have been quite general. The office, where it existed, was elective,
but the people rarely chose a king outside of a privileged family,
assumed to be of divine origin.
[14] Evidently these were not images of their gods, for in another
place (Chap. 9) Tacitus tells us that the Germans deemed it a dishonor
to their deities to represent them in human form. The images were
probably those of wild beasts, as the wolf of Woden (or Odin), or the
ram of Tyr, and were national standards preserved with religious care
in the sacred groves, whence they were brought forth when the tribe
was on the point of going to war.
[15] The German popular assembly was simply the periodical gathering
of free men in arms for the discussion and decision of important
points of tribal policy. It was not a legislative body in the modern
sense. Law among the Germans was immemorial custom, which, like
religion, could be changed only by a gradual shifting of popular
belief and practice. It was not "made" by any process of deliberate
and immediate choice. Nevertheless, the assembly constituted an
important democratic element in the government, which operated in a
measure to offset the aristocratic element represented by the
_principes_ and _comitatus_ [see p. 28]. Its principal functions were
the declaring of war and peace, the election of the kings, and,
apparently, the hearing and deciding of graver cases at law.
[16] This relation of _principes_ (chiefs) and _comites_ (companions)
is mentioned by Caesar [see p. 22]. The name by which the Romans
designated the band of companions, or followers, of a German chieftain
was _comitatus_.
[17] Apparently the Germans did not now care much more for agriculture
than in the time of Caesar. The women, slaves, and old men sowed some
seeds and gathered small harvests, but the warrior class held itself
above such humble and unexciting employment. The raising of cattle
afforded a principal means of subsistence, though hunting and fishing
contributed considerably.
[18] Compare the Germans and the North American Indians in this
respect. The great contrast between these two peoples lay in the
capacity of the one and the comparative incapacity of the other for
development.
[19] The Germans had no system of taxation on land or other property,
such as the Romans had and such as we have to-day. It was not until
well toward the close of the Middle Ages that the governments of
kingdoms built up by Germanic peoples in western Europe came to be
maintained by anything like what we would call taxes in the modern
sense.
[20] The lack of cities and city life among the Germans struck Tacitus
with the greater force because of the complete dominance of city
organization to which he, as a Roman, was accustomed. The Greek and
Roman world was made up, in the last analysis, of an aggregation of
_civitates_, or city states. Among the ancient Greeks these had
usually been independent; among the Romans they were correlated under
the greater or lesser control of a centralized government; but among
the Germans of Tacitus's time, and long after, the mixed agricultural
and nomadic character of the people effectually prevented the
development of anything even approaching urban organization. Their
life was that of the forest and the pasture, not that of forum,
theatre, and circus.
[21] That is, on the Rhine, where traders from the south brought in
wines and other Roman products. The drink which the Germans themselves
manufactured was, of course, a kind of beer.
CHAPTER II.
THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION
3. The Visigoths Cross the Danube (376)
The earliest invasion of the Roman Empire which resulted in the
permanent settlement of a large and united body of Germans on Roman
soil was that of the Visigoths in the year 376. This invasion was very
far, however, from marking the first important contact of the German
and Roman peoples. As early as the end of the second century B.C. the
incursions of the Cimbri and Teutones (113-101) into southern Gaul and
northern Italy had given Rome a suggestion of the danger which
threatened from the northern barbarians. Half a century later, the
Gallic campaigns of Caesar brought the two peoples into conflict for
the first time in the region of the later Rhine boundary, and had the
very important effect of preventing the impending Germanization of
Gaul and substituting the extension of Roman power and civilization in
that quarter. Roman imperial plans on the north then developed along
ambitious lines until the year 9 A.D., when the legions of the Emperor
Augustus, led by Varus, were defeated, and in large part annihilated,
in the great battle of the Teutoberg Forest and the balance was turned
forever against the Romanization of the Germanic countries. Thereafter
for a long time a state of equilibrium was preserved along the
Rhine-Danube frontier, though after the Marcomannic wars in the latter
half of the second century the scale began to incline more and more
against the Romans, who were gradually forced into the attitude of
defense against a growing disposition of the restless Germans to push
the boundary farther south.
During the more than three and a half centuries intervening between
the battle of the Teutoberg and the crossing of the Danube by the
Visigoths, the intermingling of the two peoples steadily increased. On
the one hand were numerous Roman travelers and traders who visited
the Germans living along the frontier and learned what sort of people
they were. The soldiers of the legions stationed on the Rhine and
Danube also added materially to Roman knowledge in this direction. But
much more important was the influx of Germans into the Empire to serve
as soldiers or to settle on lands allotted to them by the government.
Owing to a general decline of population, and especially to the lack
of a sturdy middle class, Rome found it necessary to fill up her army
with foreigners and to reward them with lands lying mainly near the
frontiers, but often in the very heart of the Empire. The
over-population of Germany furnished a large class of excellent
soldiers who were ready enough to accept the pay of the Roman emperor
for service in the legions, even if rendered, as it often was, against
their kinsmen who were menacing the weakened frontier. From this
source the Empire had long been receiving a large infusion of German
blood before any considerable tribe came within its bounds to settle
in a body. Indeed, if there had occurred no sudden and startling
overflows of population from the Germanic countries, such as the
Visigothic invasion, it is quite possible that the Roman Empire might
yet have fallen completely into the hands of the Germans by the quiet
and gradual processes just indicated. As it was, the pressure from
advancing Asiatic peoples on the east was too great to be withstood,
and there resulted, between the fourth and sixth centuries, a series
of notable invasions which left almost the entire Western Empire
parceled out among new Germanic kingdoms established by force on the
ruins of the once invincible Roman power. The breaking of the frontier
by the West Goths (to whom the Emperor Aurelian, in 270, had abandoned
the rich province of Dacia), during the reign of Gratian in the West
and of Valens in the East, was the first conspicuous step in this
great transforming movement.
The ferocious people to whose incursions Ammianus refers as the cause
of the Visigothic invasion were the Huns [see p. 42], who had but
lately made their first appearance in Europe. Already by 376 the
Ostrogothic kingdom of Hermaneric, to the north of the Black Sea, had
fallen before their onslaught, and the wave of conquest was spreading
rapidly westward toward Dacia and the neighboring lands inhabited by
the Visigoths. The latter people were even less able to make effectual
resistance than their eastern brethren had been. Part of them had
become Christians and were recognizing Fridigern as their leader,
while the remaining pagan element acknowledged the sway of Athanaric.
On the arrival of the Huns, Athanaric led his portion of the people
into the Carpathian Mountains and began to prepare for resistance,
while the Christians, led by Fridigern and Alaf (or Alavivus),
gathered on the Danube and begged permission to take refuge across the
river in Roman territory. Athanaric and his division of the Visigoths,
having become Christians, entered the Empire a few years later and
settled in Moesia.
Ammianus Marcellinus, author of the account of the Visigothic invasion
given below, was a native of Antioch, a soldier of Greek ancestry and
apparently of noble birth, and a member of the Eastern emperor's
bodyguard. Beyond these facts, gleaned from his _Roman History_, we
have almost no knowledge of the man. The date of his birth is unknown,
likewise that of his death, though from his writings it appears that
he lived well toward the close of the fourth century. His _History_
began with the accession of Nerva, 96 A.D., approximately where the
accounts by Tacitus and Suetonius end, and continued to the death of
his master Valens in the battle of Adrianople in 378. It was divided
into thirty-one books; but of these thirteen have been lost, and some
of those which survive are imperfect. Although the narrative is broken
into rather provokingly here and there by digressions on earthquakes
and eclipses and speculations on such utterly foreign topics as the
theory of the destruction of lions by mosquitoes, it nevertheless
constitutes an invaluable source of information on the men and events
of the era which it covers. Its value is greatest, naturally, on the
period of the Visigothic invasion, for in dealing with these years the
author could describe events about which he had direct and personal
knowledge. Ammianus is to be thought of as the last of the old Roman
school of historians.
Source--Ammianus Marcellinus, _Rerum Gestarum Libri qui
Supersunt_, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 3-4. Translated by Charles D.
Yonge under the title of _Roman History during the Reigns of
the Emperors Constantius, Julian, Jovianus, Valentinian, and
Valens_ (London, 1862), pp. 584-586. Text in edition of Victor
Gardthausen (Leipzig, 1875), Vol. II., pp. 239-240.
[Sidenote: Visigoths ask permission to settle within the Empire]
In the meantime a report spread extensively through the other
nations of the Goths [i.e., the Visigoths], that a race of men,
hitherto unknown, had suddenly descended like a whirlwind from the
lofty mountains, as if they had risen from some secret recess of
the earth, and were ravaging and destroying everything that came in
their way. Then the greater part of the population (which, because
of their lack of necessities, had deserted Athanaric), resolved to
flee and to seek a home remote from all knowledge of the
barbarians; and after a long deliberation as to where to fix their
abode, they resolved that a retreat into Thrace was the most
suitable, for these two reasons: first of all, because it is a
district most abundant in grass; and in the second place, because,
by the great breadth of the Danube, it is wholly separated from the
barbarians [i.e., the Goths], who were already exposed to the
thunderbolts of foreign warfare. And the whole population of the
tribe adopted this resolution unanimously. Accordingly, under the
command of their leader Alavivus, they occupied the banks of the
Danube; and having sent ambassadors to Valens,[22] they humbly
entreated that they might be received by him as his subjects,
promising to live peaceably and to furnish a body of auxiliary
troops, if any necessity for such a force should arise.
[Sidenote: Rumors of Gothic movements reach Rome]
While these events were passing in foreign countries, a terrible
rumor arose that the tribes of the north were planning new and
unprecedented attacks upon us,[23] and that over the whole region
which extends from the country of the Marcomanni and Quadi to
Pontus,[24] a barbarian host composed of various distant nations
which had suddenly been driven by force from their own country, was
now, with all their families, wandering about in different
directions on the banks of the river Danube.
[Sidenote: Their coming represented as a blessing to the Empire]
At first this intelligence was treated lightly by our people,
because they were not in the habit of hearing of any wars in those
remote regions until after they had been terminated either by
victory or by treaty. But presently the belief in these occurrences
grew stronger, being confirmed, moreover, by the arrival of the
foreign ambassadors who, with prayers and earnest entreaties,
begged that the people thus driven from their homes and now
encamped on the other side of the river might be kindly received by
us. The affair seemed a cause of joy rather than of fear, according
to the skilful flatterers who were always extolling and
exaggerating the good fortune of the Emperor; congratulating him
that an embassy had come from the farthest corners of the earth
unexpectedly, offering him a large body of recruits, and that, by
combining the strength of his own nation with these foreign forces,
he would have an army absolutely invincible; observing farther
that, by the payment for military reinforcements which came in
every year from the provinces, a vast treasure of gold might be
accumulated in his coffers.
[Sidenote: The crossing of the Danube]
Full of this hope, he sent several officers to bring this ferocious
people and their wagons into our territory. And such great pains
were taken to gratify this nation, which was destined to overthrow
the empire of Rome, that not one was left behind, not even of those
who were stricken with mortal disease. Moreover, having obtained
permission of the Emperor to cross the Danube and to cultivate some
districts in Thrace, they crossed the stream day and night, without
ceasing, embarking in troops on board ships and rafts, and canoes
made of the hollow trunks of trees. In this enterprise, since the
Danube is the most difficult of all rivers to navigate, and was at
that time swollen with continual rains, a great many were drowned,
who, because they were too numerous for the vessels, tried to swim
across, and in spite of all their exertions were swept away by the
stream.
[Sidenote: Number of the invaders]
In this way, through the turbulent zeal of violent people, the
ruin of the Roman Empire was brought on. This, at all events, is
neither obscure nor uncertain, that the unhappy officers who were
intrusted with the charge of conducting the multitude of the
barbarians across the river, though they repeatedly endeavored to
calculate their numbers, at last abandoned the attempt as useless;
and the man who would wish to ascertain the number might as well
attempt to count the waves in the African sea, or the grains of
sand tossed about by the zephyr.[25]
4. The Battle of Adrianople (378)
Before crossing the Danube the Visigoths had been required by the
Romans to give up their arms, and also a number of their children to
be held as hostages. In return it was understood that the Romans would
equip them afresh with arms sufficient for their defense and with food
supplies to maintain them until they should become settled in their
new homes. So far as our information goes, it appears that the Goths
fulfilled their part of the contract, or at least were willing to do
so. But the Roman officers in Thrace saw an opportunity to enrich
themselves by selling food to the famished barbarians at extortionate
prices, and a few months of such practices sufficed to arouse all the
rage and resentment of which the untamed Teuton was capable. In the
summer of 378 the Goths broke out in open revolt and began to avenge
themselves by laying waste the Roman lands along the lower Danube
frontier. The Eastern emperor, Valens, hastened to the scene of
insurrection, but only to lose the great battle of Adrianople, August
9, 378, and to meet his own death. "The battle of Adrianople," says
Professor Emerton, "was one of the decisive battles of the world. It
taught the Germans that they could beat the legions in open fight and
that henceforth it was for them to name the price of peace. It broke
once for all the Rhine-Danube frontier." Many times thereafter German
armies, and whole tribes, were to play the role of allies of Rome; but
neither German nor Roman could be blinded to the fact that the
decadent empire of the south lay at the mercy of the stalwart sons of
the northern wilderness.
Source--Ammianus Marcellinus, _Rerum Gestarum Libri qui
Supersunt_, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 12-14. Translated by Charles D.
Yonge [see p. 34], pp. 608-615 _passim_. Text in edition of
Victor Gardthausen (Leipzig, 1875), Vol. II., pp. 261-269.
[Sidenote: The Goths approach the Roman army]
He [Valens] was at the head of a numerous force, neither unwarlike
nor contemptible, and had united with them many veteran bands,
among whom were several officers of high rank--especially Trajan,
who a little while before had been commander of the forces. And as,
by means of spies and observation, it was ascertained that the
enemy was intending to blockade with strong divisions the different
roads by which the necessary supplies must come, he sent a
sufficient force to prevent this, dispatching a body of the archers
of the infantry and a squadron of cavalry with all speed to occupy
the narrow passes in the neighborhood. Three days afterwards, when
the barbarians, who were advancing slowly because they feared an
attack in the unfavorable ground which they were traversing,
arrived within fifteen miles from the station of Nice[26] (which
was the aim of their march), the Emperor, with wanton impetuosity,
resolved on attacking them instantly, because those who had been
sent forward to reconnoitre (what led to such a mistake is unknown)
affirmed that the entire body of the Goths did not exceed ten
thousand men....[27]
[Sidenote: The battle begins]
When the day broke which the annals mark as the fifth of the Ides
of August [Aug. 9] the Roman standards were advanced with haste.
The baggage had been placed close to the walls of Adrianople, under
a sufficient guard of soldiers of the legions. The treasures and
the chief insignia of the Emperor's rank were within the walls,
with the prefect and the principal members of the council.[28]
Then, having traversed the broken ground which divided the two
armies, as the burning day was progressing towards noon, at last,
after marching eight miles, our men came in sight of the wagons of
the enemy, which had been reported by the scouts to be all arranged
in a circle. According to their custom, the barbarian host raised a
fierce and hideous yell, while the Roman generals marshalled their
line of battle. The right wing of the cavalry was placed in front;
the chief portion of the infantry was kept in reserve....[29]
And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce
conflict, and Bellona,[30] blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging
more fiercely than usual, to inflict disaster on the Romans, our
men began to retreat; but presently, aroused by the reproaches of
their officers, they made a fresh stand, and the battle increased
like a conflagration, terrifying our soldiers, numbers of whom were
pierced by strokes of the javelins hurled at them, and by arrows.
[Sidenote: The fury of the conflict]
Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the
beaks of ships and, thrusting with all their might, were tossed to
and fro like the waves of the sea. Our left wing had advanced
actually up to the wagons, with the intent to push on still farther
if properly supported; but they were deserted by the rest of the
cavalry, and so pressed upon by the superior numbers of the enemy
that they were overwhelmed and beaten down like the ruin of a vast
rampart. Presently our infantry also was left unsupported, while
the various companies became so huddled together that a soldier
could hardly draw his sword, or withdraw his hand after he had once
stretched it out. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that
it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with
horrible cries; and in consequence the darts, which were bearing
death on every side, reached their mark and fell with deadly
effect, because no one could see them beforehand so as to guard
against them. The barbarians, rushing on with their enormous host,
beat down our horses and men and left no spot to which our ranks
could fall back to operate. They were so closely packed that it was
impossible to escape by forcing a way through them, and our men at
last began to despise death and again taking to their swords, slew
all they encountered, while with mutual blows of battle-axes,
helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces.
[Sidenote: The Romans put to flight]
Then you might see the barbarian, towering in his fierceness,
hissing or shouting, fall with his legs pierced through, or his
right hand cut off, sword and all, or his side transfixed, and
still, in the last gasp of life, casting around him defiant
glances. The plain was covered with corpses, showing the mutual
ruin of the combatants; while the groans of the dying, or of men
fearfully wounded, were intense and caused much dismay on all
sides. Amid all this great tumult and confusion our infantry were
exhausted by toil and danger, until at last they had neither
strength left to fight nor spirits to plan anything. Their spears
were broken by the frequent collisions, so that they were forced
to content themselves with their drawn swords, which they thrust
into the dense battalions of the enemy, disregarding their own
safety, and seeing that every possibility of escape was cut off
from them.... The sun, now high in the heavens (having traversed
the sign of Leo and reached the abode of the heavenly Virgo[31])
scorched the Romans, who were emaciated by hunger, worn out with
toil, and scarcely able to support even the weight of their armor.
At last our columns were entirely beaten back by the overpowering
weight of the barbarians, and so they took to disorderly flight,
which is the only resource in extremity, each man trying to save
himself as best he could....
Scarcely one third of the whole army escaped. Nor, except the
battle of Cannae, is so destructive a slaughter recorded in our
annals;[32] though, even in the times of their prosperity, the
Romans have more than once been called upon to deplore the
uncertainty of war, and have for a time succumbed to evil Fortune.
FOOTNOTES:
[22] Valens was the Eastern emperor from 364 until his death in the
battle of Adrianople in 378. His brother Valentinian was emperor in
the West from 364 to 375. Gratian, son of Valentinian, was the real
sovereign in the West when the Visigoths crossed the Danube.
[23] That is, upon the writer's people, the Romans.
[24] The Marcomanni and Quadi occupied a broad stretch of territory
along the upper Danube in what is now the northernmost part of
Austria-Hungary. Pontus was a province in northern Asia Minor.
[25] Moeller (_Histoire du Moyen Age_, p. 58), estimates that the
Goths who now entered Thrace numbered not fewer than 200,000 grown
men, accompanied by their wives and children. The Italian Villari, in
his _Barbarian Invasions of Italy_, Vol. I., p. 49, gives the same
estimate. The tendency of contemporary chroniclers to exaggerate
numbers has misled many older writers. Even Moeller's and Villari's
estimate would mean a total of upwards of a million people. That there
were so many may well be doubted. The Vandals played practically as
important a part in the history of their times as did the Visigoths;
yet it is known that when the Vandals passed through Spain, in the
first half of the fifth century, they numbered not more than 20,000
fighting men, with their wives and children.
[26] Nice was about thirty miles east of Adrianople.
[27] The Visigoths under Fridigern finally took their position near
Adrianople and Valens led his army into that vicinity and pitched his
camp, fortifying it with a rampart of palisades. From the Western
emperor, Gratian, a messenger came asking that open conflict be
postponed until the army from Rome could join that from
Constantinople. But Valens, easily flattered by some of his
over-confident generals, foolishly decided to bring on a battle at
once. Apparently he did not dream that defeat was possible.
[28] After the battle here described, which occurred in the open
plain, the victorious Goths proceeded to the siege of the city itself,
in which, however, they were unsuccessful. The taking of fortified
towns was an art in which the Germans were not skilled.
[29] When both armies were in position Fridigern, "being skilful in
divining the future," says Ammianus, "and fearing a doubtful
struggle," sent a herald to Valens with the promise that if the Romans
would give hostages to the Goths the latter would cease their
depredations and even aid the Romans in their wars. Richomeres, the
Roman cavalry leader, was chosen by Valens to serve as a hostage; but
as he was proceeding to the Gothic camp the soldiers who accompanied
him made a rash attack upon a division of the enemy and precipitated a
battle which soon spread to the whole army.
[30] The goddess of war, regarded in Roman mythology as the sister of
Mars.
[31] Signs of the zodiac, sometimes employed by the Romans to give
figurative expression to the time of day.
[32] The number of Romans killed at Cannae (216 B.C.) is variously
estimated, but it can hardly have been under 50,000.
CHAPTER III.
THE HUNS
5. Descriptions by a Graeco-Roman Poet and a Roman Historian
The Huns, a people of Turanian stock, were closely related to the
ancestors of the Magyars, or the modern Hungarians. Their original
home was in central Asia, beyond the great wall of China, and they
were in every sense a people of the plains rather than of the forest
or of the sea. From the region of modern Siberia they swept westward
in successive waves, beginning about the middle of the fourth century,
traversed the "gateway of the nations" between the Caspian Sea and the
Ural Mountains, and fell with fury upon the German tribes (mainly the
Goths) settled in eastern and southern Europe. The descriptions of
them given by Claudius Claudianus and Ammianus Marcellinus set forth
their characteristics as understood by the Romans a half-century or
more before the invasion of the Empire by Attila. There is no reason
to suppose that either of these authors had ever seen a Hun, or had
his information at first hand. When both wrote the Huns were yet far
outside the Empire's bounds. Tales of soldiers and travelers, which
doubtless grew as they were told, must have supplied both the poet and
the historian with all that they knew regarding the strange Turanian
invaders. This being the case, we are not to accept all that they say
as the literal truth. Nevertheless the general impressions which one
gets from their pictures cannot be far wrong.
Claudius Claudianus, commonly regarded as the last of the Latin
classic poets, was a native of Alexandria who settled at Rome about
395. For ten years after that date he occupied a position at the court
of the Emperor Honorius somewhat akin to that of poet-laureate. Much
of his writing was of a very poor quality, but his descriptions were
sometimes striking, as in the stanza given below. On Ammianus
Marcellinus see p. 34.
Sources--(a) Claudius Claudianus, _In Rufinum_ ["Against
Rufinus"], Bk. I., 323-331. Text in _Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi_, Vol. X., pp. 30-31.
Translated in Thomas Hodgkin, _Italy and Her Invaders_
(Oxford, 1880), Vol. II., p. 2.
(b) Ammianus Marcellinus, _Rerum Gestarum Libri qui
Supersunt_, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 2-4 [see p. 34]. Translated in
Hodgkin, _ibid._, pp. 34-38.
(a)
There is a race on Scythia's[33] verge extreme
Eastward, beyond the Tanais'[34] chilly stream.
The Northern Bear[35] looks on no uglier crew:
Base is their garb, their bodies foul to view;
Their souls are ne'er subdued to sturdy toil
Or Ceres' arts:[36] their sustenance is spoil.
With horrid wounds they gash their brutal brows,
And o'er their murdered parents bind their vows.
Not e'en the Centaur-offspring of the Cloud[37]
Were horsed more firmly than this savage crowd.
Brisk, lithe, in loose array they first come on,
Fly, turn, attack the foe who deems them gone.
[Sidenote: Physical appearance of the Huns]
(b)
The nation of the Huns, little known to ancient records, but
spreading from the marshes of Azof to the Icy Sea,[38] surpasses
all other barbarians in wildness of life. In the first days of
infancy, deep incisions are made in the cheeks of their boys, in
order that when the time comes for whiskers to grow there, the
sprouting hairs may be kept back by the furrowed scars; and hence
they grow to maturity and to old age beardless. They all, however,
have strong, well-knit limbs and fine necks. Yet they are of
portentous ugliness and so crook-backed that you would take them
for some sort of two-footed beasts, or for the roughly-chipped
stakes which are used for the railings of a bridge. And though they
do just bear the likeness of men (of a very ugly type), they are so
little advanced in civilization that they make no use of fire, nor
of any kind of relish, in the preparation of their food, but feed
upon the roots which they find in the fields, and the half-raw
flesh of any sort of animal. I say half-raw, because they give it a
kind of cooking by placing it between their own thighs and the
backs of their horses. They never seek the shelter of houses, which
they look upon as little better than tombs, and will enter only
upon the direst necessity; nor would one be able to find among them
even a cottage of wattled rushes; but, wandering at large over
mountain and through forest, they are trained to endure from
infancy all the extremes of cold, of hunger, and of thirst.
[Sidenote: Their dress]
They are clad in linen raiment, or in the skins of field-mice sewed
together, and the same suit serves them for use in-doors and out.
However dingy the color of it may become, the tunic which has once
been hung around their necks is never laid aside nor changed until
through long decay the rags of it will no longer hold together.
Their heads are covered with bent caps, their hairy legs with the
skins of goats; their shoes, never having been fashioned on a last,
are so clumsy that they cannot walk comfortably. On this account
they are not well adapted to encounters on foot; but on the other
hand they are almost welded to their horses, which are hardy,
though of ugly shape, and on which they sometimes ride woman's
fashion. On horseback every man of that nation lives night and day;
on horseback he buys and sells; on horseback he takes his meat and
drink, and when night comes on he leans forward upon the narrow
neck of his horse and there falls into a deep sleep, or wanders
into the varied fantasies of dreams.
[Sidenote: Their mode of fighting]
When a discussion arises upon any matter of importance they come on
horseback to the place of meeting. No kingly sternness overawes
their deliberations, but being, on the whole, well-contented with
the disorderly guidance of their chiefs, they do not scruple to
interrupt the debates with anything that comes into their heads.
When attacked, they will sometimes engage in regular battle. Then,
going into the fight in order of columns, they fill the air with
varied and discordant cries. More often, however, they fight in no
regular order of battle, but being extremely swift and sudden in
their movements, they disperse, and then rapidly come together
again in loose array, spread havoc over vast plains and, flying
over the rampart, pillage the camp of their enemy almost before he
has become aware of their approach. It must be granted that they
are the nimblest of warriors. The missile weapons which they use at
a distance are pointed with sharpened bones admirably fastened to
the shaft. When in close combat they fight without regard to their
own safety, and while the enemy is intent upon parrying the thrusts
of their swords they throw a net over him and so entangle his limbs
that he loses all power of walking or riding.
[Sidenote: Their nomadic character]
Not one among them cultivates the ground, or ever touches a
plow-handle. All wander abroad without fixed abodes, without home,
or law, or settled customs, like perpetual fugitives, with their
wagons for their only habitations. If you ask them, not one can
tell you what is his place of origin. They are ruthless
truce-breakers, fickle, always ready to be swayed by the first
breath of a new desire, abandoning themselves without restraint to
the most ungovernable rage.
Finally, like animals devoid of reason, they are utterly ignorant
of what is proper and what is not. They are tricksters with words
and full of dark sayings. They are never moved by either religious
or superstitious awe. They burn with unquenchable thirst for gold,
and they are so changeable and so easily moved to wrath that many
times in the day they will quarrel with their comrades on no
provocation, and be reconciled, having received no satisfaction.
FOOTNOTES:
[33] A somewhat indefinite region north and east of the Caspian Sea.
[34] The modern Don, flowing into the Sea of Azof.
[35] One of two constellations in the northern hemisphere, called
respectively the Great Bear and the Lesser Bear, or _Ursa Major_ and
_Ursa Minor_. The Great Bear is commonly known as the Dipper.
[36] That is, agriculture. The Huns were even less settled in their
mode of life than were the early Germans described by Tacitus.
[37] A strange creature of classical mythology, represented as half
man and half horse.
[38] The White Sea. It is hardly to be believed that the Huns dwelt so
far north. This was, of course, a matter of sheer speculation with the
Romans.
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY FRANKS
6. The Deeds of Clovis as Related by Gregory of Tours
The most important historical writer among the early Franks was a
bishop whose full name was Georgius Florentius Gregorius, but who has
commonly been known ever since his day as Gregory of Tours. The date
of his birth is uncertain, but it was probably either 539 or 540. He
was not a Frank, but a man of mixed Roman and Gallic descent, his
parentage being such as to rank him among the nobility of his native
district, Auvergne. At the age of thirty-four he was elected bishop of
Tours, and this important office he held until his death in 594.
During this long period of service he won distinction as an able
church official, as an alert man of affairs, and as a prolific writer
on ecclesiastical subjects. Among his writings, some of which have
been lost, were a book on the Christian martyrs, biographies of
several holy men of the Church, a commentary on the Psalms, and a
treatise on the officers of the Church and their duties.
But by far his largest and most important work was his _Ecclesiastical
History of the Franks_, in ten books, written well toward the end of
his life. It is indeed to be regarded as one of the most interesting
pieces of literature produced in any country during the Middle Ages.
For his starting point Gregory went back to the Garden of Eden, and
what he gives us in his first book is only an amusing but practically
worthless account of the history of the world from Adam to St. Martin
of Tours, who died probably in 397. In the second book, however, he
comes more within the range of reasonable tradition, if not of actual
information, and brings the story down to the death of Clovis in 511.
In the succeeding eight books he reaches the year 591, though it is
thought by some that the last four were put together after the
author's death by some of his associates. However that may be, we may
rest assured that the history grows in accuracy as it approaches the
period in which it was written. Naturally it is at its best in the
later books, where events are described that happened within the
writer's lifetime, and with many of which he had a close connection.
Gregory was a man of unusual activity and of wide acquaintance among
the influential people of his day. He served as a counselor of several
Frankish kings and was a prominent figure at their courts. The shrine
of St. Martin of Tours[39] was visited by pilgrims from all parts of
the Christian world and by conversation with them Gregory had an
excellent opportunity to keep informed as to what was going on among
the Franks, and among more distant peoples as well. He was thus
fortunately situated for one who proposed to write the history of his
times. As a bishop of the orthodox Church he had small regard for
Arians and other heretics, and so was in some ways less broad-minded
than we could wish; and of course he shared the superstition and
ignorance of his age, as will appear in some of the selections below.
Still, without his extensive history we should know far less than we
now do concerning the Frankish people before the seventh century. He
mixes legend with fact in a most confusing manner, but with no
intention whatever to deceive. The men of the earlier Middle Ages knew
no other way of writing history and their readers were not critical as
we are to-day. The passages quoted below from Gregory's history give
some interesting information concerning the Frankish conquerors of
Gaul, and at the same time show something of the spirit of Gregory
himself and of the people of his times.
Particularly interesting is the account of the conversion of Clovis
and of the Franks to Christianity. When the Visigoths, Ostrogoths,
Vandals, Lombards, and Burgundians crossed the Roman frontiers and
settled within the bounds of the old Empire they were all Christians
in name, however much their conduct might be at variance with their
profession. The Franks, on the other hand, established themselves in
northern Gaul, as did the Saxons in Britain, while they were yet
pagans, worshipping Woden and Thor and the other strange deities of
the Germans. It was about the middle of the reign of King Clovis, or,
more definitely, in the year 496, that the change came. In his
_Ecclesiastical History_ Gregory tells us how up to this time all the
influence of the Christian queen, Clotilde, had been exerted in vain
to bring her husband to the point of renouncing his old gods. In his
wars and conquests the king had been very successful and apparently he
was pretty well satisfied with the favors these old gods had showered
upon him and was unwilling to turn his back upon such generous
patrons. But there came a time, in 496, in the course of the war with
the Alemanni, when the tide of fortune seemed to be turning against
the Frankish king. In the great battle of Strassburg the Franks were
on the point of being beaten by their foe, and Clovis in desperation
made a vow, as the story goes, that if Clotilde's God would grant him
a victory he would immediately become a Christian. Whatever may have
been the reason, the victory was won and the king, with characteristic
German fidelity to his word, proceeded to fulfill his pledge. Amid
great ceremony he was baptized, and with him three thousand of his
soldiers the same day. The great majority of Franks lost little time
in following the royal example.
Two important facts should be emphasized in connection with this
famous incident. The first is the peculiar character of the so-called
"conversion" of Clovis and his Franks. We to-day look upon religious
conversion as an inner experience of the individual, apt to be brought
about by personal contact between a Christian and the person who is
converted. It was in no such sense as this, however, that the
Franks--or any of the early Germans, for that matter--were made
Christian. They looked upon Christianity as a mere portion of Roman
civilization to be adopted or let alone as seemed best; but if it were
adopted, it must be by the whole tribe or nation, not by individuals
here and there. In general, the German peoples took up Christianity,
not because they became convinced that their old religions were false,
but simply because they were led to believe that the Christian faith
was in some ways better than their own and so might profitably be
taken advantage of by them. Clovis believed he had won the battle of
Strassburg with the aid of the Christian God when Woden and Thor were
about to fail him; therefore he reasoned that it would be a good thing
in the future to make sure that the God of Clotilde should always be
on his side, and obviously the way to do this was to become himself a
Christian. He did not wholly abandon the old gods, but merely
considered that he had found a new one of superior power. Hence he
enjoined on all his people that they become Christians; and for the
most part they did so, though of course we are not to suppose that
there was any very noticeable change in their actual conduct and mode
of life, at least for several generations.
The second important point to observe is that, whereas all of the
other Germanic peoples on the continent had become Christians of the
Arian type, the Franks accepted Christianity in its orthodox form such
as was adhered to by the papacy. This was sheer accident. The Franks
took the orthodox rather than the heretical religion simply because it
was the kind that was carried to them by the missionaries, not at all
because they were able, or had the desire, to weigh the two creeds and
choose the one they liked the better. But though they became orthodox
Christians by accident, the fact that they became such is of the
utmost importance in mediaeval history, for by being what the papacy
regarded as true Christians rather than heretics they began from the
start to be looked to by the popes for support. Their kings in time
became the greatest secular champions of papal interests, though
relations were sometimes far from harmonious. This virtual alliance of
the popes and the Frankish kings is a subject which will repay careful
study.
Source--Gregorius Episcopus Turonensis, _Historia
Ecclesiastica Francorum_ [Gregory of Tours, "Ecclesiastical
History of the Franks"], Bk. II., Chaps. 27-43 _passim_. Text
in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Merovingicarum_, Vol. I., Part 1, pp. 88-89, 90-95, 98-100,
158-159.
[Sidenote: The battle of Soissons (486)]
=27.= After all these things Childeric[40] died and his son Clovis
ruled in his stead. In the fifth year of the new reign Syagrius,
son of Aegidius, was governing as king of the Romans in the town of
Soissons, where his father had held sway before him.[41] Clovis now
advanced against him with his kinsman Ragnachar, who also held a
kingdom, and gave him an opportunity to select a field of battle.
Syagrius did not hesitate, for he was not at all afraid to risk an
encounter. In the conflict which followed, however, the Roman soon
saw that his army was doomed to destruction; so, turning and
fleeing from the field, he made all haste to take refuge with King
Alaric at Toulouse.[42] Clovis then sent word to Alaric that he
must hand over the defeated king at once if he did not wish to
bring on war against himself. Fearing the anger of the Franks,
therefore, as the Goths continually do, Alaric bound Syagrius with
chains and delivered him to the messengers of King Clovis. As soon
as the latter had the prisoner in his possession he put him under
safe guard and, after seizing his kingdom, had him secretly
slain.[43]
[Sidenote: The story of the broken vase]
At this time the army of Clovis plundered many churches, for the
king was still sunk in the errors of idolatry. Upon one occasion
the soldiers carried away from a church, along with other ornaments
of the sacred place, a remarkably large and beautiful vase. The
bishop of that church sent messengers to the king to ask that, even
if none of the other holy vessels might be restored, this precious
vase at least might be sent back. To the messengers Clovis could
only reply: "Come with us to Soissons, for there all the booty is
to be divided. If when we cast lots the vase shall fall to me, I
will return it as the bishop desires."
When they had reached Soissons and all the booty had been brought
together in the midst of the army the king called attention to the
vase and said, "I ask you, most valiant warriors, to allow me to
have the vase in addition to my rightful share." Then even those of
his men who were most self-willed answered: "O glorious king, all
things before us are thine, and we ourselves are subject to thy
control. Do, therefore, what pleases thee best, for no one is able
to resist thee." But when they had thus spoken, one of the
warriors, an impetuous, jealous, and vain man, raised his battle-ax
aloft and broke the vase in pieces, crying as he did so, "Thou
shalt receive no part of this booty unless it fall to you by a fair
lot." And at such a rash act they were all astounded.
[Sidenote: Clovis's revenge]
The king pretended not to be angry and seemed to take no notice of
the incident, and when it happened that the broken vase fell to him
by lot he gave the fragments to the bishop's messengers;
nevertheless he cherished a secret indignation in his heart. A year
later he summoned all his soldiers to come fully armed to the
Campus Martius, so that he might make an inspection of his
troops.[44] After he had reviewed the whole army he finally came
across the very man who had broken the vase at Soissons. "No one,"
cried out the king to him, "carries his arms so awkwardly as thou;
for neither thy spear nor thy sword nor thy ax is ready for use,"
and he struck the ax out of the soldier's hands so that it fell to
the ground. Then when the man bent forward to pick it up the king
raised his own ax and struck him on the head, saying, "Thus thou
didst to the vase at Soissons." Having slain him, he dismissed the
others, filled with great fear....[45]
[Sidenote: Clovis decides to become a Christian (496)]
=30.= The queen did not cease urging the king to acknowledge the
true God and forsake idols, but all her efforts failed until at
length a war broke out with the Alemanni.[46] Then of necessity he
was compelled to confess what hitherto he had wilfully denied. It
happened that the two armies were in battle and there was great
slaughter.[47] The army of Clovis seemed about to be cut in pieces.
Then the king raised his hands fervently toward the heavens and,
breaking into tears, cried: "Jesus Christ, who Clotilde declares to
be the son of the living God, who it is said givest help to the
oppressed and victory to those who put their trust in thee, I
invoke thy marvellous help. If thou wilt give me victory over my
enemies and I prove that power which thy followers say they have
proved concerning thee, I will believe in thee and will be baptized
in thy name; for I have called upon my own gods and it is clear
that they have neglected to give me aid. Therefore I am convinced
that they have no power, for they do not help those who serve them.
I now call upon thee, and I wish to believe in thee, especially
that I may escape from my enemies." When he had offered this prayer
the Alemanni turned their backs and began to flee. And when they
learned that their king had been slain, they submitted at once to
Clovis, saying, "Let no more of our people perish, for we now
belong to you." When he had stopped the battle and praised his
soldiers for their good work, Clovis returned in peace to his
kingdom and told the queen how he had won the victory by calling on
the name of Christ. These events took place in the fifteenth year
of his reign.[48]
=31.= Then the queen sent secretly to the blessed Remigius, bishop
of Rheims, and asked him to bring to the king the gospel of
salvation. The bishop came to the court where, little by little, he
led Clovis to believe in the true God, maker of heaven and earth,
and to forsake the idols which could help neither him nor any one
else. "Willingly will I hear thee, O holy father," declared the
king at last, "but the people who are under my authority are not
ready to give up their gods. I will go and consult them about the
religion concerning which you speak." When he had come among them,
and before he had spoken a word, all the people, through the
influence of the divine power, cried out with one voice: "O
righteous king, we cast off our mortal gods and we are ready to
serve the God who Remigius tells us is immortal."
[Sidenote: The baptism of Clovis and his warriors]
When this was reported to the bishop he was beside himself with
joy, and he at once ordered the baptismal font to be prepared. The
streets were shaded with embroidered hangings; the churches were
adorned with white tapestries, exhaling sweet odors; perfumed
tapers gleamed; and all the temple of the baptistry was filled with
a heavenly odor, so that the people might well have believed that
God in His graciousness showered upon them the perfumes of
Paradise. Then Clovis, having confessed that the God of the Trinity
was all-powerful, was baptized in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and was anointed with the holy oil
with the sign of the cross. More than three thousand of his
soldiers were baptized with him....
=35.= Now when Alaric, king of the Goths, saw that Clovis was
conquering many nations, he sent messengers to him, saying, "If it
please my brother, let us, with the favor of God, enter into an
alliance." Clovis at once declared his willingness to do as Alaric
suggested and the two kings met on an island in the Loire, near the
town of Amboise in the vicinity of Tours.[49] There they talked,
ate, and drank together, and after making mutual promises of
friendship they departed in peace.
[Sidenote: Clovis resolves to take the Visigoths' lands in Gaul]
=37.= But Clovis said to his soldiers: "It is with regret that I
see the Arian heretics in possession of any part of Gaul. Let us,
with the help of God, march against them and, after having
conquered them, bring their country under our own control." This
proposal was received with favor by all the warriors and the army
started on the campaign, going towards Poitiers, where Alaric was
then staying. As a portion of the troops passed through the
territory about Tours, Clovis, out of respect for the holy St.
Martin, forbade his soldiers to take anything from the country
except grass for the horses. One soldier, having come across some
hay which belonged to a poor man said, "Has, then, the king given
us permission to take only grass? O well! hay is grass. To take it
would not be to violate the command." And by force he took the hay
away from the poor man. When, however, the matter was brought to
the king's attention he struck the offender with his sword and
killed him, saying, "How, indeed, may we hope for victory if we
give offense to St. Martin?" This was enough thereafter to prevent
the army from plundering in that country.
[Sidenote: Miraculous incidents of the campaign]
When Clovis arrived with his forces at the banks of the Vienne he
was at a loss to know where to cross, because the heavy rains had
swollen the stream. During the night he prayed that the Lord would
reveal to him a passage. The following morning, under the guidance
of God, a doe of wondrous size entered the river in plain sight of
the army and crossed by a ford, thus pointing out the way for the
soldiers to get over. When they were in the neighborhood of
Poitiers the king saw at some distance from his tent a ball of
fire, which proceeded from the steeple of the church of St.
Hilary[50] and seemed to him to advance in his direction, as if to
show that by the aid of the light of the holy St. Hilary he would
triumph the more easily over the heretics against whom the pious
priest had himself often fought for the faith. Clovis then forbade
his army to molest any one or to pillage any property in that part
of the country.
[Sidenote: The Visigoths defeated by Clovis (507)]
Clovis at length engaged in battle with Alaric, king of the Goths,
in the plain of Vouille at the tenth mile-stone from Poitiers.[51]
The Goths fought with javelins, but the Franks charged upon them
with lances. Then the Goths took to flight, as is their custom,[52]
and the victory, with the aid of God, fell to Clovis. He had put
the Goths to flight and killed their king, Alaric, when all at once
two soldiers bore down upon him and struck him with lances on both
sides at once; but, owing to the strength of his armor and the
swiftness of his horse, he escaped death. After the battle
Amalaric, son of Alaric, took refuge in Spain and ruled wisely over
the kingdom of his father.[53] Alaric had reigned twenty-two years.
Clovis, after spending the winter at Bordeaux and carrying from
Toulouse all the treasure of the king, advanced on Angouleme. There
the Lord showed him such favor that at his very approach the walls
of the city fell down of their own accord.[54] After driving out
the Goths he brought the place under his own authority. Thus,
crowned with victory, he returned to Tours and bestowed a great
number of presents upon the holy church of the blessed Martin.[55]
[Sidenote: Other means by which Clovis extended his power]
=40.= Now while Clovis was living at Paris he sent secretly to the
son of Sigibert,[56] saying: "Behold now your father is old and
lame. If he should die his kingdom would come to you and my
friendship with it." So the son of Sigibert, impelled by his
ambition, planned to slay his father. And when Sigibert set out
from Cologne and crossed the Rhine to go through the Buchonian
forest,[57] his son had him slain by assassins while he was
sleeping in his tent, in order that he might gain the kingdom for
himself. But by the judgment of God he fell into the pit which he
had digged for his father. He sent messengers to Clovis to announce
the death of his father and to say: "My father is dead and I have
his treasures, and likewise the kingdom. Now send trusted men to
me, that I may give them for you whatever you would like out of his
treasury." Clovis replied: "I thank you for your kindness and will
ask you merely to show my messengers all your treasures, after
which you may keep them yourself." And when the messengers of
Clovis came, the son of Sigibert showed them the treasures which
his father had collected. And while they were looking at various
things, he said: "My father used to keep his gold coins in this
little chest." And they said, "Put your hand down to the bottom,
that you may show us everything." But when he stooped to do this,
one of the messengers struck him on the head with his battle-ax,
and thus he met the fate which he had visited upon his father.
Now when Clovis heard that both Sigibert and his son were dead, he
came to that place and called the people together and said to them:
"Hear what has happened. While I was sailing on the Scheldt River,
Cloderic, son of Sigibert, my relative, attacked his father,
pretending that I had wished him to slay him. And so when his
father fled through the Buchonian forest, the assassins of Cloderic
set upon him and slew him. But while Cloderic was opening his
father's treasure chest, some man unknown to me struck him down. I
am in no way guilty of these things, for I could not shed the blood
of my relatives, which is very wicked. But since these things have
happened, if it seems best to you, I advise you to unite with me
and come under my protection." And those who heard him applauded
his speech, and, raising him on a shield, acknowledged him as their
king. Thus Clovis gained the kingdom of Sigibert and his treasures,
and won over his subjects to his own rule. For God daily confounded
his enemies and increased his kingdom, because he walked uprightly
before Him and did that which was pleasing in His sight.
[Sidenote: The removal of remaining rivals]
=42.= Then Clovis made war on his relative Ragnachar.[58] And when
the latter saw that his army was defeated, he attempted to flee;
but his own men seized him and his brother Richar and brought them
bound before Clovis. Then Clovis said: "Why have you disgraced our
family by allowing yourself to be taken prisoner? It would have
been better for you had you been slain." And, raising his
battle-ax, he slew him. Then, turning to Richar, he said, "If you
had aided your brother he would not have been taken;" and he slew
him with the ax also. Thus by their death Clovis took their kingdom
and treasures. And many other kings and relatives of his, who he
feared might take his kingdom from him, were slain, and his
dominion was extended over all Gaul.
[Sidenote: The death of Clovis (511)]
=43.= And after these things he died at Paris and was buried in the
basilica of the holy saints which he and his queen, Clotilde, had
built. He passed away in the fifth year after the battle of
Vouille, and all the days of his reign were thirty years.
7. The Law of the Salian Franks
When the Visigoths, Lombards, and other Germanic peoples settled
within the bounds of the Roman Empire they had no such thing as
written law. They had laws, and a goodly number of them, but these
laws were handed down from generation to generation orally, having
never been enacted by a legislative body or decreed by a monarch in
the way that laws are generally made among the civilized peoples of
to-day. In other words, early Germanic law consisted simply of an
accumulation of the immemorial custom of the tribe. When, for example,
a certain penalty had been paid on several occasions by persons who
had committed a particular crime, men came naturally to regard that
penalty as the one regularly to be paid by _any one_ proved guilty of
the same offense; so that what was at first only habit gradually
became hardened into law--unwritten indeed, but none the less binding.
The law thus made up, moreover, was personal rather than territorial
like that of the Romans and like ours to-day. That is, the same laws
did not apply to all the people throughout any particular country or
region. If a man were born a Visigoth he would be subject to
Visigothic law throughout life, no matter where he might go to live.
So the Burgundian would always have the right to be judged by
Burgundian law, and the Lombard by the Lombard law. Obviously, in
regions where several peoples dwelt side by side, as in large portions
of Gaul, Spain, and northern Italy, there was no small amount of
confusion and the courts had to be conducted in a good many different
ways.
After the Germans had been for some time in contact with the Romans
they began to be considerably influenced by the customs and ways of
doing things which they found among the more civilized people. They
tried to master the Latin language, though, on the whole, they
succeeded only so well as to create the new "Romance" tongues which we
know as French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. They adopted the
Roman religion, i.e., Christianity. And, among the most important
things of all, they took up the Roman idea of having their law written
out rather than in the uncertain shape of mere tradition. In this work
of putting the old customary law in written form the way was led by
the Salian branch of the Franks. Just when the Salic code was drawn up
is not known, but the work was certainly done at some time during the
reign of Clovis, probably about the year 496. The portions of this
code which are given below will serve to show the general character of
all the early Germanic systems of law--Visigothic, Lombard,
Burgundian, and Frisian, as well as Frankish; for among them all there
was much uniformity in principles, though considerable variation in
matters of detail. Like the rest, the Salic law was fragmentary. The
codes were not intended to embrace the entire law of the tribe, but
simply to bring together in convenient form those portions which were
most difficult to remember and which were most useful for ready
reference. In the Salic code, for instance, we find a large amount of
criminal law and of the law of procedure, but only a few touches of
the law of property, or indeed of civil law of any sort. There is
practically nothing in the way of public or administrative law. Many
things are not mentioned which we should expect to find treated and,
on the other hand, some things are there which we should not look for
ordinarily in a code of law. The greater portion is taken up with an
enumeration of penalties for various crimes and wrongful acts. These
are often detailed so minutely as to be rather amusing from our modern
point of view. Yet every one of the sixty-five chapters of the code
has its significance and from the whole law can be gleaned an immense
amount of information concerning the manner of life which prevailed in
early Frankish Gaul. For the Merovingian period in general the Salic
law is our most valuable documentary source of knowledge, just as for
the same epoch the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Gregory of Tours is our
most important narrative source.
Source--Text in Heinrich Geffcken, _Lex Salica_ ["The Salic
Law"], Leipzig, 1898; also Heinrich Gottfried Gengler,
_Germanische Rechtsdenkmaeler_ ["Monuments of German Law"],
Erlangen, 1875, pp. 267-303. Adapted from translation in
Ernest F. Henderson, _Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages_ (London, 1896), pp. 176-189.
I.
=1.= If any one be summoned before the _mallus_[59] by the king's
law, and do not come, he shall be sentenced to 600 _denarii_, which
make 15 _solidi_.[60]
[Sidenote: Summonses to the meetings of the local courts]
=2.= But he who summons another, and does not come himself, if a
lawful impediment have not delayed him, shall be sentenced to 15
_solidi_, to be paid to him whom he summoned.
=3.= And he who summons another shall go with witnesses to the home
of that man, and, if he be not at home, shall enjoin the wife, or
any one of the family, to make known to him that he has been
summoned to court.
=4.= But if he be occupied in the king's service he cannot summon
him.
=5.= And if he shall be inside the hundred attending to his own
affairs, he can summon him in the manner just explained.
XI.
=1.= If any freeman steal, outside of a house, something worth 2
_denarii_, he shall be sentenced to 600 _denarii_, which make 15
_solidi_.
[Sidenote: Theft by a slave]
=2.= But if he steal, outside of a house, something worth 40
_denarii_, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides
the amount and the fines for delay, to 1,400 _denarii_, which make
35 _solidi_.
=3.= If a freeman break into a house and steal something worth 2
_denarii_, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 15
_solidi_.
=4.= But if he shall have stolen something worth more than 5
_denarii_, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides
the value of the object and the fines for delay, to 1,400
_denarii_, which make 35 _solidi_.
=5.= But if he shall have broken, or tampered with, the lock, and
thus have entered the house and stolen anything from it, he shall
be sentenced, besides the value of the object and the fines for
delay, to 1,800 _denarii_, which make 45 _solidi_.
=6.= And if he shall have taken nothing, or have escaped by flight,
he shall, for the housebreaking alone, be sentenced to 1,200
_denarii_, which make 30 _solidi_.
XII.
[Sidenote: Theft by a freeman]
=1.= If a slave steal, outside of a house, something worth 2
_denarii_, besides paying the value of the object and the fines for
delay, he shall be stretched out and receive 120 blows.
=2.= But if he steal something worth 40 _denarii_, he shall pay 6
_solidi_. The lord of the slave who committed the theft shall
restore to the plaintiff the value of the object and the fines for
delay.
XIV.
[Sidenote: Robbery with assault]
=1.= If any one shall have assaulted and robbed a freeman, and it
be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2,500 _denarii_, which
make 63 _solidi_.
=2.= If a Roman shall have robbed a Salian Frank, the above law
shall be observed.
=3.= But if a Frank shall have robbed a Roman, he shall be
sentenced to 35 _solidi_.
XV.
[Sidenote: The crime of incendiarism]
=1.= If any one shall set fire to a house in which people were
sleeping, as many freemen as were in it can make complaint before
the _mallus_; and if any one shall have been burned in it, the
incendiary shall be sentenced to 2,500 _denarii_, which make 63
_solidi_.[61]
XVII.
=1.= If any one shall have sought to kill another person, and the
blow shall have missed, he on whom it was proved shall be sentenced
to 2,500 _denarii_, which make 63 _solidi_.
[Sidenote: Various deeds of violence]
=2.= If any person shall have sought to shoot another with a
poisoned arrow, and the arrow has glanced aside, and it shall be
proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2,500 _denarii_, which make
63 _solidi_.
5. If any one shall have struck a man so that blood falls to the
floor, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 600
_denarii_, which make 15 _solidi_.
=6.= But if a freeman strike a freeman with his fist so that blood
does not flow, he shall be sentenced for each blow--up to 3
blows--to 120 _denarii_, which make 3 _solidi_.[62]
XIX.
[Sidenote: Use of poison or witchcraft]
=1.= If any one shall have given herbs to another, so that he die,
he shall be sentenced to 200 _solidi_, or shall surely be given
over to fire.
=2.= If any person shall have bewitched another, and he who was
thus treated shall escape, the author of the crime, having been
proved guilty of it, shall be sentenced to 2,500 _denarii_, which
make 63 _solidi_.
XXX.
[Sidenote: Punishment for slander]
=6.= If any man shall have brought it up against another that he
has thrown away his shield, and shall not have been able to prove
it, he shall be sentenced to 120 _denarii_, which make 3
_solidi_.[63]
=7.= If any man shall have called another "gossip" or "perjurer,"
and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to
600 _denarii_, which make 15 _solidi_.
XXXIV.
=1.= If any man shall have cut 3 staves by which a fence is bound
or held together, or shall have stolen or cut the heads of 3
stakes, he shall be sentenced to 600 _denarii_, which make 15
_solidi_.
[Sidenote: The offense of trespass]
=2.= If any one shall have drawn a harrow through another's field
of grain after the seed has sprouted, or shall have gone through it
with a wagon where there was no road, he shall be sentenced to 120
_denarii_, which make 3 _solidi_.
=3.= If any one shall have gone, where there is no road or path,
through another's field after the grain has grown tall, he shall be
sentenced to 600 _denarii_, which make 15 _solidi_.
XLI.
=1.= If any one shall have killed a free Frank, or a barbarian
living under the Salic law, and it shall have been proved on him,
he shall be sentenced to 8,000 _denarii_.
[Sidenote: Punishments for homicide]
=2.= But if he shall have thrown him into a well or into the water,
or shall have covered him with branches or anything else, to
conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 24,000 _denarii_, which make
600 _solidi_.
=3.= If any one shall have slain a man who is in the service of the
king, he shall be sentenced to 24,000 _denarii_, which make 600
_solidi_.[64]
=4.= But if he shall have put him in the water, or in a well, and
covered him with anything to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to
72,000 _denarii_, which make 1,000 _solidi_.
=5.= If any one shall have slain a Roman who eats in the king's
palace, and it shall have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced
to 12,000 _denarii_, which make 300 _solidi_.[65]
=6.= But if the Roman shall not have been a landed proprietor and
table companion of the king, he who killed him shall be sentenced
to 4,000 _denarii_, which make 100 _solidi_.
=7.= If he shall have killed a Roman who was obliged to pay
tribute, he shall be sentenced to 63 _solidi_.
=9.= If any one shall have thrown a freeman into a well, and he has
escaped alive, he [the criminal] shall be sentenced to 4,000
_denarii_, which make 100 _solidi_.
XLV.
[Sidenote: Right of migration]
=1.= If any one desires to migrate to another village, and if one
or more who live in that village do not wish to receive him--even
if there be only one who objects--he shall not have the right to
move there.
=3.= But if any one shall have moved there, and within 12 months no
one has given him warning, he shall remain as secure as the other
neighbors.
L.
[Sidenote: Enforcement of debt]
1. If any freeman or leet[66] shall have made to another a promise
to pay, then he to whom the promise was made shall, within 40 days,
or within such time as was agreed upon when he made the promise, go
to the house of that man with witnesses, or with appraisers. And if
he [the debtor] be unwilling to make the promised payment, he shall
be sentenced to 15 _solidi_ above the debt which he had promised.
LIX.
=1.= If any man die and leave no sons, the father and mother shall
inherit, if they survive.
[Sidenote: Rights of inheritance]
=2.= If the father and mother do not survive, and he leave brothers
or sisters, they shall inherit.
=3.= But if there are none, the sisters of the father shall
inherit.
=4.= But if there are no sisters of the father, the sisters of the
mother shall claim the inheritance.
=5.= If there are none of these, the nearest relatives on the
father's side shall succeed to the inheritance.
=6.= Of Salic land no portion of the inheritance shall go to a
woman; but the whole inheritance of the land shall belong to the
male sex.[67]
LXII.
[Sidenote: Payment of wergeld]
=1.= If any one's father shall have been slain, the sons shall have
half the compounding money [wergeld]; and the other half, the
nearest relatives, as well on the mother's as on the father's side,
shall divide among themselves.[68]
=2.= But if there are no relatives, paternal or maternal, that
portion shall go to the fisc.[69]
FOOTNOTES:
[39] St. Martin was born in Pannonia somewhat before the middle of the
fourth century. For a time he followed his father's profession as a
soldier in the service of the Roman emperor, but later he went to Gaul
with the purpose of aiding in the establishment of the Christian
Church in that quarter. In 372 he was elected bishop of Tours and
shortly afterwards he founded the monastery with which his name was
destined to be associated throughout the Middle Ages. This monastery,
which was one of the earliest in western Europe, became a very
important factor in the prolonged combat with Gallic paganism, and
subsequently a leading center of ecclesiastical learning.
[40] Childeric I., son of the more or less mythical Merovius, was king
from 457 to 481. Clovis became ruler of the Salian branch of the
Franks in this latter year. The tomb of Childeric was discovered at
Tournai in 1653.
[41] Aegidius and his son Syagrius were the last official
representatives of the Roman imperial power in Gaul; and since the
fall of the Empire in the West even they had taken the title of "king
of the Romans" and had been practically independent sovereigns in the
territory between the Somme and the Loire, with their capital at
Soissons, northeast of Paris.
[42] Alaric II., king of the Visigoths, 485-507.
[43] The battle of Soissons in 486, with the defeat and death of
Syagrius, insured for the Franks undisputed possession southward to
the Loire, which was the northern frontier of the Visigothic kingdom.
[44] The Campus Martius was the "March-field," i.e., the assembling
place of the Frankish army. It was not regularly in any one locality
but wherever the king might call the soldiers together, as he did
every spring for purposes of review. In the eighth century the month
of May was substituted for March as the time for the meeting.
[45] In the words of Hodgkin (_Charles the Great_, p. 12), "the
well-known story of the vase of Soissons illustrates at once the
German memories of freedom and the Merovingian mode of establishing a
despotism. As a battle comrade the Frankish warrior protests against
Clovis receiving an ounce beyond his due share of the spoils. As a
battle leader Clovis rebukes his henchman for the dirtiness of his
accoutrements, and cleaves his skull to punish him for his
independence."
[46] The Alemanni were a German people occupying a vast region about
the upper waters of the Rhine and Danube. They had been making
repeated efforts to acquire territory west of the Rhine--an
encroachment which Clovis resolved not to tolerate.
[47] The battle was fought near Strassburg, in the upper Rhine valley.
[48] The ultimate result of the defeat of the Alemanni was that the
Frankish kingdom was enlarged by the annexation of the great region
known in the later Middle Ages as Suabia, comprising modern Alsace,
Baden, Wuertemberg, the western part of Bavaria, and the northern part
of Switzerland. The Alemanni as a people disappeared speedily from
history, being absorbed by their more powerful neighbors. Their only
monument to-day is the name by which the French have always known the
people of Germany--_Allemands_.
[49] The Loire was the boundary between the dominions of the two
kings. There have been many famous instances in history of two
sovereigns coming together to confer at some point on the common
border of the territories controlled by them, notably the interview of
Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I. on the Niemen River in 1807. The Franks
and the Visigoths had been enemies ever since by Clovis's defeat of
Syagrius their dominions had been brought into contact (486), and the
present jovial interview of the two kings did not long keep them at
peace with each other.
[50] St. Hilary was bishop of Poitiers in the later fourth century. He
was a contemporary of St. Martin of Tours and a co-worker with him in
the organization of Gallic Christianity.
[51] The plain of Vouille was ten miles west of Poitiers.
[52] This amusing comment of Gregory was due largely to his prejudice
in favor of the Franks and against the heretical Visigoths.
[53] The Visigothic kingdom in Spain, with its capital at Toledo,
endured until the Saracen conquest of that country in 711 and the
years immediately following, but it did not give evidence of much
strength. It stood so long only because the Pyrenees made a natural
boundary against the Franks and because, after Clovis, for two hundred
years the Franks produced no great conqueror who cared to crowd the
Visigoths into still closer quarters.
[54] Clovis, particularly after his conversion to Christianity in 496,
was the hero of Gregory's history and apparently the enthusiastic old
bishop did not lose an opportunity to glorify his career. At any rate
it would certainly be difficult to relate anything more remarkable
about him than this legend of the walls of Angouleme falling down
before him at his mere approach.
[55] This notable campaign had advanced Frankish territory to the
Pyrenees, except for the strip between these mountains and the Rhone,
known as Septimania, which the Visigoths were able to retain by the
aid of the Ostrogoths from Italy. No great number of Franks settled in
this broad territory south of the Loire, and to this day the
inhabitants of south France show a much larger measure of Roman
descent than do those of the north. It may be added that Septimania
was conquered by Clovis's son Childebert in 531, and thus the last bit
of old Gaul--practically modern France--was brought under Frankish
control.
[56] This was Cloderic, son of Sigibert the Lame, king of a tribe of
Franks living along the middle Rhine. Sigibert was one of the numerous
independent and rival princes whom Clovis used every expedient to put
out of the way.
[57] Along the Upper Weser, near the monastery of Fulda.
[58] Ragnachar's kingdom was in the region about Cambrai.
[59] The _mallus_ was the local court held about every six weeks in
each community or hundred. In early German law the state has small
place and the principle of self-help by the individual is very
prominent. To bring a suit one summons his opponent himself and gets
him to appear at court if he can. Ordinarily the court merely
determines the method by which the guilt or innocence of the accused
may be tested. Execution of the sentence rests again with the
plaintiff, or with his family or clan group.
[60] "The monetary system of the Salic law was taken from the Romans.
The basis was the gold _solidus_ of Constantine, 1/72 of a pound of
gold. The small coin was the silver _denarius_, forty of which made a
_solidus_. This system was adopted as a monetary reform by Clovis, and
the statement of the sum in terms of both coins is probably due to the
newness of the system at the time of the appearance of the
law."--Thatcher and McNeal, _Source Book for Mediaeval History_, p. 17.
The gold _solidus_ was worth somewhere from two and a half to three
dollars, but its purchasing power was perhaps equal to that of twenty
dollars to-day, because gold and silver were then so much scarcer and
more valuable. Such estimates of purchasing power, however, involve so
great uncertainty as to be practically worthless.
[61] The Burgundian law (Chap. 41) contained a provision that if a man
made a fire on his own premises and it spread to fences or crops
belonging to another person, and did damage, the man who made the fire
should recompense his neighbor for his loss, provided it could be
shown that there was no wind to drive the fire beyond control. If
there was such a wind, no penalty was to be exacted.
[62] The law of the Lombards had a more elaborate system of fines for
wounds than did the Salic code. For example, knocking out a man's
front teeth was to be paid for at the rate of sixteen _solidi_ per
tooth; knocking out back teeth at the rate of eight _solidi_ per
tooth; fracturing an arm, sixteen _solidi_; cutting off a second
finger, seventeen _solidi_; cutting off a great toe, six _solidi_;
cutting off a little toe, two _solidi_; giving a blow with the fist,
three _solidi_; with the palm of the hand, six _solidi_; and striking
a person on the head so as to break bones, twelve _solidi_ per bone.
In the latter case the broken bones were to be counted "on this
principle, that one bone shall be found large enough to make an
audible sound when thrown against a shield at twelve feet distance on
the road; the said feet to be measured from the foot of a man of
moderate stature."
[63] The man who had "thrown away his shield" was the coward who had
fled from the field of battle. How the Germans universally regarded
such a person appears in the _Germania_ of Tacitus, Chap. 6 (see p.
25). To impute this ignominy to a man was a serious matter.
[64] This was the so-called "triple wergeld." That is, the lives of
men in the service of the king were rated three times as high as those
of ordinary free persons.
[65] Here is an illustration of the personal character of Germanic
law. There is one law for the Frank and another for the Roman, though
both peoples were now living side by side in Gaul. The price put upon
the life of the Frankish noble who was in the king's service was 600
_solidi_ (Sec. 3), but that on the life of the Roman noble in the same
service was but half that amount. The same proportion held for the
ordinary freemen, as will be seen by comparing Secs. 1 and 6.
[66] A leet was such a person as we in modern times commonly designate
as a serf--a man only partially free.
[67] This has been alleged to be the basis of the misnamed "Salic Law"
by virtue of which no woman, in the days of the French monarchy, was
permitted to inherit the throne. As a matter of fact, however, the
exclusion of women from the French throne was due, not to this or to
any other early Frankish principle, but to later circumstances which
called for stronger monarchs in France than women have ordinarily been
expected to be. The history of the modern "Salic Law" does not go back
of the resolution of the French nobles in 1317 against the general
political expediency of female sovereigns [see p. 420].
[68] The wergeld was the value put by the law upon every man's life.
Its amount varied according to the rank of the person in question. The
present section specifies how the wergeld paid by a murderer should be
divided among the relatives of the slain man.
[69] That is, to the king's treasury.
CHAPTER V.
THE ANGLES AND SAXONS IN BRITAIN
8. The Saxon Invasion (cir. 449)
The Venerable Bede, the author of the passage given below, was born
about 673 in Northumberland and spent most of his life in the
Benedictine abbey of Jarrow on the Tyne, where he died in 735. He was
a man of broad learning and untiring industry, famous in all parts of
Christendom by reason of the numerous scholarly books that he wrote.
The chief of these was his _Ecclesiastical History of the English
People_, covering the period from the first invasion of Britain by
Caesar (B.C. 55) to the year 731. In this work Bede dealt with many
matters lying properly outside the sphere of church history, so that
it is exceedingly valuable for the light which it throws on both the
military and political affairs of the early Anglo-Saxons in Britain.
As an historian Bede was fair-minded and as accurate as his means of
information permitted.
The Angle and Saxon seafarers from the region we now know as Denmark
and Hanover had infested the shores of Britain for two centuries or
more before the coming of Hengist and Horsa which Bede here describes.
The withdrawal of the Roman garrisons about the year 410 left the
Britons at the mercy of the wilder Picts and Scots of the north and
west, and as a last resort King Vortigern decided to call in the
Saxons to aid in his campaign of defense. Such, at least, is the story
related by Gildas, a Romanized British chronicler who wrote about the
year 560, and this was the view adopted by Bede. Recent writers, as
Mr. James H. Ramsay in his _Foundations of England_, are inclined to
cast serious doubts upon the story because it seems hardly probable
that any king would have taken so foolish a step as that attributed to
Vortigern.[70] At any rate, whether by invitation or for pure love of
seafaring adventure, certain it is that the Saxons and Angles made
their appearance at the little island of Thanet, on the coast of Kent,
and found the country so much to their liking that they chose to
remain rather than return to the over-populated shores of the Baltic.
There are many reasons for believing that people of Germanic stock had
been settled more or less permanently in Britain long before the
traditional invasion of Hengist and Horsa. Yet we are justified in
thinking of this interesting expedition as, for all practical
purposes, the beginning of the long and stubborn struggle of Germans
to possess the fruitful British isle. While Visigoths and Ostrogoths,
Vandals and Lombards were breaking across the Rhine-Danube frontier
and finding new homes in the territories of the Roman Empire, the
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from the farther north were led by their
seafaring instincts to make their great movement, not by land, but by
water, and into a country which the Romans had a good while before
been obliged to abandon. There they were free to develop their own
peculiar Germanic life and institutions, for the most part without
undergoing the changes which settlement among the Romans produced in
the case of the tribes whose migrations were towards the
Mediterranean.
Source--Baeda, _Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum_ [Bede,
"Ecclesiastical History of the English People"], Bk. I.,
Chaps. 14-15. Translated by J. A. Giles (London, 1847), pp.
23-25.
[Sidenote: The Britons decide to call in the Saxons]
They consulted what was to be done,[71] and where they should seek
assistance to prevent or repel the cruel and frequent incursions of
the northern nations. And they all agreed with their king,
Vortigern, to call over to their aid, from the parts beyond the
sea, the Saxon nation; which, as the outcome still more plainly
showed, appears to have been done by the inspiration of our Lord
Himself, that evil might fall upon them for their wicked deeds.
[Sidenote: The Saxons settle in the island]
In the year of our Lord 449,[72] Martian, being made emperor with
Valentinian, the forty-sixth from Augustus, ruled the Empire seven
years. Then the nation of the Angles, or Saxons, being invited by
the aforesaid king, arrived in Britain with three long ships, and
had a place assigned them to reside in by the same king, in the
eastern part of the island,[73] that they might thus appear to be
fighting for their country, while their real intentions were to
enslave it. Accordingly they engaged with the enemy, who were come
from the north to give battle, and obtained the victory; which,
being known at home in their own country, as also the fertility of
the islands and the cowardice of the Britons, a larger fleet was
quickly sent over, bringing a still greater number of men, who,
being added to the former, made up an invincible army. The
newcomers received from the Britons a place to dwell, upon
condition that they should wage war against their enemies for the
peace and security of the country, while the Britons agreed to
furnish them with pay.
Those who came over were of the three most powerful nations of
Germany--Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. From the Jutes are descended
the people of Kent and of the Isle of Wight, and those also in the
province of the West Saxons who are to this day called Jutes,
seated opposite to the Isle of Wight. From the Saxons, that is, the
country which is now called Old Saxony, came the East Saxons, the
South Saxons, and the West Saxons. From the Angles, that is, the
country which is called Anglia, and which is said, from that time,
to remain desert to this day, between the provinces of the Jutes
and the Saxons, are descended the East Angles, the Midland Angles,
Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians, that is, of those
nations that dwell on the north side of the River Humber, and the
other nations of the English.
[Sidenote: Hengist and Horsa]
[Sidenote: The Saxons turn against the Britons]
The first two commanders are said to have been Hengist and Horsa.
Horsa, being afterwards slain in battle by the Britons,[74] was
buried in the eastern part of Kent, where a monument bearing his
name is still in existence. They were the sons of Victgilsus, whose
father was Vecta, son of Woden; from whose stock the royal races of
many provinces trace their descent. In a short time swarms of the
aforesaid nations came over into the island, and they began to
increase so much that they became a terror to the natives
themselves who had invited them. Then, having on a sudden entered
into a league with the Picts, whom they had by this time repelled
by the force of their arms, they began to turn their weapons
against their confederates. At first they obliged them to furnish a
greater quantity of provisions; and, seeking an occasion to
quarrel, protested that unless more plentiful supplies were brought
them they would break the confederacy and ravage all the island;
nor were they backward in putting their threats in execution.
[Sidenote: Their devastation of the country]
They plundered all the neighboring cities and country, spread the
conflagration from the eastern to the western sea without any
opposition, and covered almost every part of the island. Public as
well as private structures were overturned; the priests were
everywhere slain before the altars; the prelates and the people,
without any respect of persons, were destroyed with fire and sword;
nor were there any to bury those who had been thus cruelly
slaughtered. Some of the miserable remainder, being taken in the
mountains, were butchered in heaps. Others, driven by hunger, came
forth and submitted themselves to the enemy for food, being
destined to undergo perpetual servitude, if they were not killed
upon the spot. Some, with sorrowful hearts, fled beyond the seas.
Others, continuing in their own country, led a miserable life among
the woods, rocks, and mountains, with scarcely enough food to
support life, and expecting every moment to be their last.[75]
9. The Mission of Augustine (597)
How or when the Christian religion was first introduced into Britain
cannot now be ascertained. As early as the beginning of the third
century the African church father Tertullian referred to the Britons
as a Christian people, and in 314 the British church was recognized by
the Council of Arles as an integral part of the church universal.
Throughout the period of Roman control in the island Christianity
continued to be the dominant religion. When, however, in the fifth
century and after, the Saxons and Angles invaded the country and the
native population was largely killed off or driven westward (though
not so completely as some books tell us), Christianity came to be
pretty much confined to the Celtic peoples of Ireland and Wales. The
invaders were still pagans worshiping the old Teutonic deities Woden,
Thor, Freya, and the rest, and though an attempt at their conversion
was made by a succession of Irish monks, their pride as conquerors
seems to have kept them from being greatly influenced. At any rate,
the conversion of the Angles and Saxons was a task which called for a
special evangelistic movement from no less a source than the head of
the Church. This movement was set in operation by Pope Gregory I.
(Gregory the Great) near the close of the sixth century. It is
reasonable to suppose that the impulse came originally from Bertha,
the Frankish queen of King Ethelbert of Kent, who was an ardent
Christian and very desirous of bringing about the conversion of her
adopted people. In 596 Augustine (not to be confused with the
celebrated bishop of Hippo in the fifth century) was sent by Pope
Gregory at the head of a band of monks to proclaim the religion of the
cross to King Ethelbert, and afterwards to all the Angles and Saxons
and Jutes in the island. On Whitsunday, June 2, 597, Ethelbert
renounced his old gods and was baptized into the Christian communion.
The majority of his people soon followed his example and four years
later Augustine was appointed "Bishop of the English." After this
encouraging beginning the Christianizing of the East, West, and South
Saxons went steadily forward.
Source--Baeda, _Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum_, Bk.
I., Chaps. 23, 25-26. Adapted from translation by J. A. Giles
(London, 1847), pp. 34-40 _passim_.
[Sidenote: Pope Gregory I. sends missionaries to Britain]
[Sidenote: They become frightened at the outlook]
In the year of our Lord 582, Maurice, the fifty-fourth from
Augustus, ascended the throne,[76] and reigned twenty-one years. In
the tenth year of his reign, Gregory, a man renowned for learning
and piety, was elected to the apostolical see of Rome, and presided
over it thirteen years, six months and ten days.[77] He, being
moved by divine inspiration, in the fourteenth year of the same
emperor, and about the one hundred and fiftieth after the coming of
the English into Britain, sent the servant of God, Augustine,[78]
and with him several other monks who feared the Lord, to preach the
word of God to the English nation. They, in obedience to the Pope's
commands, having undertaken that work, were on their journey seized
with a sudden fear and began to think of returning home, rather
than of proceeding to a barbarous, fierce, and unbelieving nation,
to whose very language they were strangers; and this they
unanimously agreed was the safest course.[79] In short, they sent
back Augustine, who had been appointed to be consecrated bishop in
case they were received by the English, that he might, by humble
entreaty, obtain consent of the holy Gregory, that they should not
be compelled to undertake so dangerous, toilsome, and uncertain a
journey. The Pope, in reply, sent them an encouraging letter,
persuading them to proceed in the work of the divine word, and rely
on the assistance of the Almighty. The substance of this letter was
as follows:
[Sidenote: Gregory's letter of encouragement]
"Gregory, the servant of the servants of God, to the servants of
our Lord. Forasmuch as it had been better not to begin a good work
than to think of abandoning that which has been begun, it behooves
you, my beloved sons, to fulfill the good work which, by the help
of our Lord, you have undertaken. Let not, therefore, the toil of
the journey nor the tongues of evil-speaking men deter you. With
all possible earnestness and zeal perform that which, by God's
direction, you have undertaken; being assured that much labor is
followed by an eternal reward. When Augustine, your chief, returns,
whom we also constitute your abbot,[80] humbly obey him in all
things; knowing that whatsoever you shall do by his direction will,
in all respects, be helpful to your souls. Almighty God protect you
with his grace, and grant that I, in the heavenly country, may see
the fruits of your labor; inasmuch as, though I cannot labor with
you, I shall partake in the joy of the reward, because I am willing
to labor. God keep you in safety, my most beloved sons. Dated the
23rd of July, in the fourteenth year of the reign of our pious and
most august lord, Mauritius Tiberius, the thirteenth year after the
consulship of our said lord."
[Sidenote: Augustine and his companions arrive in Kent]
Augustine, thus strengthened by the confirmation of the blessed
Father Gregory, returned to the work of the word of God, with the
servants of Christ, and arrived in Britain. The powerful Ethelbert
was at that time king of Kent. He had extended his dominions as far
as the great River Humber, by which the Southern Saxons are
divided from the Northern.[81] On the east of Kent is the large
isle of Thanet containing according to the English reckoning 600
families, divided from the other land by the River Wantsum, which
is about three furlongs over and fordable only in two places, for
both ends of it run into the sea.[82] In this island landed the
servant of our Lord, Augustine, and his companions, being, as is
reported, nearly forty men. By order of the blessed Pope Gregory,
they had taken interpreters of the nation of the Franks,[83] and
sending to Ethelbert, signified that they were come from Rome and
brought a joyful message, which most undoubtedly assured to all
that took advantage of it everlasting joys in heaven and a kingdom
that would never end, with the living and true God. The king,
having heard this, ordered that they stay in that island where they
had landed, and that they be furnished with all necessaries, until
he should consider what to do with them. For he had before heard of
the Christian religion, having a Christian wife of the royal family
of the Franks, called Bertha;[84] whom he had received from her
parents upon condition that she should be permitted to practice her
religion with the Bishop Luidhard, who was sent with her to
preserve her faith.[85]
[Sidenote: Augustine preaches to King Ethelbert]
Some days after, the king came to the island, and sitting in the
open air, ordered Augustine and his companions to be brought into
his presence. For he had taken precaution that they should not come
to him in any house, lest, according to an ancient superstition, if
they practised any magical arts, they might impose upon him, and so
get the better of him. But they came furnished with divine, not
with magic virtue, bearing a silver cross for their banner, and the
image of our Lord and Savior painted on a board; and singing the
litany, they offered up their prayers to the Lord for the eternal
salvation both of themselves and of those to whom they were come.
When Augustine had sat down, according to the king's commands, and
preached to him and his attendants there present the word of life,
the king answered thus: "Your words and promises are very fair, but
as they are new to us, and of uncertain import, I cannot approve of
them so far as to forsake that which I have so long followed with
the whole English nation. But because you are come from afar into
my kingdom, and, as I conceive, are desirous to impart to us those
things which you believe to be true and most beneficial, we will
not molest you, but give you favorable entertainment and take care
to supply you with necessary sustenance; nor do we forbid you to
preach and win as many as you can to your religion." Accordingly he
permitted them to reside in the city of Canterbury, which was the
metropolis of all his dominions, and, according to his promise,
besides allowing them sustenance, did not refuse them liberty to
preach. It is reported that, as they drew near to the city, after
their manner, with the holy cross and the image of our sovereign
Lord and King, Jesus Christ, they sang this litany together: "We
beseech thee, O Lord, in all Thy mercy, that Thy anger and wrath be
turned away from this city, and from Thy holy house, because we
have sinned. Hallelujah."
[Sidenote: The life of the missionaries at Canterbury]
As soon as they entered the dwelling-place assigned them, they
began to imitate the course of life practised in the primitive
Church; applying themselves to frequent prayer, watching, and
fasting; preaching the word of life to as many as they could;
despising all worldly things as not belonging to them; receiving
only their necessary food from those they taught; living themselves
in all respects in conformity with what they prescribed for others,
and being always disposed to suffer any adversity, and even to die
for that truth which they preached. In short, several believed and
were baptized, admiring the simplicity of their innocent life, and
the sweetness of their heavenly doctrine. There was, on the east
side of the city, a church dedicated to the honor of St. Martin,
built whilst the Romans were still in the island, wherein the
queen, who, as has been said before, was a Christian, used to
pray.[86] In this they first began to meet, to sing, to pray, to
say mass, to preach, and to baptize, until the king, being
converted to the faith, allowed them to preach openly, and build or
repair churches in all places.
[Sidenote: Ethelbert converted]
When he, among the rest, induced by the unspotted life of these
holy men, and their pleasing promises, which by many miracles they
proved to be most certain, believed and was baptized, greater
numbers began daily to flock together to hear the word, and
forsaking their heathen rites, to associate themselves, by
believing, to the unity of the church of Christ. Their conversion
the king encouraged in so far that he compelled none to embrace
Christianity, but only showed more affection to the believers, as
to his fellow-citizens in the heavenly kingdom. For he had learned
from his instructors and guides to salvation that the service of
Christ ought to be voluntary, not by compulsion. Nor was it long
before he gave his teachers a settled residence in his metropolis
of Canterbury, with such possessions of different kinds as were
necessary for their subsistence.[87]
FOOTNOTES:
[70] James H. Ramsay, _The Foundations of England_ (London, 1898), I.,
p. 121.
[71] Bede has just been describing a plague which rendered the Britons
at this time even more unable than usual to withstand the fierce
invaders from the north; also lamenting the luxury and crime which a
few years of relief from war had produced among his people.
[72] This date is evidently incorrect. Martian and Valentinian III.
became joint rulers of the Empire in 450; hence this is the year that
Bede probably meant.
[73] That is, Thanet, which practically no longer exists as an island.
In Bede's day it was separated from the rest of Kent by nearly half a
mile of water, but since then the coast line has changed so that the
land is cut through by only a tiny rill. The intervening ground,
however, is marshy and only partially reclaimed.
[74] This battle was fought between Hengist and Vortimer, the eldest
son of Vortigern, at Aylesford, in Kent.
[75] It is by no means probable that the invasion of Britain by the
Saxons was followed by such wholesale extermination of the natives as
is here represented, though it is certain that everywhere, except in
the far west (Wales) and north (Scotland), the native population was
reduced to complete subjection.
[76] That is, the throne of the Eastern Empire at Constantinople.
[77] Gregory was a monk before he was elected pope. He held the papal
office from 590 to 604 [see p. 90].
[78] Augustine at the time (596) was prior of a monastery dedicated to
St. Andrew in Rome.
[79] The missionaries had apparently gone as far as Arles in southern
Provence when they reached this decision.
[80] An abbot was the head of a monastery. Should such an
establishment be set up in Britain, Augustine was to be its presiding
officer.
[81] The Germanic peoples north of the Humber were more properly
Angles, but of course they were in all essential respects like the
Saxons. Ethelbert was not actually king in that region, but was
recognized as "bretwalda," or over-lord, by the other rulers.
[82] For later changes in this part of the coast line, see p. 70,
note 1.
[83] This was possible because the Franks and Saxons, being both
German, as yet spoke languages so much alike that either people could
understand the other without much difficulty.
[84] Bertha was a daughter of the Frankish king Charibert. The Franks
had been nominally a Christian people since the conversion of Clovis
in 496 [see p. 53]--just a hundred years before Augustine started on
his mission to the Angles and Saxons.
[85] Luidhard had been bishop of Senlis; a town not many miles
northeast of Paris. Probably Augustine and his companions profited not
a little by the influence which Luidhard had already exerted at the
Kentish court.
[86] "The present church of St. Martin near Canterbury is not the old
one spoken of by Bede, as it is generally thought to be, but is a
structure of the thirteenth century, though it is probable that the
materials of the original church were worked up in the masonry in its
reconstruction, the walls being still composed in part of Roman
bricks."--J. A. Giles, _Bede's Ecclesiastical History_, p. 39.
[87] Thus was established the "primacy," or ecclesiastical leadership,
of Canterbury, which has continued to this day.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
10. Pope Leo's Sermon on the Petrine Supremacy
In tracing the history of the great ecclesiastical institution known
as the papacy, the first figure that stands out with considerable
clearness is that of Leo I., or Leo the Great, who was elected bishop
of Rome in the year 440. Leo is perhaps the first man who, all things
considered, can be called "pope" in the modern sense of the term,
although certain of his predecessors in the bishop's seat at the
imperial capital had long claimed and exercised a peculiar measure of
authority over their fellow bishops throughout the Empire. Almost from
the earliest days of Christianity the word _papa_ (pope) seems to have
been in common use as an affectionate mode of addressing any bishop,
but after the fourth century it came to be applied in a peculiar
manner to the bishop of Rome, and in time this was the only usage, so
far as western Europe was concerned, which survived. The causes of the
special development of the Roman bishopric into the powerful papal
office were numerous. Rome's importance as a city, and particularly as
the political head of the Mediterranean world, made it natural that
her bishop should have something of a special dignity and influence.
Throughout western Europe the Roman church was regarded as a model and
its bishop was frequently called upon for counsel and advice. Then,
when the seat of the imperial government was removed to the East by
Constantine, the Roman bishop naturally took up much of the leadership
in the West which had been exercised by the emperor, and this added
not a little in the way of prestige. On the whole the Roman bishops
were moderate, liberal, and sensible in their attitude toward church
questions, thereby commending themselves to the practical peoples of
the West in a way that other bishops did not always do. The growth of
temporal possessions, especially in the way of land, also made the
Roman bishops more independent and able to hold their own. And the
activity of such men as Leo the Great in warding off the attacks of
the German barbarians, and in providing popular leadership in the
absence of such leadership on the part of the imperial authorities,
was a not unimportant item.
After all, however, these are matters which have always been regarded
by the popes themselves as circumstances of a more or less transitory
and accidental character. It is not upon any or all of them that the
papacy from first to last has sought to base its high claims to
authority. The fundamental explanation, from the papal standpoint, for
the peculiar development of the papal power in the person of the
bishops of Rome is contained in the so-called theory of the "Petrine
Supremacy," which will be found set forth in Pope Leo's sermon
reproduced in part below. The essential points in this theory are: (1)
that to the apostle Peter, Christ committed the keys of the kingdom of
heaven and the supremacy over all other apostles on earth; (2) that
Peter, in the course of time, became the first bishop of Rome; and (3)
that the superior authority given to Peter was transmitted to all his
successors in the Roman bishopric. It was fundamentally on _these_
grounds that the pope, to quote an able Catholic historian, was
believed to be "the visible representative of ecclesiastical unity,
the supreme teacher and custodian of the faith, the supreme
legislator, the guardian and interpreter of the canons, the legitimate
superior of all bishops, the final judge of councils--an office which
he possessed in his own right, and which he actually exercised by
presiding over all ecumenical synods, through his legates, and by
confirming the acts of the councils as the Supreme Head of the
Universal Catholic Church."[88] Modern Protestants discard certain of
the tenets which go to make up the Petrine theory, but it is essential
that the student of history bear in mind that the people of the Middle
Ages never doubted its complete and literal authenticity, nor
questioned that the authority of the papal office rested at bottom
upon something far more fundamental than a mere fortunate combination
of historical circumstances. Whatever one's personal opinions on the
issues involved, the point to be insisted upon is that in studying
mediaeval church life and organization the universal acceptance of
these beliefs and conclusions be never lost to view.
Leo was pope from 440 to 461 and it has been well maintained that he
was the first occupant of the office to comprehend the wide
possibilities of the papal dignity in the future. In his sermons and
letters he vigorously asserted the sovereign authority of his
position, and in his influence on the events of his time, as for
example the Council of Chalcedon in 451, he sought with no little
success to bring men to a general acknowledgment of this authority.
Source--Text in Jacques Paul Migne, _Patroligiae Cursus
Completus_ ["Complete Collection of Patristic Literature"],
First Series, Vol. LIV., cols. 144-148. Translated in Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, _Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church_ (New York, 1895),
Second Series, Vol. XII., pp. 117-118.
[Sidenote: The apostle Peter still with his Church]
Although, therefore, dearly beloved, we be found both weak and
slothful in fulfilling the duties of our office, because, whatever
devoted and vigorous action we desire to undertake, we are hindered
in by the frailty of our nature, yet having the unceasing
propitiation of the Almighty and perpetual Priest [Christ], who
being like us and yet equal with the Father, brought down His
Godhead even to things human, and raised His Manhood even to things
Divine, we worthily and piously rejoice over His dispensation,
whereby, though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many
shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His
beloved flock. And from His overruling and eternal protection we
have received the support of the Apostle's aid also, which
assuredly does not cease from its operation; and the strength of
the foundation, on which the whole superstructure of the Church is
reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon
it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief
of the Apostles is perpetual; and as that remains which Peter
believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in
Peter.
[Sidenote: Christ's commission to Peter]
For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson,[89] the Lord had
asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be amid the various
opinions that were held, and the blessed Peter had replied, saying,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," the Lord said,
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven. And I say
to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My
church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in
heaven." [Matt. xvi. 16-19.]
[Sidenote: Peter properly rules the Church through his successors
at Rome]
The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter
persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has
not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he
was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being
called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his
being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his
being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall
retain their validity in heaven--from all these mystical titles we
might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still
to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is intrusted to
him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and
with Him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is
rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the
mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and
merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his
see....[90]
[Sidenote: Leo claims to be only Peter's representative]
And so, dearly beloved, with becoming obedience we celebrate
to-day's festival[91] by such methods, that in my humble person he
may be recognized and honored, in whom abides the care of all the
shepherds, together with the charge of the sheep commended to him,
and whose dignity is not belittled even in so unworthy an heir. And
hence the presence of my venerable brothers and fellow-priests, so
much desired and valued by me, will be the more sacred and
precious, if they will transfer the chief honor of this service in
which they have deigned to take part to him whom they know to be
not only the patron of this see, but also the primate of all
bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears,
holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we
are. Because it is his warning that we give, and nothing else but
his teaching that we preach, beseeching you to "gird up the loins
of your mind," and lead a chaste and sober life in the fear of God,
and not to let your mind forget his supremacy and consent to the
lusts of the flesh.
[Sidenote: An exhortation to Christian constancy]
[Sidenote: The peculiar privilege of the church at Rome]
Short and fleeting are the joys of this world's pleasures which
endeavor to turn aside from the path of life those who are called
to eternity. The faithful and religious spirit, therefore, must
desire the things which are heavenly and, being eager for the
divine promises, lift itself to the love of the incorruptible Good
and the hope of the true Light. But be assured, dearly-beloved,
that your labor, whereby you resist vices and fight against carnal
desires, is pleasing and precious in God's sight, and in God's
mercy will profit not only yourselves but me also, because the
zealous pastor makes his boast of the progress of the Lord's flock.
"For ye are my crown and joy," as the Apostle says, if your faith,
which from the beginning of the Gospel has been preached in all the
world, has continued in love and holiness. For though the whole
Church, which is in all the world, ought to abound in all virtues,
yet you especially, above all people, it becomes to excel in deeds
of piety, because, founded as you are on the very citadel of the
Apostolic Rock, not only has our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed you in
common with all men, but the blessed Apostle Peter has instructed
you far beyond all men.
11. The Rule of St. Benedict
A very important feature of the church life of the early Middle Ages
was the tendency of devout men to withdraw from the active affairs of
the world and give themselves up to careers of self-sacrificing piety.
Sometimes such men went out to live alone in forests or other obscure
places and for this reason were called anchorites or hermits; but more
often they settled in groups and formed what came to be known as
monasteries. The idea that seclusion is helpful to the religious life
was not peculiar to Christianity, for from very early times Brahmins
and Buddhists and other peoples of the Orient had cherished the same
view; and in many cases they do so still. Monasticism among Christians
began naturally in the East and at first took the form almost wholly
of hermitage, just as it had done among the adherents of other
Oriental religions, though by the fourth century the Christian monks
of Syria and Egypt and Asia Minor had come in many cases to dwell in
established communities. In general the Eastern monks were prone to
extremes in the way of penance and self-torture which the more
practical peoples of the West were not greatly disposed to imitate.
Monasticism spread into the West, but not until comparatively
late--beginning in the second half of the fourth century--and the
character which it there assumed was quite unlike that prevailing in
the East. The Eastern ideal was the life of meditation with as little
activity as possible, except perhaps such as was necessary in order to
impose hardships upon one's self. The Western ideal, on the other
hand, while involving a good deal of meditation and prayer, put much
emphasis on labor and did not call for so complete an abstention of
the monk from the pursuits and pleasures of other men.
In the later fifth century, and earlier sixth, several monasteries of
whose history we know little were established in southern Gaul,
especially in the pleasant valley of the Rhone. Earliest of all,
apparently, and destined to become the most influential was the abbey
of St. Martin at Tours, founded soon after St. Martin was made bishop
of Tours in 372. But the development of Western monasticism is
associated most of all with the work of St. Benedict of Nursia, who
died in 543. Benedict was the founder of several monasteries in the
vicinity of Rome, the most important being that of Monte Cassino, on
the road from Rome to Naples, which exists to this day. One should
guard, however, against the mistake of looking upon St. Benedict as
the introducer of monasticism in the West, of even as the founder of a
new monastic _order_ in the strict sense of the word. The great
service which he rendered to European monasticism consisted in his
working out for his monasteries in Italy an elaborate system of
government which was found so successful in practice that, in the form
of the Benedictine Rule (_regula_), it came to be the constitution
under which for many centuries practically all the monks of Western
countries lived. That it was so widely adopted was due mainly to its
definite, practical, common-sense character. Its chief injunctions
upon the monks were poverty, chastity, obedience, piety, and labor.
All these were to be attained by methods which, although they may seem
strange to us to-day, were at least natural and wholesome when judged
by the ideas and standards prevailing in early mediaeval times. Granted
the ascetic principle upon which the monastic system rested, the Rule
of St. Benedict must be regarded as eminently moderate and sensible.
It sprang from an acute perception of human nature and human needs no
less than from a lofty ideal of religious perfection. The following
extracts will serve to show its character.
Source--Text in Jacques Paul Migne, _Patrologiae Cursus
Completus_, First Series, Vol. LXVI., cols. 245-932 _passim_.
Adapted from translation in Ernest F. Henderson, _Select
Historical Documents of the Middle Ages_ (London, 1896), pp.
274-314.
_Prologue...._ We are about to found, therefore, a school for the
Lord's service, in the organization of which we trust that we shall
ordain nothing severe and nothing burdensome. But even if, the
demands of justice dictating it, something a trifle irksome shall
be the result, for the purpose of amending vices or preserving
charity, thou shalt not therefore, struck by fear, flee the way of
salvation, which cannot be entered upon except through a narrow
entrance.
[Sidenote: Responsibility of the abbot for the character and deeds
of the monks]
[Sidenote: He must teach by example as well as by precept]
=2.= _What the abbot should be like._ An abbot who is worthy to
preside over a monastery ought always to remember what he is
called, and carry out with his deeds the name of a Superior. For he
is believed to be Christ's representative, since he is called by
His name, the apostle saying: "Ye have received the spirit of
adoption of sons, whereby we call Abba, Father" [Romans viii. 15].
And so the abbot should not (grant that he may not) teach, or
decree, or order, anything apart from the precept of the Lord; but
his order or teaching should be characterized by the marks of
divine justice in the minds of his disciples. Let the abbot always
be mindful that, at the terrible judgment of God, both things will
be weighed in the balance, his teaching and the obedience of his
disciples. And let the abbot know that whatever of uselessness the
father of the family finds among the sheep is laid to the fault of
the shepherd. Only in a case where the whole diligence of their
pastor shall have been bestowed on an unruly and disobedient flock,
and his whole care given to their wrongful actions, shall that
pastor, absolved in the judgment of the Lord, be free to say to the
Lord with the prophet: "I have not hid Thy righteousness within my
heart; I have declared Thy faithfulness and Thy salvation, but
they, despising, have scorned me" [Psalms xl. 10]. And then let the
punishment for the disobedient sheep under his care be that death
itself shall prevail against them. Therefore, when any one receives
the name of abbot, he ought to rule over his disciples with a
double teaching; that is, let him show forth all good and holy
things by deeds more than by words. So that to ready disciples he
may set forth the commands of God in words; but to the hard-hearted
and the more simple-minded, he may show forth the divine precepts
by his deeds.
[Sidenote: His duty to encourage, to admonish, and to punish]
He shall make no distinction of persons in the monastery. One shall
not be more cherished than another, unless it be the one whom he
finds excelling in good works or in obedience. A free-born man
shall not be preferred to one coming from servitude, unless there
be some other reasonable cause. But if, by the demand of justice,
it seems good to the abbot, he shall do this, no matter what the
rank shall be. But otherwise they shall keep their own places. For
whether we be bond or free, we are all one in Christ; and, under
one God, we perform an equal service of subjection. For God is no
respecter of persons. Only in this way is a distinction made by Him
concerning us, if we are found humble and surpassing others in good
works. Therefore let him [the abbot] have equal charity for all.
Let the same discipline be administered in all cases according to
merit.... He should, that is, rebuke more severely the unruly and
the turbulent. The obedient, moreover, and the gentle and the
patient, he should exhort, that they may progress to higher things.
But the negligent and scorners, we warn him to admonish and
reprove. Nor let him conceal the sins of the erring; but, in order
that he may prevail, let him pluck them out by the roots as soon as
they begin to spring up.
And let him know what a difficult and arduous thing he has
undertaken--to rule the souls and uplift the morals of many. And in
one case indeed with blandishments, in another with rebukes, in
another with persuasion--according to the quality or intelligence
of each one--he shall so conform and adapt himself to all that not
only shall he not allow injury to come to the flock committed to
him, but he shall rejoice in the increase of a good flock. Above
all things, let him not, deceiving himself or undervaluing the
safety of the souls committed to him, give more heed to temporary
and earthly and passing things; but let him always reflect that he
has undertaken to rule souls for which he is to render account.
[Sidenote: The monks to be consulted by the abbot]
[Sidenote: The Rule to be followed by every one as a guide]
=3.= _About calling in the brethren to take counsel._ Whenever
anything of importance is to be done in the monastery, the abbot
shall call together the whole congregation,[92] and shall himself
explain the matter in question. And, having heard the advice of the
brethren, he shall think it over by himself, and shall do what he
considers most advantageous. And for this reason, moreover, we have
said that all ought to be called to take counsel, because often it
is to a younger person that God reveals what is best. The brethren,
moreover, with all subjection of humility, ought so to give their
advice that they do not presume boldly to defend what seems good to
them; but it should rather depend on the judgment of the abbot, so
that, whatever he decides to be best, they should all agree to it.
But even as it behooves the disciples to obey the master, so it is
fitting that he should arrange all matters with care and justice.
In all things, indeed, let every one follow the Rule as his guide;
and let no one rashly deviate from it. Let no one in the monastery
follow the inclination of his own heart. And let no one boldly
presume to dispute with his abbot, within or without the monastery.
But, if he should so presume, let him be subject to the discipline
of the Rule.
[Sidenote: No property to be owned by the monks individually]
=33.= _Whether the monks should have anything of their own._ More
than anything else is this special vice to be cut off root and
branch from the monastery, that one should presume to give or
receive anything without the order of the abbot, or should have
anything of his own. He should have absolutely not anything,
neither a book, nor tablets, nor a pen--nothing at all. For indeed
it is not allowed to the monks to have their own bodies or wills in
their own power. But all things necessary they must expect from the
Father of the monastery; nor is it allowable to have anything which
the abbot has not given or permitted. All things shall be held in
common; as it is written, "Let not any man presume to call anything
his own." But if any one shall have been discovered delighting in
this most evil vice, being warned once and again, if he do not
amend, let him be subjected to punishment.[93]
[Sidenote: Daily schedule for the summer season]
=48.= _Concerning the daily manual labor._ Idleness is the enemy of
the soul.[94] And therefore, at fixed times, the brothers ought to
be occupied in manual labor; and again, at fixed times, in sacred
reading.[95] Therefore we believe that both seasons ought to be
arranged after this manner,--so that, from Easter until the Calends
of October,[96] going out early, from the first until the fourth
hour they shall do what labor may be necessary. From the fourth
hour until about the sixth, they shall be free for reading. After
the meal of the sixth hour, rising from the table, they shall rest
in their beds with all silence; or, perchance, he that wishes to
read may read to himself in such a way as not to disturb another.
And the _nona_ [the second meal] shall be gone through with more
moderately about the middle of the eighth hour; and again they
shall work at what is to be done until Vespers.[97] But, if the
emergency or poverty of the place demands that they be occupied in
picking fruits, they shall not be grieved; for they are truly monks
if they live by the labors of their hands, as did also our fathers
and the apostles. Let all things be done with moderation, however,
on account of the faint-hearted.
[Sidenote: Reading during Lent]
In days of Lent they shall all receive separate books from the
library, which they shall read entirely through in order. These
books are to be given out on the first day of Lent. Above all there
shall be appointed without fail one or two elders, who shall go
round the monastery at the hours in which the brothers are engaged
in reading, and see to it that no troublesome brother be found who
is given to idleness and trifling, and is not intent on his
reading, being not only of no use to himself, but also stirring up
others. If such a one (may it not happen) be found, he shall be
reproved once and a second time. If he do not amend, he shall be
subject under the Rule to such punishment that the others may have
fear. Nor shall brother join brother at unsuitable hours. Moreover,
on Sunday all shall engage in reading, excepting those who are
assigned to various duties. But if any one be so negligent and lazy
that he will not or can not read, some task shall be imposed upon
him which he can do, so that he be not idle. On feeble or delicate
brothers such a task or art is to be imposed, that they shall
neither be idle nor so oppressed by the violence of labor as to be
driven to take flight. Their weakness is to be taken into
consideration by the abbot.
[Sidenote: Hospitality enjoined]
=53.= _Concerning the reception of guests._ All guests who come
shall be received as though they were Christ. For He Himself said,
"I was a stranger and ye took me in" [Matt. xxv. 35]. And to all
fitting honor shall be shown; but, most of all, to servants of the
faith and to pilgrims. When, therefore, a guest is announced, the
prior or the brothers shall run to meet him, with every token of
love. And first they shall pray together, and thus they shall be
joined together in peace.
[Sidenote: Power of abbot to dispose of articles sent to the monks]
=54.= _Whether a monk should be allowed to receive letters or
anything._ By no means shall it be allowed to a monk--either from
his relatives, or from any man, or from one of his fellows--to
receive or to give, without order of the abbot, letters, presents,
or any gift, however small. But even if, by his relatives, anything
has been sent to him, he shall not presume to receive it, unless
it has first been shown to the abbot. But if the latter order it to
be received, it shall be in the power of the abbot to give it to
whomsoever he wishes. And the brother to whom it happened to have
been sent shall not be displeased; that an opportunity be not given
to the devil. Whoever, moreover, presumes to do otherwise shall be
subject to the discipline of the Rule.
12. Gregory the Great on the Life of the Pastor
Gregory the Great, whose papacy extended from 590 to 604, was a Roman
of noble and wealthy family, and in many ways the ablest man who had
yet risen to the papal office. The date of his birth is not recorded,
but it was probably about 540, some ten years after St. Benedict of
Nursia had established his monastery at Monte Cassino. He was
therefore a contemporary of the historian Gregory of Tours [see p.
47]. The education which he received was that which was usual with
young Romans of his rank in life, and it is said that in grammar,
rhetoric, logic, and law he became well versed, though without any
claim to unusual scholarship. He entered public life and in 570 was
made praetor of the city of Rome. All the time, however, he was
struggling with the strange attractiveness which the life of the monk
had for him, and in the end, upon the death of his father, he decided
to forego the career to which his wealth and rank entitled him and to
seek the development of his higher nature in seclusion. With the money
obtained from the sale of his great estates he established six
monasteries in Sicily and that of St. Andrew at Rome. In Gregory's
case, however, retirement to monastic life did not mean oblivion, for
soon he was selected by Pope Pelagius II., as resident minister
(_apocrisiarius_) at Constantinople and in this important position he
was maintained for five or six years. After returning to Rome he
became abbot of St. Andrews, and in 590, as the records say, he was
"demanded" as pope.
Gregory was a man of very unusual ability and the force of his strong
personality made his reign one of the great formative epochs in papal
history. Besides his activity in relation to the affairs of the world
in general, he has the distinction of being a literary pope. His
letters and treatises were numerous and possessed a quality of thought
and style which was exceedingly rare in his day. The most famous of
his writings, and justly so, is the _Liber Regulae Pastoralis_, known
commonly to English readers as the "Pastoral Care," or the "Pastoral
Rule." This book was written soon after its author became pope (590)
and was addressed to John, bishop of Ravenna, in reply to inquiries
received from him respecting the duties and obligations of the clergy.
Though thus put into form for a special purpose, there can be no doubt
that it was the product of long thought, and in fact in his _Magna
Moralia_, or "Commentary on the Book of Job," written during his
residence at Constantinople, Gregory declared his purpose some day to
write just such a book. Everywhere throughout Europe the work was
received with the favor it deserved, and in Spain, Gaul, and Italy its
influence upon the life and manners of the clergy was beyond estimate.
Even in Britain, after King Alfred's paraphrase of it in the Saxon
tongue had been made, three hundred years later [see p. 193], it was a
real power for good. The permanent value of Gregory's instructions
regarding the life of the clergy arose not only from the lofty spirit
in which they were conceived and the clear-cut manner in which they
were expressed, but from their breadth and adaptation to all times and
places. There are few books which the modern pastor can read with
greater profit. The work is in four parts: (1) on the selection of men
for the work of the Church; (2) on the sort of life the pastor ought
to live; (3) on the best methods of dealing with the various types of
people which every pastor will be likely to encounter; and (4) on the
necessity that the pastor guard himself against egotism and personal
ambition. The passages below are taken from the second and third
parts.
Source--Gregorius Magnus, _Liber Regulae Pastoralis_ [Gregory
the Great, "The Book of the Pastoral Rule"]. Text in Jacques
Paul Migne, _Patroligiae Cursus Completus_, First Series, Vol.
LXXVII., cols. 12-127 _passim_. Adapted from translation in
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, _Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church_ (New York, 1895),
Second Series, Vol. XII., pp. 9-71 _passim_.
[Sidenote: The qualities which ought to be united in the
pastor]
The conduct of a prelate[98] ought so far to be superior to the
conduct of the people as the life of a shepherd is accustomed to
exalt him above the flock. For one whose position is such that the
people are called his flock ought anxiously to consider how great a
necessity is laid upon him to maintain uprightness. It is
necessary, then, that in thought he should be pure, in action firm;
discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech; a near neighbor
to every one in sympathy, exalted above all in contemplation; a
familiar friend of good livers through humility, unbending against
the vices of evil-doers through zeal for righteousness; not
relaxing in his care for what is inward by reason of being occupied
in outward things, nor neglecting to provide for outward things in
his anxiety for what is inward.
[Sidenote: Purity of heart essential]
The ruler should always be pure in thought, inasmuch as no impurity
ought to pollute him who has undertaken the office of wiping away
the stains of pollution in the hearts of others also; for the hand
that would cleanse from dirt must needs be clean, lest, being
itself sordid with clinging mire, it soil all the more whatever it
touches.
[Sidenote: He must teach by example]
The ruler should always be a leader in action, that by his living
he may point out the way of life to those who are put under him,
and that the flock, which follows the voice and manners of the
shepherd, may learn how to walk rather through example than through
words. For he who is required by the necessity of his position to
_speak_ the highest things is compelled by the same necessity to
_do_ the highest things. For that voice more readily penetrates the
hearer's heart, which the speaker's life commends, since what he
commands by speaking he helps the doing by showing.
The ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in
speech; lest he either utter what ought to be suppressed or
suppress what he ought to utter. For, as incautious speaking leads
into error, so indiscreet silence leaves in error those who might
have been instructed.
[Sidenote: He must be able to distinguish virtues and vices]
The ruler ought also to understand how commonly vices pass
themselves off as virtues. For often niggardliness excuses itself
under the name of frugality, and on the other hand extravagance
conceals itself under the name of liberality. Often inordinate
carelessness is believed to be loving-kindness, and unbridled wrath
is accounted the virtue of spiritual zeal. Often hasty action is
taken for promptness, and tardiness for the deliberation of
seriousness. Whence it is necessary for the ruler of souls to
distinguish with vigilant care between virtues and vices, lest
stinginess get possession of his heart while he exults in seeming
frugality in expenditure; or, while anything is recklessly wasted,
he glory in being, as it were, compassionately liberal; or, in
overlooking what he ought to have smitten, he draw on those that
are under him to eternal punishment; or, in mercilessly smiting an
offense, he himself offend more grievously; or, by rashly
anticipating, mar what might have been done properly and gravely;
or, by putting off the merit of a good action, change it to
something worse.
[Sidenote: No one kind of teaching adapted to all men]
Since, then, we have shown what manner of man the pastor ought to
be, let us now set forth after what manner he should teach. For, as
long before us Gregory Nazianzen,[99] of reverend memory, has
taught, one and the same exhortation does not suit all, inasmuch as
all are not bound together by similarity of character. For the
things that profit some often hurt others; seeing that also, for
the most part, herbs which nourish some animals are fatal to
others; and the gentle hissing that quiets horses incites whelps;
and the medicine which abates one disease aggravates another; and
the food which invigorates the life of the strong kills little
children. Therefore, according to the quality of the hearers ought
the discourse of teachers to be fashioned, so as to suit all and
each for their several needs, and yet never deviate from the art
of common edification. For what are the intent minds of hearers
but, so to speak, a kind of harp, which the skilful player, in
order to produce a tune possessing harmony, strikes in various
ways? And for this reason the strings render back a melodious
sound, because they are struck indeed with one quill, but not with
one kind of stroke. Whence every teacher also, that he may edify
all in the one virtue of charity, ought to touch the hearts of his
hearers out of one doctrine, but not with one and the same
exhortation.
[Sidenote: Various classes of hearers to be distinguished]
Differently to be admonished are these that follow:
Men and women.
The poor and the rich.
The joyful and the sad.
Prelates and subordinates.
Servants and masters.
The wise of this world and the dull.
The impudent and the bashful.
The forward and the faint-hearted.
The impatient and the patient.
The kindly disposed and the envious.
The simple and the insincere.
The whole and the sick.
Those who fear scourges, and therefore live innocently; and those
who have grown so hard in iniquity as not to be corrected even by
scourges.
The too silent, and those who spend time in much speaking.
The slothful and the hasty.
The meek and the passionate.
The humble and the haughty.
The obstinate and the fickle.
The gluttonous and the abstinent.
Those who mercifully give of their own, and those who would fain
seize what belongs to others.
Those who neither seize the things of others nor are bountiful
with their own; and those who both give away the things they have,
and yet cease not to seize the things of others.
Those who are at variance, and those who are at peace.
Lovers of strife and peacemakers.
Those who understand not aright the words of sacred law; and those
who understand them indeed aright, but speak them without humility.
Those who, though able to p
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/39227