Fouracre - Me Roving Ian History and Me Roving Ian Hagiography

8/6/2019 Fouracre - Me Roving Ian History and Me Roving Ian Hagiography

1/37

The Past and Present Society

Merovingian History and Merovingian HagiographyAuthor(s): Paul FouracreSource: Past & Present, No. 127 (May, 1990), pp. 3-38Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/650941Accessed: 11/08/2009 19:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Past & Present.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/650941?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/650941?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYANDMEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY*In a recent urveyaimedatproviding usefully electivebibliographyof workson saintsandcults,StephenWilson istedover 1)300 itles,a total which is but a fractionof the full output on the subject.lHagiography asattracted o muchattentionbecause t is the mostcommon orm of medievalwriting,and for the earlyMiddleAges itis sometimeshe onlyformofwriting o havesurvived n anyquantity.It is also attractivebecausethe interpretation f texts remainseveropen, in parallax o our own changingviews of medievalbeliefandthought. In relation o the earlymedieval aints' iveswhichwill bediscussedhere, there is a wide range of interpretationwhich ischaracterizedy two contrasting pproaches, achaimedat under-standingdifferentaspects of the context in which the workswereproduced.First, there s a traditional istorical pproachwhichaimsto reduce the texts to a residueof usable historicaldata.Secondly,byapplyinghetechniques f literaryriticism o each extas awhole,one can hope to penetrate he thoughtworld of which it was anexpression.2 shallbrieflyoutlinesome of the issuesraisedby thesedifferentapproachesn order to introduce he discussionof threeMerovingian exts. The discussion is intended to show how thehistorical ealityunderlying he worksmay be revealed,and I shallconcludeby commenting n thatreality.As a preliminary, owever,the subjectof Merovingian istoryrequires omeintroduction.The setting or these works s Francia n the laterseventhcentury.By the term "Francia"we may understand he lands subject toFrankishoverlordship ince the earlysixth century that is, the

* I am grateful o JanetNelson forcommenting n a draftof this article,and toJenniferWardand PeterChristian or help in talking hrough ome of the issuesdiscussedbelow.I S. Wilson,'CAnnotatedibliography",n S. Wilson ed.),Saintsand theirCults:Studies n Religious ociology, olklore ndHistoty Cambridge, 983),pp. 309-417.

2 For anexcellentdiscussion f howthis rangeof interpretationsasdeveloped, eeM. vanUytfanghe,"Les avatars ontemporains e l'hagiologie", rancia,v (1977),pp. 639-71. Also useful, if somewhatrepetitive, s F. Lotter,"Methodisches urGewinnunghistorischerErkentnisseaus hagiographischenQuellen",HistonscheZeitschrift,cxxix(1979), pp. 298-356,esp. pp. 298-307.


3/37

4 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127areanow coveredby France, the Beneluxcountries,and Germanyalong the length of the Rhine. By the later seventh century thisextensive erritoryhad been subject o many divisionsbetween hemembers of the ruling dynasty, the Merovingians,and regionaldifferenceswere also strong. As we shall see, this polity has oftenbeen judgedto have been in crisis n the laterMerovingian eriod,crumblingfrom within until such time as the successorsto theMerovingians, he Carolingians,were able to mend it.3 Such pessi-mism can be reckoned o be anachronistic, owever, or it mistakesa limited degreeof structuralnstability n one sectorof societyforterminaldecline across the whole polity. Transcending ocal andregionaldifferenceswas the shared culture of a ruling class. Thelatterhad at the highest evel becorne upra-regional. his fact, andthe strongpull of acculturation hich was the resultof orbitaroundthe Merovingian ynasty,meant hat herewereassociations etweenpeople of high standingright acrossFrancia.In our periodFranciawas divided into two kingdoms: Neustria-Burgundy,which wascentredon the Seine-Oisebasinand on the Rhone-Saone alley;andAustrasia,which ay to the eastof this line, stretchingrom he NorthSea to the Alps. Both kingdoms also held territory n Aquitaineand in Provence.Rivalrybetween hese two kingdoms, actionalismwithin the extensive ruling class, and a dynamictension betweenlocaland central nterestsgenerated ighlycomplexpolitics.We canwrest heiroutlines romthe sole near-contemporaryhronicle f theperiod.4 For a more comprehensiveview, we must turn to thehagiography.Withoutthe traditionalhistoricalcommentaries n Merovingiansaints' ives, not only would we be unable o put these works nto ageneral context, but we would also be unable to make sense ofMerovingian istoryof the seventhcentury.LaterMerovingianitaearesometimes he mainsources or chronology ndnarrative istory.Hence the need to extract"reliable" nformationrom them.5But,

3 Perhapsmost famoushere is Ganshofnsiew of the development f "feudalism"as an antidote o Merovingian narchy:F.-L. Ganshof,Feudalism, rd Eng. edn.,trans.P. Grierson London,1964), p. 3.4 The chronicle s the Liber HistoriaeFrancorum, hs. 36-53 (ed. B. Krusch,MonumentaGermaniae istorica hereafterM.G.H.], ScriptoreserumMerovingica-rum [hereafter .R.M.], ii, Hanover,1888, pp. 304-28).On this workas a sourceofpolitical istory, ee R. Gerberding, heRiseoftheCarolingiansntl he"LiberHistoriaeFrancornm"Oxford, 1987).5 This tradition s represented bove all by B. Kruschand W. Levison n thecommentaries ccompanying heir editions of the vitae (M.G.H., S.R.M., ii-vii,Hanover nd Leipzig, 1888-1920).Krusch n particular as concerned o establish

(cont. on p. 5)


4/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 5takento extremes, this reductiveapproachcan look more like aplundering hananunderstanding f texts. In discarding romeachwork thoseelements they regardedas incapableof providing urecontemporary itness,suchasa work'smiraculousr purelyconven-tionalaspects, he practitioners f thetraditional pproachended odisregard he integrityof each text theytouchedupon. So althoughthey reconstructed kind of compositepast froma series of texts,theyfailedto comprehendhe full worthof eachtext as anhistoricaldocument.Morerecentwork haschecked his imbalanceby givinggreaterweight otheconventional nd tothemiraculousn thesaints'lives, and by using these elements to gain insightinto the social,culturalandreligioushistorywhich is their propercontext.6The next step, it has beensuggested, s to apply he fullpowerofmodern iterary riticism oearlymedievalhagiography,orthewholetexttreated n this way may reveala thoughtworldwhich is a moreaccurate uide to contemporaryeality hanthehypothetical astthehistorian econstructsrom he collection f fragments xtractedroma seriesof texts.7Furthermore, s thatthoughtworldbecomesmoreintelligible, a fullerunderstanding f each text becomespossible.Oncetheunderstanding f a seriesofrelated exts s achieved,t maybecomepossible o perceive hesemiological ystemwhich s the keyto unlocking he real thoughtof thewriterandaudience. f one can(n. S cont.)chronologyor the Merovingianeriod,and t washe who grewmost rustrated henhis materialprovedincapableof providingaccuratenformation.On occasionhedespaired fhagiographys4'kirchlichechwindelliteratur"i'ecclesiasticalwindling-literature"):ee Uytfanghe,"Avatars ontemporains e l'hagiologie", . 647; alsoLotter,"MethodischesurGewinnung istorischer rkentnisse", . 300 n. 7. But atleast KruschandLevisonpublished he whole of the works hey edited,unliketheearlierM.G.H. editor O. Holder-Eggerwho literallyedited the "non-historicallyuseful"material utof theMiraculandTranslatioextshepublished.Fromadifferentpoint of view (Catholicapologistas opposedto rationalist ositivist)H. Delehayewasequallydismissiveabout the preservation f history hroughhagiography:H.Delehaye, TheLegends f the Saints, 4th edn., trans. D. Attwater London, 1962),esp. pp. SO-5.

6 A landmarkn this approachwas F. Graus,Volk,HerrscherndHeiligermReichderMerowingerPrague,1965).This work,alongwith F. Prinz,FrEihes onchtummFrankenreichMunich,1965),createda new orthodoxyn theinterpretationf earlymedieval agiography,or which he cultural ackground asprovided y P. Riche'sEducation t culture ans 'occiderltarbareVI-VIIe siecZeParis,1962).J. Fontaine,SupiceSevere: ie deS. Martin,3 vols. (Paris,1967-9), howedwhatwas possiblebytreating text intensively ndexhaustivelyn its literary nd historicalontext.

7 A suggestion made by J.-L. Derouet, "Les possibilitesd'interpretationsemiologique es textes hagiographiques", evued'histoire e lveglise e France,Xii(1976),pp 153-62.Lotter oo is of the opinion hatthe traditionalmethodologiesreincapable f adding oourunderstandingf hagiography: otter,"MethodischesurGewinnung istorischer rkentnisse", . 356.


5/37

6 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127deconstruct text and penetrate hrough o the sub-textof a work, anew level of meaningwill be revealed,and as that meaning s fedback into an ever more extensivesemiologicalmodel, then we havethe promiseof much more realistic ontactwith the mentality f theage.8This prospecthas been createdby a growingunderstandingf thegenre of hagiography.Particularly mportanthas been a clearerview of the structure,conventionsand traditionswhich form theframework f the saint's ife, and which as featurescommon o alltextsshouldbe mostsusceptible o a semiological nalysis.9However,it is questionablewhether he techniquesof literary riticismreallycan bring us substantially loser to the historical ealityunderlyingMerovingian agiography.Where he use of convention omes closeto simplecopyingfroma model, the copy itselfmay revealno usefulsub-text.Moreover n approachwhich s guidedby an identificationof the conventionalaspects of the text tends to ignore that whichcannotbe so identified,and t is in precisely his area hatcontempor-ary realitymay be revealed f the conditions n which a work wasproducedmade t impossible o applystandard onventions.Further,although he technique f deconstruction romises o explainall (andmore) n layingbarethe sub-text, n practice he semiologicalmodelupon which the techniquemust rest has not yet been established.Asemiological pproach s more usuallyassociatedwith much better-knownareasof writing n which one can be more certainaboutthemetaphoricaluse of language. In particular,deconstruction estsupon identifying possible exclusions of meaning. Exclusionsareindeed visible in these texts where authors ocus on a metaphoricaloppositionbetweenheavenlyandearthly xperiences. n otherareas,however, the differencebetween meanings,and the natureof ex-clusion, cannot often be identified.l? f one cannot be sure of the

8 For an optimistic view of this prospect, see A. Gurevich) Categones f MedievalCulture,rans. G. Campbell (London, 1985), pp. 2-19. Stressing the polysemanticnature of medieval language, Gurevich argues for the possibility of building up arealistic "world view" of the Middle Ages.9 For the conventional structure, see Graus, Volk,HerrscherndHeiliger,pp. 68-88;for stress on biblical elements in tradition, see M. van Uytfanghe, "La bible dans

les vies de saints merovingiennes", Revuedhistoire e 'eglise eFrance,xii (1976), pp.103-11. Important for the influence of secular aristocratic radition on the biographicalstructure of the vitaeare M. Heinzelmann, "Neue Aspekte der biographischen undhagiographischen Literatur in der Lateinischen Welt (1-6 Jahrhundert)",Francia,(1973), pp. 27-44; M. Heinzelmann, "Sanctitas und 'Tugendadel': zu Konzeptionenvon 'Heiligkeit' in 5 und 10 Jahrhundert",Francia,v (1977), pp. 741-52.InNote that Derouet, "Possibilites d'interpretation semiologique", based his confi-dent assertion of the general applicability of semiological analysis on his reading of acont. on t. 7)


6/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 7meaningof a passagen ven in purely exical erms,the identificationof metaphor afarmoredemanding ask)becomesa distantprospect.Althoughdeconstruction educes a realityfrom language, t is inpractice nformedby an historical wareness f the worldoutside hetext. If wecannotcomprehendhatworldexcept n its basicoutlinesand if we cangrasponly elementsof a rangeof possiblemeaningsnthenthetechnique annothelp us much. Inshort, hereare oo manypiecesmissing or us to build up a usefulsocio-linguisticmodel.Thepolitical thrustof the deconstruction echnique s also somewhatsuperfluous n most early medievalcontexts. The uliimateaim indiscovering he true significance f a pieceof writing n this way isto disclose a socio-political eality which would otherwiseremainhidden.ll In the early medieval text political reality may not beimmediately bvious, but one does not have to go as far as the sub-text to find it. A displayof power and of wealth s standard n thewritingof theearlyMiddleAges. No-onewoulddispute though heymight forget)that the background o thiswas a brutallyoppressiveclass structuren which the lowest stratawere treatedas livestock)and a standardof living which was so low that a normal evel ofexploitation f the peasantry ouldtip someof them ntodestitution.2Politicalreality s thus evidentat text level.Underlying he difficultyof applyingthe techniquesof literarycriiicismhereis the singularnatureof hagiographyn the formativeearlymedievalperiod.Rarelydid it attempt o be aesthetically leas-fn. 10 cont.)particular ind of hagiography:he seventh-century iracle toriesof Iro-Erankishprovenance n which transcendentalxperienceswere described: or example,Devirtutibas eataeGeretmdis?h. 1 (ed. B. Krusch,M.G.H., S.R.M., ii, Hanover)1888?pp. 464-5). In such writinga clear oppositionbetweenheavenlyand earthlyexperiencesmerges n descriptions f the progressrom errestrialo eelestial tates,anda seriesof suchoppositions rovidesmaterial ighly uited o semiologicalnalysis.In other areas of hagiography,where opposition s not obvious, it must first beidentifiedbeforesemiological nalysis an proceed.The classic ext on metaphysicalopposition nd difference n meaning s J. Derrida,Speech ndPhenumers ndOtherEssays rtHasserlnsheory f Signs, rans.D. Allison Evanston, 973),pp 139 f. Forinvaluable uidance hroughDerridass ery difficult hought, ee M Ryan,Marvcismar2dDeconstructionBaltimore,1982),pp. 9-42.11 :)erouet,"Possibilitesd'interpretationemiologique",pp. 154-7. See Ryan,Marxism ndDeconstruction,p. 2-7, for the technique pplied n exemplaryashion.But for a strongargument gainst he abilityofdeconstructiono cope with historicalreality,see now P. Dews, Logics f Disintegration:ost-Stmsturalisthought nd theClaims f CnticalTheoryLondon, 1987),pp 34-8.

It For this backgroundn the Merovingian eriod,see G. Fourquin, Le premiermoyenage" in G. Duby and A. Wallon eds.),Histsirede 1 Francenxrale, vols.(Paris, 1975-6), , pp. 291-370,esp. pp. 297-304;P. Dockes, Medieval boy andLtberation,rans.A. GoldhammerLondon,1982),pp. 90-100;M. Mollat,ThePoorin theMiddleAges,trans.A. GoldhammerNewHaven, 1986),pp. 24-32.


7/37

8 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTing, and when we speakof the development f genreswe are in facttalkingof frameworks hichwere mposed romwithoutby religiousneeds rather han developedalong artistic ines. Such conventionaland functional rameworkswere themselves ontinuallybent to theneedsof the particular ults they served.3 At this timehagiographerswere more often creatingnew cults thanfeedingoff old ones thatis, theywere nventing,rather hansimplyrespondingo, tradition.4The practical ffectof this is that n a givenworkexternal onditionsmaygovern he use of conventions, ndwe mayhaveto subject hoseconditions o historicalanalysis n order to penetrate o the realitybehind the text. If we simply guide our interpretationhroughanawareness f a putative iterary radition,we are likely to suppressthe particular eality n favourof the generalmentality.Our aim, ofcourse, should be to use the one to inform he other.In what follows I shall look at three pieces of hagiographyo seehow and why their use of conventionwas limited, to the point ofincluding contemporary etail which appears o us to have beenunflatteringo theirsubjects.The aim here s traditional,n so farasdiscussion s concernedwith the historicityof the works and, ulti-mately,with theirhistorical ontext.It will nevertheless ayattentionto theirnature,structure nd function,and in particulart will seekto emphasize the relationshipbetween the conventionaland theunconventionaln the genre. These worksare the PassioLeudegarii,the Passio Praejecti nd the Acta Aunemundi.l5here are a numberof commonfactorswhich make them particularlyuitable or com-parative reatment s historicaldocuments: hey were all concernedwith subjectmatterwhich had a politicaldimension; heir subjectswere all martyrsof a particularly ontroversial ature, n that theyall faced opponents n their own churches; he works are all set inold Gallo-Romanpiscopal entres;and the eventsdescribed ll tookplace within a couple of decadesof each other.

13 Cf. Lotter,"Methodischesur Gewinnung istorischer rkentnisse", . 314. Anexception o this could be the prologues o the vitae in which authorsattempted odemonstrateheir iterary killsbeforereturning t the openingof the workproper othe "pure"or "simple" anguage ppropriateo writingaboutholy matters.See, forexamplesdrawn romthe textsdiscussedbelow,the prologues o the PassioPraejecti(ed. B. Krusch,M.G.H., S.R.M., v, Hanover nd Leipzig,1910,pp. 225-6)andthePassioLeudegarii (ibid., p. 282).'4 On the invention f traditionn bothearlymedievalChristianulture nd n earlyIslam, see J. Herrin,TheFormationf ChristendomOxford,1987),p. 304.IsPassioLeudegarii (ed. Krusch,pp. 282-322);PassioPraejectied. Krusch,pp.225-48);ActaS. AunemundiliasDalfiniepiscopi, d. P. Perrier, n ActaSanctorum,Septembris, ii (Antwerp,1760),pp. 744-6.


8/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 9II

Let us begin by looking in general at the conditions n which asubstantiallementof historical etailwaspreservedn worksof thisnanlre.In north-western urope)hagiography f theearlymedievalperiodwasgenerallyproduced n thecontextof a rapidly xpandingproprietaryhurch.Thenumbers fpeoplevenerated ssaintsmulti-plied as newlyemergingreligiouscommunities oughtto establishtheir identity and irldependence y promoting he cult of personsassociatedwith them. Oldercentresresponded o this competitionby alsocreating ults, so adding o theirstock of existingsaints.l6 twas in these conditions hatmoresaints' ives werewritten n theperiod c. 450-750 A.D. thanin any comparable eriod n the post-Constantinianhurch.l7Justas the churchacquired ts landedbaseat this time, so its landswerepeopledwithsaints. At thistime too,in thelandsthathadformed he coreof theRomanEmpire)n termsof nationality,cultureand behaviour)he personnelof the churchwas becomingincreasinglyndistinguishablerom otherelementsof the rulingelite. Generations f royalcontrc)l ver ecclesiasticalpatronagehad brokendownthe predominanceverthe churchofthosewho weredescended romthe aristocraciesf the lateRomanworldnand by 700 A.D. the churchwas in the handsof a diversegroupof warrior-magnateshosemainculturaldistinctivenessay intheirhighlyvisibleexerciseof power.l8As nearlyall of those whobecamepowerfuln heavencamefromfamilieswhichwerepowerfulon earth, so the saint-figurebecame ncreasingly epresentativefthisrulinggroup.The processby which this shiftin personnelandculturehappeneds clearand hasbeenwelldocumented)specially

16 Fordiscussion f thisactivityasrelatedby the "LivesS' f SaintsAudoenus ndEligius,see P. FouracrerTheWorkofAudoenus f RouenandEligiusofNoyon nExtendingEpiscopal nfluence romthe Town to the Country n Seventh-CenturyNeustria",Studies n ChnrchHisto7y, vi (1979),pp. 77-91.17 D. Herlihy,4'DidWomenHavea Renaissance? Reconsideration',MedievaliaetHumanistica,iii (1985),pp. 1-22? ivesa usefultabularbreakdown f S;saintsyperiods"p. 33 able1) Notethat herewerenofemalemartyrsn lateseventh-centuryFrancia,hencetheexclusiveuse of themasculinewhenreferringo martyrsn what

follows.18 On thedevelopment f thesupra-regionalliteofmixed-raceamilieswhichcameto dominate othsecularandecclesiasticalife, see K.-F. Werner1'ImportantobleFamilies ntheKingdom fCharlemagne",n T. Reutered.and rans.),TheMedieualNobiliw NewYork)Oxford ndAmsterdam, 978),pp. 137-202.Note alsoP. Geary'susefulcomments n 2hecompositionf, andchoiceof identitiesmadeby thisgroup:P. Geary,AristocracynProvence: heRhoneBasinat theDawnof theCarolingiange(Stuttgart, 985),pp. 101-12.


9/37

10 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127in German istoriography.9The resultof the change s equally lear:at a time when the stateno longerexercisedpower ndependently fthe aristocracy, he extensionof the latter'sunmediatedhegemonyover religious ife led both to the secularizationf the churchand tothe sanctificationf significantmembers f its own leading amilies.20Paradoxically, n age which producedmore saints hanany other sthus often viewedas an age of religiousdegeneration,with a churchwhich was in ever greaterneed of reform.2lMoreover t is possibleto basethis view in precisely hatcontemporaryiteraturewhichwasconcerned o establish the opposite picture:that is, we can drawour evidence for unsaintlybehaviour rom the lives of the saintsthemselves. To our eyes much Merovingianhagiography s thuspalpably ncompetent,but it is all the more useful to us for thatbecause ts failure o convincestems from ts frequentadmissionofunflattering etailsof what appears o be contemporaryeality.Let us examinemorecloselyhow this phenomenonwas produced.By the mid-seventh entury, when both the new and old religiousinstitutionswererapidlybuildingup cultsanddiscovering aints, heartof hagiography ad ong beenestablished.The writers hemselvesperceived heir work in terms of a tradition tretchingback to thebeginnings f the Christian hurch,andtheydrewuponthis traditionand upon biblical examples as an aid to establishing he saintly

9 So, for example,E. Ewig, "Volkstum nd Volksbewusstseinm Frankenreichdes 7. Jahrhunderts",n Caratteri el secolo ettimon OccidenteSettimane i studiodel Centro talianodi studisull7altomedioevo,no. 5, Spoleto,1958), i, pp. 587-648,repr. in E. Ewig, Spatantikes ndFrankisches allien,2 vols. (Beihefteder Francia,iii, Munich, 1976-9), i, pp. 231-73; R. Sprandel,"Struktur nd GeschichtedesmerovingischenAdels', Historische eitschrift, xciii (1961), pp. 33-71; Werner,"Important oble Families n the Kingdomof Charlemagne".or the ecclesiasticalcontext, standard s Prinz's description n FruXesMonchtum, p. 496-503, but asHeinzelmann as pointedout, Prinz aidtoo muchemphasis n a putative ermanischeAdelsherrschaftn the process f change:M. Heinzelmann, ischofsherrschaftn Gallien(Beihefteder Francia,v, Munich, 1976),pp. 185-6,esp. p. 185 n. 3.

20 The so-called rocessof aristocraticelbstheilig7wngself-sanctification):f. Prinz,FrukesMonchtum,p. 489-93.This is an evocative erm,but becomingess useful hemoreoften it is employed.21 Thisviewwasmostpowerfully xpressed y E. Ewig,"Milo t eiusmodi imiles",in H. Buttner t al. (eds.), SanktBonifatius: edentgabeum wolghundertstenodestag

(Fulda, 1954),pp. 412-40,repr. n Ewig,SpatantikesndFrankisches allien, i, pp.189-219.Note more recentlyhow the late J. M. Wallace-Hadrillkippedover thisperiodas unworthy f detaileddiscussion n his TheFrankishChtlrchOxford,1983).He covered t in a mere four pagesof a chapter ntitled"The Merovingian aints"(pp. 88-91). See also G. Scheibelreiter'sramatic ssessment f this supposednadirin the life of the Frankish hurch:G. Scheibelreiter, er Bischof n merwingischerZeit (Veroffentlichungenes Instituts ur osterreichische eschichtsforschung,xvii,Vienna,1983),pp. 158-9.


10/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 1credentials f theirsubjects.22 y thusdrawinguponhallowed ra-dition it waspossibleto describea path to heaven that is, a pathwhich had demonstrablyed othersto heaven.The conventionalframework f the saint's ife of this periodwasstructured roundajourneyalong sucha path. The needto stick to this formulameansof coursethatthe accountof the saint's ifewasshaped o fitcertainconventions:hesewere, mosttasically,a forecast fgreatnessn thesaint'searliestdays(oftenwhilsthe or she wasstill in the womb);apromising hildhood;adultexcellencewhichwastested;a consciousapproachoheavenatdeath;andfinally,andmost mportantly, ignsfromheaven n theformof miracles o showthatthe sainthadfoundfavour n the communityabove.This frameworkwas in turnmadeup of aseriesof motifs topoi),eachofwhich, ikethewholestructure,drewpower romholytradition.23 n the onehand,writing ostrictlyto order may mean that in historical ermsthere is very little ofcontemporaryignificancen a work. On the other, the use of theformulamayhaveallowedanauthor o fitotherwise wkward etailsof anactualworldlycareer nto astructurewhichallowed hemto bepresentedas holy. Whetheror not such details were includedde-pendedon therelationship etweenauthor,subjectandaudience. fa workwas composedsoon after the deathof the subject, and if aclearmemoryof the subject's ife wascommonamong he intendedaudience as was likely in the case of a powerfuland controversialsubject),any authorwouldobviouslyhavehadto argue or hisor hersubject's anctityconstrained o some extentby thatmemory.24A clearexampleof commonmemoryoperatingon an author sprovidedby Stephanus'sLifeof St. Wilfrid, hich was written nEngland in the earlyeighth century.25Wilfridhad had a highly

2' Seetheprologue o thePassioPraejectied.Krusch,pp. 225-6) oran illustrationof howsuch a traditionwas perceivedby a seventh-centuryuthor.23 Alternativelyne canformulatedescription f thestructuref thevitaeaccordingtothevariousypesorgenres owhich heyaresaidto belong.However, here s sucha confusionbetween ypes as a resultof the overlapping emandsof functionandbecauseof thelimitedavailability f models hat t is frequently nhelpful o assignagivenwork to a particularype, a point whichemerges rom Lotter'sdiscussionoftypes:Lotter,"MethodischesurGewinnung istorischer rkentnisse", p. 310-14.24 That historicity s closely related o the proximityof authorand subject s astandardbservationnthereading fhagiography,icelydemonstrated,or nstance,by Delehaye,Legends f theSaints,pp. 101-16.For the pointmade n relation o theworksdiscussedbelow,see Graus,Volk,HerrscherndHeiliger,pp. 376-7.24 TheLifeofSt WilfridyEddius tephanused. and rans.B. Colgrave,Cambridge,1927;repr.New York,1985).On thecomposition f this workandoncontemporaryreactionso it, see theexcellentdiscussion n W. Goffart,TheNarratorsfBarbananHistoryPrinceton,1988), pp. 256-324,esp. pp. 281-90.


11/37

12 NUMBER27PASTND PRESENTcontroversialareerand mademanyenemies.Stephanus,writingsoonfterhis hero'sdeath,couldnotdenyor ignore his,andit lefthimitha lot of explaining o do. He proceeded,albeitwithintheframeworkf conventions,by arguinghis hero's case in detail,takingspecial are odescribe learlyhoseset-piece lashesbetweenWilfridndhis enemieswhichtookplace n courtand n synod,andof hich the memorymight be the most enduring.26n fact, soconfidentas Stephanushathis herowouldappearholyaccordingtoheaccepted ormulaandthuswouldbe perceivedas right n hisarguments,hathedescribedheoppositionoWilfridntermswhichrevealous theweightandrangeof seriousopinion etagainsthim.27Byontrast,when dealingwith those episodesof Wilfrid'scareerwhichook placebeyondthe horizonsof his Englishaudience,hewasreeto befarmore nventiveandcouldbuildupWilfrid's aintlycredentialsithoutrestraint.28LikeWilfrid,severalof theMerovingianhurch eaderswhowerelatereneratedas saintshad led controversialareers.AgainlikeWilfrid,hiswasoftenbecause heywerepowerfulmagnatesn theirownightwhowereinvolved n high

politics.This is one aspectofthe o-calledsecularizationf the church.Anotherequally amiliaraspect asthe fiercerivalryamongsuchmagnates s theyfoughttoholdhe highestpositions n the church;aboveallas theystruggledtoacquireandholdbishoprics.Highpoliticsandlocalrivalry ould,aswe shall see, becomeintertwinedwhen parties n disputeoverbishopricsppealedothewidercommunity fmagnatesorsupport.InFrancian the laterseventhcentury,whena prolongedperiodofpeace ad edtochronic ensionamong hepowerful stheycompetedovera limitedpool of rewards,disputes nvolvingecclesiasticale-sources ouldleadto violence.29f an incumbentbishopwaskilled

26 LifeofSt Wilfrid, hs. 45-7,60 (ed. Colgrave,pp. 90-9, 128-33).27 Ibid., chs. 43, 53, 60-2 (ed. Colgrave,pp. 86-91,108-21,128-35).28 See,for nstance,bid.,chs.27-8(ed.Colgrave, p. 52-7),whereStephanussedthesame egendarymaterialn twoquitedifferent ontexts.Failure o observe hesedistinctions etween vents arfromandnear ohome n theLifeofSt Wilfnd as edtoa traditionaliewof thewholeof theworkas "reliable"n thegroundshat t wasnearly ontemporaryotheevents tdescribed.tisaviewwhichhascauseddifficulties

in the interpretationf the chronologynd historyof the period,in particularn

relationo the deathof Aunemund:ee n. 85 below.29 The disputebetweenGermanus f Grandivallend Etichoduxof Alsace,forexample:VitaGermaniAbbatisrandivallensis,hs. 10-12 ed. B. Krusch,M.G.H.,S.R.M., v, Hanover ndLeipzig,1910,pp. 37-9).Thisworkwasapparently rittenwithin ivingmemoryof events.Note thatGermanus'seathwasnotsimply"atthehandsof brigands" s Wallace-Hadrilladit: Wallace-Hadrill,rankishChurch, .88.


12/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 3in the courseof such a struggle,one way of restoringpeace to thediocese was for the victor to veneratehis victim as a martyr.Thiswas not merelya generousgesture o the survivingadherents f thelosing party, for martyrswere perceivedas saintsof certainpowerwhich they exercised in favour of those who venerated hem. Ifformerpersecutors sked or forgiveness, his couldhardlyhavebeenrefused,especially f gifts to the martyraccompaniedhe request.30And, as we have already een, ecclesiasticalentresgenerallywerekeen to establishnew cults at this time. The certainpowerof martyrsmade their cults particularly ttractive.

It is within this contextthat apparentlyncompetent agiographywas produced.The biography f a controversialigurewho hadfacedviolent conflict could thus have been written soon after his deathand have been commissionedby erstwhileopponents n a spirit ofreconciliation. n such circumstances ot onlywould herehavebeena clear memoryof recentevents, but theirculminationn an act ofmartyrdom ould,withhindsight,havemade hemmorememorable.Martyrdom as conventionallyhe mostpowerful rgumentor sanc-tity: the archetypicalaintwas a martyr.3l n the knowledge hatthemartyr's nd justifiedhis whole ife, the recenteventsand ssueswithwhich he was concernedcould be relatedwithoutembarrassmentonce they had been presented s steps alonga pathto heaven.But tous, not choosing to believe in the end, they remainembarrassing,and the whole fails to convinceas hagiography reciselybecause tlooks more convincingas history.

IIILet us now turn to the PassioLeudegarii, workwhichthe interplayof local rivalry, high politics, martyrdom nd reconciliationmadeuniquelyrich in historicaldetail. The PassioLeudegariiontainsso30 A phenomenon ot of courseconfined o this context:a morefamousexamplefrom he twelfthcentury s the propitiation f the martyrBecketby the EnglishkingHenryII: see F. Barlow,Thomas ecket London,1986),pp. 267-70.Interestingly,in late twelfth-century ormandy he Becket cult becameassociatedwith that of

Leudegar t the monastery f Preauxwhich claimed o possess he latter'shead. In1183Preauxdedicated n altar ointly o Leudegar nd Becket,both, one presumes,perceived s the innocentvictimsof secularrulers.On the cult in Preaux, ee ActaSanctonzm, ctobris, (Antwerp,1765),pp. 459-60.31 A. Vauchez,La saintete n occidentux derniersiecles umoyen ge Paris,981),pp. 15-22, gives a conciseand usefuldescription f the developing onceptsof, andcriteria or, sanctity n the earlyMiddleAges. See also E. Kemp, CanonisationndAuthorityn the Western hurchLondon, 1948),pp. 24-35.


13/37

14 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTmuch detailon the worldly nvolvement f its hero that it servesasone of the main narrative ources or the historyof the decade670-80. Its subject, Leudegar,bishop of Autun, was a member of aleadingFrankish amilywith a brotherwho was count of Parisandan uncle who was bishop of Poitiers.Leudegar learlybelonged othatelitewhichattended he royalcourtandhadcontacts ightacrossFrancia. n 673 he was one of the leadersof a coup against he mayor(leader)of the palace)Ebroin,and from673 to 675 he was effectivelyone of the rulers of a single) united Frankishkingdom. In 675,however, he fell from power, and in c. 678 he was executedas anaccessory o regicide.In c. 663 Leudegar ad been appointed ishopof Autunby royalorder.He was mposeduponthe townafterrivalryovercontrolof the bishoprichad ed to disorder ndbloodshed.32 erestoredorder, but it is clear from the Passio that elementsof theclergycontinued o opposehim, and) n the contextof palacepoliticsin 675, they found an opportunity o get rid of him. Hermenar, heabbotof St. Symphorian, utun'spremiermonastery, ecamebishopin Leudegar's lace.33 ut then n another wistof politics,or militaryconflictas the latterwas fastbecoming,Leudegar eturned, ndagainused Autunas a base for his involvement n the continuing trugglefor power. This time he held Autun for a few months only. Hisenemiesbesiegedhim in the town, whichhe was unable o defend.34He was takenawayand sufferedhorriblybeforehis executionovertwo years later. Autun had to pay off the besiegingarmy and wasforced o acceptan outsidemilitary eaderas bishopbeforeHermenarfinallyregained he bishopric.It was Hermenarwho commissionedthe firstaccountof Leudegar'sife and martyrdom, r Passio,whichmusthavebeenwrittenby 693, whenHermenar'successor s bishopof Autun is first recorded.35 vents were thus recent and famousenough to need carefultreatment,and the author'scare seems tohave been directed at presentingLeudegaras reconciledwith his

32 PassioLeudegarii, ch. 2 (ed. Krusch,pp. 284-5).33 Ibid., chs. 9-12 (ed. Krusch)pp. 291-5).34 Ibid., chs. 21-4 (ed. Krusch,pp. 302-6).35 The prologue, bid. (ed. Krusch,p. 282), speaksof Hermenar's equest or the

work.This earliest ersionof thePassioLeudegarii asreconstructedy Krusch romlatercompilations sing an earlyfragment s a guideline. ts authenticitys plainlydemonstrable oth n the richnessof its contemporaryetailand in comparison ithotherversions f the Passiowhichareall basedon Ursinus's eworking f the originaltext. See Krusch'saccountof the reconstruction: . Krusch,"PassionesLeudegariiEpiscopi t MartyrisAugustodunensi",n M.G.H., S.R.M., v (Hanover ndLeipzig,1910),pp. 249-82;also B. Krusch,"Die alteste VitaLeudegarii"',NeuesArchiv, iv(1891), pp. 563-96.


14/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 5opponents n the royal court and in Autun,and with Hermenar nparticular. hismeantreinterpretinghe detailsof thebishop's areerwith thebenefitof hindsight that s, explaininghisconduct n thelight of what wasrevealed ateras his certainsanctity.The occasionof the workseems to have been Autun'sbid for thegrowingcult of the martyr.In fact the bid failed, andthe bishop ofPoitiers,Ansoald,appropriated eudegar's emainsandcult on thebasis of Leudegar'samilyconnectionswith the city.36At Poitiers,themonkUrsinuswrotea secondPassiowhich purportedo be fromthe time of Ansoald, but which showsclear signs of having beenproduced n the mid-eighthcenturyX his work is reallya precisofthe earlierPassio)adapting he latter to Poitevinneeds.37A third,metricversionwasproduced n the 840s outof Ursinus'swork, andthe latteralso servedas the basisof a poemcomposed nthe Romancelanguagen the secondquarterof the tenthcentury.38 he existenceof this tradition s invaluable, orit showsthe gradualdisappearanceof theneed to defendLeudegarssanctitybyexplaininghe awkwarddetails of his career Laterversions of the biographywere thusmuchmoreclearlydominatedbya conventionalramework, nd thecontrastwith the earliestversionservesto emphasize he historicity

36 Thecompetition ver hecultwasbetweenAnsoald,bishopofPoitiers,HermenarandVindicianus, ishopof Arras thediocese n whichLeudegar adbeenexecuted).It isdescribed y Ursinus:PassioLeudegariiII,h. 24 (ed. Krusch,M.G.H., S.R.M.,v, Hanover nd Leipzig,1910, pp. 346-8).The threebishops inallydrew ots to seewhoshouldhaveLeudegar's emains.37 Ibid.(ed. Krusch,pp. 323-57):Ursinus's laim ohavewritten nthe ater eventhcenturyhas had its supporters,mostrecentlyJ.-C.Poulin, "SaintLegerd'Autun tses premiersbiographesfin VIIe - milieu IXe siecle)", Bulletinde la SocieS des

antiquairese l'Ouest, th ser., xiv (1977), pp. 178-9.But material videnceadducedto reinforce he claim s actuallydatedaccording o theclaim tself.Against he latterwe mustset the probabilityhatUrsinusused themid-eighth-centuryontinuationftheChroniclef Fredegar,h. 2 (ed. andtrans.J. M. Wallace-Hadrill)heFourthBookof theChroniclefFredegar nd tsContinuationstondon,1960,p 82), andwe mustnote his anachronisticeference o Leudegar s "mayor f the palace".See Krusch,4'Passiones eudegarii piscopi t MartyrisAugustodunensi",p. 257-9.Apart romdetailon Ansoald's cquisition f the cult and on Leudegar'sife in Poitiers,Ursinusaddedalmost no fresh information o the earlierversion, althoughhis extensivereworkingf the latterhasoften edpeople o regardhim as a separateource apableof providingadditionalmaterial n the historyof the period. For a recentexampleof Ursinusused in this way see Scheibelreiter'sommentson the dux Waimar:Scheibelreiter, ischof n merotvingischereit, pp. 122-3.

38 VitabeatiLeuzlegariiartynsed. L. Traube,M.G.H., PoetaeLatiniaevicarolini,iii, Berlin,1886,pp. 5-37); Vieet passion e saintLegered. M. Champollion-Figeac,Documentshistoriquesnedits tires des collectionsmanuscrites e la BibliothequeNationale,v, Paris, 1848,doc. no. 27, pp. 446-56).Morerecently n the tradition fLeudegar's iography:Poulin, "SaintLeger d'Autunet ses premiersbiographes",pp. 167-200.


15/37

16 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTof the latter.Wearealsofortunaten havingothercontemporaryrnear-contemporaryourceswhichdealwithsomeof thesameeventsandwhichwill thereforeerveasa further heckon thereliability fthenarrative f theearliestPassioLeudegarzi.39speciallynstructivehere is the PassioPraejecti,which gives us an alternative iew ofeventsin Autunitself at the very momentat whichLeudegarwasforcedto flee fromthe town.40Let us now look in moredetailat thoseaspectsof the bishop'scareerwhich his first biographer elt compelledto discuss, butwhich o moderneyesappearoweakenhisargumentorLeudegar'ssanctity. n general, heauthorof theearliestPassioLeudegartientintogreatdetailaboutLeudegar'snvolvementn centralpolitics nordero explain hebasically uinouseffect hishaduponAutun.AswithWilfrid,therewasan awful ot of explainingo do. The expla-nationwas firstand foremosta conventional ne: Leudegar honewith oodness,goodnesssalwaysopposedbyevil;themoreheshonewith oodworks,themoreevilhe faced.4'What s unconventionalsthedetailednarrative xplanation f the interactionbetweengoodandevil, for the medium for this interactionwas politics. Theexplanationhustooktheformof a narrative f political vents.Formuch f the narrativet wasobviously airlyeasyforthe author oportrayishero'sopponents s simplyevil. Leudegar's rincipaloilwashemayorofthepalace,Ebroin,whoasleaderboreresponsibilityforhe bishop'ssufferingandmartyrdom.t wasin factthePassioLeudegarzihich establishedEbroin'sreputationas a particularlyoppressiveuler.42Nevertheless venwithEbroin heauthordidnotdisguisehe factthatas mayorhe enjoyedconsiderableupportandthatupporters ncludedthe misguidedas well as the evil. Therestrainingactorherecouldsimplyhavebeenthat nfluentialmem-

39 ThePassioPraejecti lusthefollowing:LiberHistonaeFrancorum:x Miraculaartialised. O. Holder-Egger,M.G.H., Scriptores,v, i, Hanover,1887,pp. 280-);itaLantbertied. W. Levison,M.G.H., S.R.M., v, Hanover ndLeipzig,1910,p.08-12).40 PassioPraejecti,hs. 24-6(ed. Krusch,pp. 239-41).4 For example,the introductiono Leudegar's oliticalmisfortunes.See Passioeudegarzi, ch. 3 (ed. Krusch,p. 286):"Butgoodwills always pposedbyevil,andhatge-oldserpentenvyalways indsthoseamongstwhom t cansowstrife.Thushereerecertainmenof higherrank . . who,whentheysawthisman[Leudegar]tandutas theunbendingpinnacleof justice,began o squirmwithmaliciousnvyndheydecided o blockhis progresso further uccess".42Animpetus urther timulated yCarolingianropagandahichusedEbroin oignifynjusticen thepre-PippinidNeustrian egime: husAnnalesMettensesrzoresed.. von Simson,M.G.H., ScriptoreserumGermanicarumn usumscholarumeparatimditi [hereafter .R.G.],Hanover ndLeipzig,1905,pp. 5-6).


16/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 7bers of Ebroin'sfollowing were still living when the work wascomposed.The most important f Ebroin's upporterso surviveupto 691 was the king,Theuderic II. In 673 Leudegar adjoinedwithothersto attackEbroinand preventTheudericbecomingking. Theattackhadsucceeded,andfortwoyearsTheuderichadbeenexcludedfrom the throne. In dealing with this episode the author'stonewas clearlyapologeticand there was even a suggestion hat Goddisapproved f the depositionof the rightfulruler.43A suggestionof divine disapproval, ar fromdiminishingLeude-gar'sclaimto sanctity,was in factskilfully urned o his advantage.Leudegar n effect replacedEbroin,and King Childeric eplacedhisbrotherTheuderic.The new regimebegan ull of the good ntentionswhich had justifiedts inception,butthese intentionswere thwartedby Childeric'srresponsibility, y the depravity f his followersandbymalice n general.Thus the divinedisapproval asquitejustified,and God used Leudegar's oodnessto illuminate he shortcomlngsofhis peers.The latterrespondedbyseeking hebishop'sdownfall.44This sequencewas then used to set the scene for the most delicateand detailedexplanation f all: thebetrayal nd captureof Leudegarin Autun at Easter675, followed by his replacement s bishop byHermenar.45Leudegarhadinvited he court o spendEaster n Autun.A monkof the author'sown monasteryof St. Symphoriandenounced hebishopto the king,accusinghim, alongwith the rulerof Marseilles,of treason. The latter, one Hector, had come to Autun "on somelegalmatterorother"andhoped obenefit romLeudegar'snfluenceatcourt.The two of them realized hatthe king and hismayorof thepalacewere aboutto strike at them, so separately hey took flight.Hector was caught,resistedand was cut down with his followers.Leudegarwas takenalive. After much pleadingon the partof Her-menar, he abbotof St. Symphorian,Leudegar'sifewas sparedandhewas exiledto themonastery f Luxeuilwherehisopponent f 673,Ebroin,was alsoliving in exile. These eventswere treated o make

43 PassioLeudeganiI,ch. (ed. Krusch,pp.288-9),givesaverydelicateexplanationof the cuttingof thedeposedking'shair, done,the author ays, to safeguard is life(i.e. by removing hedistinguishingeature fMerovingianoyalty longhair).Theking, Theuderic, s then allowed o say that"he had been unjustly ast down fromthe throneand he declared hat he wasexpecting swiftjudgementromGod n hisfavour",and the chapter loseswith theremark hat"The Godof heaven,whomhepredictedhe would haveas his judge, happilyafterwardset him rule".

44 Ibid., chs. 7-9 (ed. Krusch,pp. 289-91).45 Ibid., chs. 9-12 (ed. Krusch,pp. 291-5).


17/37

18 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127Leudegarand Hector ook like the innocentvictimsof spite.Theywere good: their opponentswere simply malicious.Despite theinsistenceofthePassio'sauthor,t seems ohavebeenalmostmposs-ible to bringHectorout of the affairwith muchcredit:"if he hadnotledablamelessife, if perchanceome mpurityhadstuck ohim,thefierceheatof a longpersecutionwouldhaveburned t offso thatafterwardsikepuregoldplaced n the diademof his heavenlykingand ikeshining ewelshewouldgleamnthepowerofhismiracles"46Andtheinsistence hatHermenar adfrantically leaded orLeude-gar's ifewasa wayof dealingwitha differentnterpretationf theseevents.The authorcouldnotignore hefactthat"Somepeople. . .werethinking alselythathe [Hermenar] eptgoingintothe king'slodgingsbecausehe was the leaderof Leudegar's ccusersandthatinthis he was improvinghis chancesof beingallowedto hold thebishopric".This wasdeniedrather hanrefuted.47Thatmemoriesof theseeventsweresensitive s further uggestedbyanothercontemporaryource, the PassioPraejecti,which de-scribedheHectoraffairasa stumbling-blockscandalum)nLeude-gar's athto martyrdom.48lawsuitagainstPraejectuswasthelegalmatterwhich had broughtHectorto Autun. The PassioPraejectidescribedhecaseandtoldof howit wasbrokenoffmidwaybecauseHectoradabused hetrustof themayorof thepalaceandhadbeenforcedo flee. Leudegarand Hector (who was describedas "acertain anof ill-repute")wereplainly n thewrong n thisaccount.Althoughhe two accounts llustratedifferentpointsof view, theyaren factmutuallyntelligibleandcorrespondlosely n thetimingtheyive to this politicalcrisis:Leudegarand Hectorrealized hedangerheywerein on the Saturdayvening.By sunriseon Sundaythey erenowhere o be seen.The nextareaof difficulty orthe authorof thePassioLeudegariiwashe descriptionof the removalof Leudegar romAutunfor a46Ibid., ch. 11 (ed. Krusch,p. 294). The gold andjewelmetaphors eredivertttentionway romthefactthatHectorwasnota martyr, nddidnotperform nyiracles.or washis persecution tall "long".47Ibid., ch. 12(ed. Krusch,p. 295). In facttheauthorhadpreparedhewayforhisenialwithsomeskill.Earlierhe hadgivenus anexample f pleadingwithgoodntention,henLeudegar adgenerously leadedorEbroin'sife,soinviting nalogyithhisepisode.Then,in theprevious hapter,he introduced seriesof metaphorsoncernedithlightanddarkness, ndappearancendreality, herebyworkingupohesuggestion hatany faultlaywith thosewho couldnot penetratehe realityehindhe appearancef Hermenar's ehaviour.48PassioPraejecti,h. 23 (ed. Krusch,p. 239).


18/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 9second time.49Not long after Leudegarwas exiled, King Childerichad been murdered, nd the bishophad returned o his see. Soon anarmy was directedagainstAutun by Ebroin, whom Leudegarhaddeposedas mayorof the palace n 673 andwith whomhe had sharedexile in 675. It was entirely because of his involvement n palacepolitics hatAutunwas under hreat,and the narrative f its encircle-ment, alongwith Leudegar's ecision o give himselfup rather hanriskthe enslavement f his flock, suggests hatamong he inhabitantstherewas little enthusiasm or rallying o the defenceof theirbishop.By contrast,as the author actuallytells us, the citizens of Lyonsstoutly resisted part of the same army and defended heir bishop,Genesius.5?n Autun, however:"althoughhis dependants nd theclergy and his followers were eager that he should carry off thetreasureshe had gathered here and departso that when the enemyheardof this they mighthold backfromharrying nd destroying hetown, Leudegarwould in no way agree o this". Instead,we aretold,he gathered veryone ogether n the treasury, istributed is treasureand then led the citizens to fortifythe town.5'But when the armyarrived nd besiegedAutun "dayandnighttheycircled t howlinglikedogs" Leudegar consideredhe danger hreatening is town"and determined o give himself up.52 In return for this, it latertranspires, he citizens were treatedwith relative eniency.53 romthis account t seems plainthat n realityLeudegar acked upport nAutun. If elementsof the clergyhadwantedrid of him at Easter675,it seems unlikelythat about a year laterthey would have wanted orisk their own lives and libertyby shelteringhim from his enemies.Fromthis point n the storyonwards he author's askwas a muchsimplerone. Events took place at some distance rom Autun, andLeudegar's ourney owardsmartyrdom ould become much moreconventional.The narrative f politicalevents could now give wayto the tale of heroic sufferingand miraculous ndurancewhich isstandard n descriptionsof martyrs.54With the end in sight, the

49 PassioLeudegarii, chs. 21-5 (ed. Krusch,pp. 302-7).50 Ibid., ch. 26 (ed. Krusch,p. 307).51 bid., ch. 21 (ed. Krusch,p. 302).52 Ibid., ch. 23 (ed. Krusch,pp. 304-5).53 Ibid., ch. 25 (ed. Krusch,p. 307). The citizenswere despoiledand the churchhad o paysilverworth5 000solidias a ransom or he town,butnobodywasenslaved.54For the conventions f such writing, ee H. Delehaye,Lespassions esmartyrstles genresitteraires, nd edn. (Brussels,1966),pp. 171-218.But here note that evenafterreturning o a more conventional tructure nd content,the PassioLeudegariicontinues o providemuchhistorical etail n order o provide context orLeudegar'ssuffering.See, for instance,PassioLeudegarii, ch. 28 (ed. Krusch,pp. 308-10).


19/37

20 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127authorcouldalsomakeuse of his hero's mminentstatusas a sainttohavehimgiveauthoritativendorsementoHermenar'successionas bishopof Autunand even forgivehis successor.Hermenar,weare told, visited Leudegar n his suffering:"alreadyhe bestowedhonourupon him not as earthlyman, but as a martyrcarried oheaven.Becauseof this he earnednot only forgiveness or thingspast,butalsoa blessing romhimforwhatwasyet to come".55 henoteof reconciliation erereinforceshe impressionhatHermenarhadnotsupportedLeudegarn thepast.Itmayalsorelate oAutun'sbidforthemartyr'sult:thesequence hows hat hebishopofAutunwasthe firstto venerate he martyr.By the time Ursinus came to write his versionof the PassioLeudegarii,eudegarand his contemporariesad long been dead.Thesaint'sreputationhad grownsteadily,whereas he memoryofhisactual ife must havefaded.Therewas no needfor Ursinustofollow heearlierversion n itspainfuldetailsof Leudegar'sareernpolitics,andpresumably uchdetailwouldanywayhavebeenverydifficult o make sense of in Poitiersin the mid-eighthcentury.Equallyherewasno needforUrsinus o abandon hebasicoutlineofthe earlierstory, for this described he pathwhichhad led thesainto martyrdom nd to heaven.Whathe did, therefore,was tointroduceewdetailon Leudegar'sonnectionswithPoitiersandonthe uffering f thesaint,whilemakinga precisof thefirstPassio pto he pointat whichLeudegar'sufferingbegan.56The preciswasabout quarterof the lengthof the original,andit hadtheeffectofmucheducing heAutundimensionof thestory.Thiswasa wayofremoving lot of awkwarddetailand, moreimportantly, educingthessociation etween hesaintandAutunmaderoom orastrength-

eningf Poitiers'hold overthe cult. A secondary ffectof cuttingout o much detailwas a greatsimplification f the story,whichhadow becomean uncomplicatedtrugglebetweengoodandevilpersonifiedyLeudegar ndEbroin espectively.A political trugglewashus reducedto a clashof personalities, nd in this formthestoryouldbe understood ndembroidered y futuregenerations.Neverthelesshebarestoutlinesof theoriginalcareerwouldremainvisible,hough hatcareerwouldbe givena newcontextandsignifi-cance.57articularlytriking s the treatmentn successiveversions55 PassioLeudegani, ch. 30 (ed. Krusch,p. 312).56 On UrsinusandPoitiers, ee Poulin,"SaintLegeret sespremiers iographes",p.78-82.57 Intheninth-century etric ersion, or nstance,heroyal ourt sgivenaclassicalsetting,eudegar's eershavebecome"senators"nd'splebs" rebroughtntothetory:itabeatiLeudeganiartyris,1.205-324(ed. Traube,pp. 11-14).In the

(cont. on p. 21)


20/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY1ofLeudegar'sxileatEaster 75.Ursinushadpruned hefirstPassio'sdelicatedescriptionof theseembarrassingventsby leavingHectorout of the story.58Leudegarwas still exiled, but at his ownrequestafterthe chargesagainsthim had been revealedas falseand afterKingChilderichadbegged him to stay.Two centuriesater, in theRomancepoem, voluntaryexile had become a monasticvocationwhichLeudegarhadlongedto fulfil n order o escape heburdenofsecularobligations.59 his shows Leudegar's areer n an entirelydifferent ight.The saint, of course,waslookingmuch moresaintly,but the worldin whichhe lived had all but meltedaway.

Fromthe traditionof the life of Leudegar t is thusclearthat thebiographyof the saintwhichwas written closestto the eventsde-scribedhad least roomto manoeuvre n arguing or the sanctityofits subject. The point of greatestsensitivitywhich this restraintrevealedwas the apparent ackof support or the bishopfromotherpowerfulmembersof the church in Autun. The PassioPraeyecti,alsoproducedsoon after the events it described,gives us a similarimpressionof elementsamongthe localclergy, and this time locallay people too, opposedto theirbishop.60Praejectuswas bishopofClermontntheAuvergne, regionwhich

(n. 57 cont.)Romancepoem his peershave become"barons" nd Ebroin s a "count":Vieetpassionde saintLeger,verses9-10 (ed. Champollion-Figeac,. 448).58 ComparePassioLeudegani , chs. 9-12 (ed. Krusch,pp. 291-5),with PassioLeudeganiI, chs. 6-7 (ed. Krusch,pp. 328-30).59 Vie et passionde saintLeger,verse 16 (ed. Champollion-Figeac,. 450).60On the datingandcomposition f the PassioPraeJecti,eeKrusch'sntroductionto thework, n M.G.H., S.R.M., v (Hanover nd Leipzig,1910),pp. 212-24,andB.

Krusch,"Die altesteVitaPraejecti",NeuesArchiv,xviii(1893),pp. 629-39.Kruschsaw the work as a genuinelyearlycompositionwhich reliedheavilyon eyewitnessevidence,buthe didnotattempt o explainwhy tapparentlyonsists f twobiographiesrolled nto one:chapters14-31 n theM.G.H. editioncan be readas a separate ndself-containedccountof Praejectus'sareer romappointments bishopuntildeath.Thissection,whichhasa sortofprologue f its own,alsoexists n a separatemanuscripttradition,used by Bolland n ActaSanctorum,anuaris,i (Antwerp,1643),pp. 630-2. The rest of the PassioPraeyectichs. 1-13 and 32-9), on Praejectuss arlycareerandpost-mortemmiracles,may havebeen addedslightly ater o expandanoriginalcore, and in ch. 32 (ed. Krusch,p. 244)cross-referenceack o the central ection smade n the phrase uprasonptaundila, referenceo someonewho firstappearednch. 15(ed. Krusch,p. 235).Whereashe core of the work s a fairly ormalaccountof theeventsof theepiscopate, hebeginning ndend sections ontain muchgreaterproportion f localdetailandofeyewitnessccounts.Praejectus'samily reprominenthere, but are not designatedn the middlesection.It therefore eemsreasonableoassociatehe familywith anexpansion f the originalworkand, asKruschobserved,a likelycandidate or suchSteigerungbuildingup) would be Praejectus'sinsmanGodo,who wasabbotof themonasteryoundedatthe site of the bishop'smurder ndwho wassaid to have beenPraejectus'slosecompanion.


21/37

22 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127was attached o the kingdomof Austrasia. n 676 he was murderedat the instigation f membersof the aristocracyn the Clermont rea.As we have already een, not long beforehis murder,at Easter675,Praejectushad been at the royal court defendinghimself n a legaldisputewith Hector, Leudegar's ssociate.6lThe disputehad beenaboutpropertywhichthe churchof Clermont eld, butwhichHectorclaimedbelonged o his spouse:as so often happened, t seems thatin this casea widowhad donated andto the churchandheroffspringtriedto contest he donation.62 he accountof this case n the PassioPraejectis so detailed hat t is reasonableo suppose hatthe authorhad seen a documentwhich described ts progressand outcome.63What he rather andiddescription howsus is thatPraejectusmightwell have lost the case had not Hectordefaultedwhen he fled fromAutun. It seems ikelythatthere s a connectionbetween his disputeand the bishop's murderby local powerfulpeople, who may havebeen supportersof Hector. The timing of the incident, at a pointwhenerstwhile upporters f the recentlyassassinated ingChildericwere generally n headlong etreat, uggests hatagainwe are seeinga local disputewhich had a dimension n high politics.At the veryleast, the turbulence aused by the feudingaround he palacemaysimply have affordeda factionof local people an opportunity o getrid of a leaderwho, deprivedof royalsupport,had suddenlybecomevulnerable.Praejectusmay have been dependentupon royalsupportbecausehe was not sufficiently owerful n his own right.The bishop's amilyappears o have been prominent n the churchof Clermont,but notto have belongedto the elite from which the town's bishops wereusuallydrawn.The impression, herefore,s that t wasrather gainstthe odds that Praejectus hould become bishop.64 n his careerhe

61 Above, pp. 17-1867 PassioPraejecti, h. 23 (ed. Krusch,p. 239), in facthasHector eizing hewomanand subjectingher to the "miseryof concubinage", ut fromanotherpoint of viewshe may have been a willingpartner.On donations o the churchand legal contestsby their kindred,see J. Goody, TheDevelopmentf Familyand Marriagen Europe(Cambridge, 983), pp. 46, 111-13.63 PassioPraejecti, h. 24 (ed. Krusch,pp. 239-40).If, as suggested n ch. 27 (ed.Krusch,pp. 241-2),Praejectuseceived record f the judgementmade n his favour,then t wouldhavecontained etailsof the procedure nddialogue f the hearing.Onthe documentsrecording udgement, ee W. Bergmann,"Untersuchungenu denGerichtsurkundenerMerowingerzeit",rchivurDiplomatik,xii (1976),pp. 1-186;P. Fouracre, 'Placita' ndthe Settlement f Disputes n LaterMerovingian rancia",in W. Davies and P. Fouracre eds.), TheSettlementf Disputesn EarlyMedievalEurope Cambridge, 986), pp. 23-43.64On Praejectus's ossiblefamilyconnections, ee I. Wood, "The EcclesiasticalPolitics of MerovingianClermont", n P. Wormald,D. Bulloughand R. Collins

(cont. on p. 23)


22/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 3rose steadilyuntil he was one of the five most seniorclerics in thetown, but was toldnot to aspire o the episcopate ecausehe was notrich enough. The story is very confused at this point, and whatappears s acontinuous, f tortuous, equence f eventsmaycomprisetwo quite separateaccounts of how Praejectusbecame bishop.65Nevertheless n both accounts t looks as if he was able to drawoncanon aw to supporthis case forappointment.The first version sthe most complicatedand its very strangeness ives it the ring oftruth: the five senior clergy in Clermontgot togetherand decidedthat one of them, the archdeaconGarivald, houldbecomethe nextbishop. This decisionwas made in accordancewith a local customthat "the deaconserving n that post took over the pastoral are ifthe opportunity ffered tself:'. In orderto formalizeand publicizethis agreementGarivald hen drewup a document"binding n law"and had it corroborated y his four comrades.Butwhen the time ofsuccessioncamePraejectusbroke the agreement,despitethe docu-ment being displayedopenly n thechurch,andpersuaded he otherthree over to his side. At this point Garivaldbid instead for laysupport,got it, suppressedhis rivalsby force andbecamebishop.66But Garivalddied forty days later, and this time Praejectuswaschosen in a waywhich fulfilledan earlierprophecy hat in ordertobecome bishop he would "not haveto offer anymoney, just as thelaw of the church stated".67In the otherversion of Praejectus's romotion, he clergy couldnot agreeupon who should succeedand a layman, he count of thetown, was appointedby the king, but then steppeddown "struckwith fear lest he be acting againstcanon law". Praejectuswas his(n. 64 cont.)(eds.), Ideal andRealitgyn Frankish ndAnglo-Saxonociety: tudiesPresentedo 7.M. Wallace-HadrillOxford, 1983), pp. 34-55, esp. p. 48. ThatPraejectus'suturewouldbe unusual s suggestedby having t forecastby a dream:PassioPraejecti, h.1 (ed. Krusch,pp. 226-7). Scheibelreiter, ischof n merowingischereit, p. 31, alsosees Praejectus s coming rom a level below thatof the elite.

65 It is at this point PassioPraejecti, h. 13(ed. Krusch,pp. 232-3) that hereis a break n the biography.The firstsectionends with Praejectusbout o becomebishop aftera disputedsuccession.The next begins at ch. 14 (ed. Krusch,p. 233)with his appointmentftera disputed uccession,but the disputesdescribed n chs.13and 14 are quitedifferent,one involvingGarivald, he other nvolvingGenesius.If the sequencewasactually ontinuous, henwe shouldunderstandhatafterBishopFelix died therewas a disputeabout hesuccessionwhichPraejectusost to Garivald;then Garivald ied andtherewas anotherdisputeaboutsuccessionwhichPraejectusinitially ost to the laymanGenesiusbeforethe latterstood down.We cannotdatethese eventsexceptto the reign of KingChilderic 662-75).

66 Ibid., ch. 13 (ed. Krusch,pp. 232-3).67 Ibid., ch. 12 (ed. Krusch,p. 232).


23/37

24 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTreplacement.68n either case, some sort of ecclesiastical ight wasseento triumph vermight.In Clermontn the later eventh entury,aristocraticontrolover the churchmay still havebeen restrained ya consensusaboutthe traditional ightsof the clergy,for both Prae-jectusand Garivald ought o uphold heirrightsby an appeal o theauthorityof law.69But in both cases Praejectus's andidacywasstrongly pposedand, if the two accounts re reated s one sequence,we can infer that he becamebishop only at the third attempt.To sustainhis new positionPraejectus ppears o havecalleduponthe king, possibly hrough he intermediary f the king'smother, ogive him formalprotection.70Whenthe kingwas killed, the bishop'spositionbecameuntenable: e now choseas his protector holyman,Abbot Amarinus,but it was not long before both AmarinusandPraejectuswere killed together.Praejectus's uccessoras bishop ofClermontwas called Avitus. The name probably ndicates hat hewas one of the "senators f the Auvergne"whom we are told wereinvolved n the murder.7l t was Avituswho gave formal ecognitionto the veneration f Praejectus s a martyr.That formalbacking orthe cult may have come from the very people responsible or thesaint'sdeathseemsto be indicatedat severalpoints n the accountofthe murderand its aftermath.There is very little explanation f theconflict leading up to the murder;72he killing of the saint wasdescribed n such a way as to showPraejectus s actually esponsiblefor his own death;73ndfinally,andmostextraordinarily,wo named

68 Ibid., ch. 14 (ed. Krusch,pp. 233-4).69 Wood, "Ecclesiastical olitics of MerovingianClermont",p. 45, judges the

Clermontof Praejectus's ay to be "recognizablyimilar" o that documentedcenturyearlier.Changewould come in the next generation,with the institution flaymenand outsiders s bishops n Clermont.70 In the case againstHector,Praejectus alledupon Himnechild,motherof Chil-deric, as the protector f his church:PassioPragecti,ch. 24 (ed. Krusch,p. 240).71 A furtherndication f Avitus's enatorialineage,accordingo Wood,"Ecclesias-ticalPoliticsof Merovingian lermont", . 39, maybe his backing or the cult of thesaintsCassius,Victorinus nd Antonianus; cult originating ith the descendants fSidonius, the most famous of all the Auvergne amilies. Interestingly, he PassioPraeecti, ch. 17 (ed. Krusch,p. 236), tells of how Praejectusriedbut failed o takecontrolof this cult. After being prevented rom buildinga monasteryn the saints'

honourhe located heir bodies, but it was by his successor,Avitus, that they wereminfire ranslatawonderfullyranslated).A disputeover the cult may have been afactor n the bishop'sworsening elationswith the Auvergne"senators".72 PassioPraevecti,h. 29 (ed. Krusch,p. 242). The murder ppears implyas theresultof wanton nterference y the "enemyof mankind".73 Ibid., ch. 30 (ed. Krusch,p. 243). The assassinsmistookAbbotAmarinus orPraejectus nd havingkilled him were departingwhen Praejectus alled hem backand offeredhimself o their swords.


24/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 5perpetratorsf the deedwere reportedas being, naturally, he firstto witness the saint'sascent to heaven.Far from being punished,theirwitnessguaranteed orgiveness, heyremained ssociatedwiththe cult and, since they were said still to assert that they wereeyewitnesses,we canreasonably ssume hattheyformedpartof theaudienceof this work.74A thirdnamed"author f thecrime"auctornecis) was thefocusof twoof the fivemiracleswhichtheauthor hoseto illustratehe saint'spower.75t is thusfairlyclear hatby the timeof writing hesaint'spersecutors adcome to termswithPraejectus'skindred.Let us look moreclosely at this reconciliation.

The attackuponPraejectus adbeenaccompanied yattacks ponhis relatives: he "door-keeper" f thehouse in whichthe sainthadtaken astrefugeand whodied alongsidehim borethesamenameasthe saint's ather.76We alsohearof twomorerelatives,one of whomwas killed,while the otherfled to the themonastery f Agaune.77twas with this latter, one Godo, that Praejectus'successorAvitusheld negotiations bout establishinga cult centreon the site of themurder,the family'svilla at Volvic.78The negotiationsook placeonly afterthe cult had beenstarted,possiblyby anothermemberofthe family, a local abbesswho had firstrecovered he bodies of theslain men.79Avitus endowed a monasteryon the site and Godoconsented o returnfromexile and become its abbot.Once estab-lished, the monastery eceived urthergifts fromAvitus,and one ofthe work's iveposthumousmiracles s concernedwithGododrawingup a formaldescriptionof all this property.80Another of thesemiraclestells of how the saint'spersecutorsgave rich gifts to histombe81

74 Ibid., ch. 31 (ed. Krusch,p. 243).75 Ibid., chs. 38-9 (ed. Krusch,pp. 247-8).76 Ibid., ch. 29 (ed. Krusch,p. 243). The"door-keeperf the housecalledGundo-lenus"was the only one of the bishop's ollowersnot to run awayatthe approach fthe enemy. The domus house)was the family'svillaat Volvic.77 Ibid., ch. 33(ed. Krusch,p. 244). The relativeswereEligiusandGodo,who hadbeen the bishop's constantcompanions.Note that Praejectus'smotherwas calledEligia.78 Ibid., ch. 34 (ed. Krusch,pp. 244-5).79 Ibid., ch. 32 (ed. Krusch,p. 244). She wascalledGundila orGundilana,n

ch. 15 (ed. Krusch,p. 235) a namecognatewithGundolenus.Avitusonly beganto considerbuildinga monastery n the site because"God in his mercy revealedseveralmiracles t the housewherethe saintswereand lots of peoplewerewith thegreatest ffectionmakinghaste ovisit theseplacesof the saints": h. 34 (ed. Krusch,p. 255).80 Ibid., ch. 37 (ed. Krusch,p. 246): "Later, ndeed,BishopAvitusmadeover toAbbotGodowhatever e hadof hisownfreewill procuredorthe houseof the saints".81 Ibid., ch. 38 (ed. Krusch,p. 247).


25/37

26 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTWe are fortunatehere in having a sourcewhich reveals he linkbetween he martyr's ult, his kindredand their property. t allows

us to see the processof reconciliation nd forgivenessn the light ofthe property ompensationo kindredwhichwas n general he basisof settlingdisputes nvolvingpersonal njuriesand death.82 lacingthe action n the contextof normal ettlement-procedureay n turnhelp us to understandhow reconciliationwas perceivedas bothpossibleand appropriate. inally,this contextgives us another ngleon the apparentncompetence f the hagiographer,or if the sanctityof the martyrappearscompromisedby the awkward ealityof hislife, this could be preciselybecause he accountof the life was itselfan expressionof compromise,even a vehicle for agreeinga publicversionof events. Such an interpretation ould certainlyhelp makesense of the lukewarmattitudewhich in places the PassioPraejectiadoptstowards ts hero.83The PassioPraejecti hereforeprovidesanother xampleof how acommonand living memoryof eventscoulddetermine he inclusionof significant lements of contemporary ealitywithin the conven-tional form of a saint's ife. The third case of interlocking olitics,historyand hagiography shallvery brieflyconsiderdiffers romtheother wo in that t has left no contemporaryecord.It is the accountof the martyrdom, . 662, of Aunemund,bishopof Lyons.The ActaAunemundiurviveonly in what s probably tenth-centuryevisionof an originalwork contemporaryo the events they described.84Thus one cannot rust theirdetail, which betraysa strengthening fformover historical ontent,but, as we sawwith the development fthe PassioLeudegarzi,t seems likely that the basicnarrative utlinemay have remained aithful o the original.85One very good reason

82 On property ompensationn early medieval aw in general,see H. Vollrath,"Herrschaft nd Genossenschaftm Kontext ruhmittelalterlicherechtsbeziehun-gen", Historisches3rahrbuch,ii (1982), pp. 33-71, esp. pp. 61-2. On the processofdispute ettlementn thisFrankish ontext, ee Fouracre, 'Placita' nd he Settlementof Disputes".83 It could also help explain he bipartite tructure f the PassioPraejecti,with an"official" ccountof events makingup the central ectionand with the additionofmore complimentary aterial rom familysources.84 Fordiscussion f the composition nddatingof the text, see P. Perrier'sntroduc-tion to the editionprinted n the ActaSanctorum, eptembris, ii (Antwerp,1760),pp. 736-9; A. Coville, Recherchesur lthistoire e Lyon du ve siecleau IXCsiecle(450-800)(Paris, 1928), pp. 372-5; P. Fouracreand R. Gerberding,"The 'ActaAunemundi'", n their TheMakingof Merovingian istory forthcoming).85 Problematic ere s contradiction etween he different ccounts f Aunemund'sdeathseen in the ActaAunemundind in the contemporary ife of St Wilfrid, h. 6(ed. Colgrave,pp. 12-15).If the latter s preferred, hen there s conflictbetween ts

(cont. on p. 27)


26/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY7for thinkingthis is that the narrative onveys a version of eventswhich is on balanceratherunflatteringo the martyr.

Aunemundwas a princelybishopand his familyheld secularaswellas ecclesiastical oweroverLyons.86 n keepingwithhis statusthe bishopwas prominentat the royalcourt and may even havebeen godfather o the boy-kingClothar II. According o theActaAunemundi is downfallcamewhen some of the clergy of Lyons,believinghim to be "tooelevated",accusedhim of treason.87 hislocalinitiativeprovokeda vigorousresponse romthe palace.Aune-mund's brotherwas tried and executed at a sessionof the royalcourt.88 hebishophimselfwasordered oattend o answer harges.When he failed to appearan army was sent to fetch him. LikeLeudegarhe soughtrefuge n his townand) ikeLeudegar,he foundno defence here.89Aunemundwas takenaway obepresented otheking,buton thewayhe wasmurdered.90 is replacement s bishopwasGenesiusr memberof thepalaceclergywhohadbeenespeciallyclose to the queendowager,Balthild.9lThe storyshowsonceagainthe joining of local oppositionand outside forces in a mutuallybeneficial lliance:againthe killingof anincumbentbishopwas theoutcome;and againan "official"accountwas producedwhichdidnot maskthe historical eality.

IVI beganby suggesting hatalthough t is quitepossibleto key into(n. 85 cont.)chronology nd the datingof twocharters romSenswhichAunemundignedovertwoyearsafterWilfridwassupposed o havewitnessedhisdeath.Coville7Recherchessur 'histoiree Lyon,p. 390, refused o accept heauthenticity f thecharters n thebasisthattheeyewitness videnceof theLifeofSt Wilfnd houldbe respected.Nowin the lightof a clearerunderstandingf the structure ndpurposeof the Life ofStWilfrid,tseemsmorereasonableothink hat ts author,Stephanus,nventedWilfrid'spresenceatAunemund's eath n order o establishhis hero'sholystatusasearlyaspossible n the work: ee J. L. Nelson,;'Queens sJezebels:The Careers f BrunhildandBalthild n MerovingianHistory",Studiesn ChurchHistoC,Subsidia, (1978),pp. 31-77,repr. n J. L. Nelson,Politics ndRitual nEarlyMedieval uropeLondon,1986),pp. 1-48;Fouracre ndGerberding,Making fMerovingiani.story; offart,Narrators fBarbarianHistoS, p. 288.

86 ActaAunemundi,hs. 2-3 (ed. Perrier,p. 744). The bishop'sbrotherwas thesecularrulerof Lyons. The Lifeof St Wilfrid, h. 4 (ed. Colgrave,pp. 10-11),alsoemphasizesAunemund's rincelypowerandtells of how heofferedWilfrid"agoodpartof Gaul O ruleover" f he wouldbecomehis follower.87 ActaAunemundi,h. 2 (ed. Perrier,p. 744).88 Ibid., ch. 3 (ed. Perrier,p. 744).89 Ibid., chs. 5-9 (ed. Perrier,pp. 744-5).90 Ibid., ch. 11(ed.Perrier,p. 745). Hewasassassinatednthemiddleof the nightContrast heaccountn Lifeof St Wilfnd, h. 6 (ed. Colgrave, p. 12-15),whichhasa formaldaytimeexecution.91According o the contemporary ita Balthildis,ch. 4 (ed. Krusch,M.G.H.,S.R.M., ii, Hanover,1888,pp. 486-7).


27/37

28 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTthe "thoughtworld"of the earlyMiddleAgesby concentratingnthe conventional spectsof hagiography,n eachparticularworkittendsto be the unconventionallementswhichreveal he historicalconditionsn whichtheworkwasproduced.Having ookedat threeworks n whicha measureof historical ealityrestrainedheuse theauthorscouldmakeof convention, shallin conclusionattempt ointerpret hatrealityas revealed n theseworks.The firstpointtomakehere is that the manner n whicheachworkdrewupon therangeof available onventionsmayin itselfbe revealing.Whatwehaveseen is the pragmatic daptation f a conventionalrameworkto the particular eeds of the subject.The frameworkvokesidealChristianehaviour;headaptationeveals difference etweendealandreality; ndtherestraintwithwhichconventionsouldsometimesbe appliedsuggestsan authorialawarenessof thatdifference.Forexample,hemarked ontrastbetween heways n whichthePassioLeudegarzireatedits subjectbefore and afterhis removalfromAutun uggeststhatthe authorof thePassiowasaware hata fullyconventionalpproachwasnotpossibleuntilhis subjectmatterhadpassedbeyond the horizonof common memory.92 imilarly heunexpectedlyatheticdescription f Praejectus's eath ndicatesanauthorreakingwithconvention twhatshouldhavebeentheclimaxofhis work.93The juxtapositionf idealandrealitypointsupacontrastbetweenbeliefand practicewhich is documented n other areastoo, forinstancen the differencebetweenthe idealizedagreements f thechurchouncilsandtheactualpracticesound nthevariousChristiancommunities.94arfromundermining culturewhichwasstronglyintegratedroundacceptedtheologicalcertainties,95he abilitytothinkn onewayandto behave n another,orto describebehaviour92 Above,pp. 18-20.93 Above, p. 24.94 Forexample, ontrast onciliar ecreesontheelectionofbishopswiththeactualelectionsn record.Thus, the strictureof the Councilof Paris(614)that"nullusepiscoporume viventealium n locosuonon elegat" "letno livingbishopchooseanothern his place"),Conciliumarisiense,n ConciliaGalliaa 511-695,ed. C. deClercqCorpusChristianorum,eriesLatina,cxlviii,Turnhout,1963),p. 276, canbeontrasted iththeActaAunemundi,h.2 (ed.Perrier, . 744),onhowAunemundbecameishop:"aViventioloLugdunensipiscopo ligereturn loco:quem,adhucsinibi tante,Christi ratia onsecravitontificem""HewaschosenbishopofLyonsbyiventiolus,whoordainedhimasbishopby thegraceof Christwhilsthe himselfstillccupied he position").This readsalmostas a directcontradictionf the 614canon.95Cf. Gurevich,CategoriesfMedievalCulture, p. 8-10.


28/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY9in ideal terms, was what enabledthat culture o adaptand grow.96LaterMerovingian agiographys invaluable n casting ight on thiscultural daptation.What he threeworksdiscussedherereveal s anelement of conflict in the process. Conflict within the Christiancommunitywas what led all three protagonists long the path tomartyrdom.The abilityto dealwithin a traditionalChristian rame-work with conflict betweenmembers of the faith, even betweenmembersof the same church, and between rulers and ruled) wasdeveloped in this period.97Hagiography s witness both to thisdevelopment nd to the conditions n which it took place.

Let us now return briefly to the question of how we form animpression f whatconditionswere like in the laterseventhcentury.We havealready ontrastedwoapproaches imedat extracting omesortof historical eality rom hetexts: irst, herewasthe constructionof a compositepicturebuilt up by taking nformationrom a seriesof texts;secondly, herewas theintensive reatment f the individualtext according o rulesderived roma studyof hagiography s a genreandusingsomeof the techniques f literary riticism. t wassuggestedthat a bridge should be builtbetweenthese two positionsby usingthemto informeachother.Particularlymportant ere s the critiqueof the compositepicturewhichthe intensive reatment llows.Whatsuch a critique howsaboveallis thatthoughspecificcomponents fthe compositemay be fairly takenfrom contemporaryexts, in theprocessof their selectionand assemblya new text is created.Thislatterbecomesas much a productof historiographicalradition softhe early medievalsources upon which it supposedlyrests. Now,whereasour early medievaltexts are at present hardly capableofdeconstruction, he historiography hich has been built upon themis certainly ipe for it. It may allowus to see how historical iscoursehas imposed its own meaningupon its source material.Beforewecan proceedwith a discussionof whatrealityunderlay hatmaterial,we must first considersome of the historiographicalitfalls.The traditional iscourse f thehistoriographyf laterMerovingian

96 Cf. S. Reynolds, "SocialMentalitiesand the Case of MedievalScepticism",Trans.Roy. Hist. Soc. (forthcoming),or argument gainst he conventional iew ofa mentalitywhich was incapable f pragmatichinking.

97 In an earlierperiodconflicthad beenbetweenChristians nd pagans,or, slightlylater, betweenorthodoxbelieversand heretics. In westernEurope n the seventhcentury herewas neitherpaganpersecution or the kind of doctrinal isputewhichwould have producedheresy.Hence theuncertainty boutwhatconstituted anctitywhen conflictwas no longerbetween nsidersand outsiders: f. Vauchez,Saintete noccident, p. 15-22.


29/37

30 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 127Franciahas a basicallycentristviewpointand is teleologically n-spired: hat s, it is almostoverwhelminglyoncernedwiththe declineof the Merovingianpolity in relation o the rise of its Carolingiansuccessor-state.This decline is seen as a main theme of seventh-and early eighth-century istoryand conventionallyt is held to bepersonified, nd n partcaused,by theMerovingian ings hemselves,the notoriousoisfaineants, or sCdo-nothing ings.The last sCstrongking is said to have been DagobertI (d. c. 638)) with the politysteadily falling apart thereafteruntil it was rescued by the morevigorousCarolingians. he latter ookthe title king n the year 51.98Aligned within these terms is a series of metaphorical ppositions,through he positiveresolutionof which development s conceived:fall and rise; the appearance nd realityof powerand powerlessness,and of strengthand weakness; entralization nd separatism; efeatand victory,and so on.99 n eachcasethe resolution s broughtaboutby the forces which fashioned he Carolingian tate.l??There areobvious imitationsn categorizing evelopmentn this way. Firstn t

98 In this view the battleof Tertry A.D. 687) iS seen as the pointat which ortunesturneddecisively n favourof the Carolingians. or an attempt o reconstructheMerovingian oint of view, see P. Fouracre)"Observationsn the Outgrowth fPippinid nfluence n the 'RegnumFrancorum' fter he battleof Tertry 687-715)",Medieval rosopography,(1984), pp. 1-31, esp. p. 21 n. 12.99Such hinkinghas a long tradition tretching ll the wayback o the Carolingians'justificationf theirseizureof power rom he Merovingiansn 751. The justificationwasactuallypresented s the rational esolution f the "contradiction"y which hosewithoutpowerheld the nameof king, whilstthosewith powerdid not. The solutionwas to transfer he kingship o the lattergroup:AnnalesRegniFranconxmnubanno749 (ed. F. Kurze,M.G.H., S.R.G., Hanover,1895,p. 8). Forthe classicdescriptionof the decliningMerovingians,ee Einhard,VitaKaroliMagni,ch. 1 (ed. G. Waitz,M.G.H., S.R.G., Hanover ndLeipzig,1911)pp. 2-4).For heriseoftheCarolingians,seeAnnalesMettensesPnores(ed.on Simson,pp. 1-42).ThisviewoflaterMerovingianhistorywas alreadya topos by the early ninth centurywhen the AnnalesMettensesPnoreswere written,and it has remained onventional ver since. For examplesofworks n this vein, see L. Dupraz, 'vLeRoyaume esFrancs':contributionl'histoiredu "Regnum rancorum"endante troisiemeuartdu IzIICiecle 656-680) Fribourgen Suisse, 1948);E. Ewig, "Die frankische eilreiche m 7 Jahrhundert613-7149",TnererZeitschrift,ii (1953),pp. 85-144,repr. n SpatantikesndFrankisches allien,i, pp. 172-230; . Fischer,DerHausmeierEbroinInaugural issertation, onn, 1954);for more recentlyexpressedassumptions asedon this tradition, ee Scheibelreiter,Bischof n merowingxschereit, p. 268; in relation o the career f Aunemund, ee H.Muller,"Die Kirchevon Lyon m Karolingerreich",istonschesffahrbuch,vii(1987),pp. 226-33.100 ora recentexampleof the historiographicalradition xercising n unhelpfulinfluence n this way, see the otherwise xcellentT. Reuter, sPlunder ndTribute nthe Carolingian mpire",Trans Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., xxxv (1985), pp. 79-80,where the Merovingians re comparedunfavourably ith the Carolingians ithoutproperattention o the differencen qualitybetween he sourcematerialsor the twoperiods


30/37

MEROVINGIANHISTORYAND MEROVINGIANHAGIOGRAPHY 1leads one to view societyhorizontally t the level of the rulingelite:opposition s identifiedat this level only and is viewed through heperformance f a limitednumberof institutions.Secondly,not onlymay assumedoppositionsbe false centralizationnd separatism,for instance but in general he use of opposingconceptsnaturallyexcludes other viewpoints.Aspects such as consensus, solidarity,compromisend continuity rethus squeezedout of the analysis,andwithout hemwe get the impression f a politywhichwasunworkableand doomed.l?lWhere hisrather loomypicturemostdirectly ffects he nterpret-ationof ourtexts s in the construct f an episcopal ordshipprogress-ively separated rom, and opposedto, governmentrom the centre.Oppositionbetweenthe two differentkinds,as well as locationsofauthority s signifiedby the anachronisticpithet "republic"whichis applied to the episcopalsee in contrast o a notion of"royal"government.102he construct s essentiallydeduced from obser-vationsof a politicalcentredeclining n relation o a long tradition fepiscopal own-governmentnd local self-sufficiency,ut it excludestoo manyalternativeso beof much use in interpretinghe full rangeof behaviouround n the verytextsuponwhich t draws orsupport.It draws,forinstance,uponpassages n thePassioLeudegarii hichshow the bishop responsiblefor the governmentand defence ofAutun. But, as we have seen, the work as a whole suggests hat theaffairsof this townwere nextricablyaughtup with thoseof a widerpoliticalworld.'03Far fromthere being oppositionbetweencentreand peripheryhere, there is no reasonwhy one should not see thetwo as interdependent, r, as in the case of Autun at Easter675, asindistinguishable.0410lFor an extremely egative iewof the seventh enturyhroughout hristendom,see M. Rouche,"Lacrisede l'Europe u coursde la deuxiememoitiedu VIIe iecleet la naissancedes regionalismes", nnalesE.S.C., xli (1986), pp. 347-60.

102 Termsfirstcoined by Ewig, "Miloet eiusmodi imiles",p. 436; reinforced yF. Prinz,"Die bischofliche tadtherrschaftm Frankenreichom5 bis7 Jahrhundert",HistorischeZeitschnft,cxvii 1974),pp. 1-35;repeatedn R. Kaiser,Bischofsherrschaftischen Konigtum ndFurstenmachtPariserhistorische tudien,xvii, Bonn, 1981),pp. 55-74.103 Prinz, "Bischofliche tadtherrschaftm Frankenreich",. 26; Kaiser,Bischofs-

herrschaftwischenKonigtum ndFurstenmacht,p. 55-60. Note thatKaiser, bid., p.55, takes he termdominiumrom hePassioLeudegarii, ch. 20 (ed. Krusch,p. 301),to characterizepiscopal ule n general,and (p. 58) hedraws rom ts usein the samePassio,ch. 25 (ed. Krusch,p. 307), a description f Leudegar'suleoverAutun.Butin both cases the Passioauthorwasusing the term n a stronglypejorative ense toindicate he kindof episcopalbehaviourwhich he regarded s unacceptable.'?4Fora strong estatementf theconventional icture f opposition etween entreand periphery, ee Scheibelreiter, ischof n merowingischereit, pp. 263-4.


31/37

32 NUMBER 127AST AND PRESENTIf we alignourviewpointwith thatof eachauthor,rather han ookin from the centreand with hindsight, hen we can observea muchmore flexiblerelationship etweenthe different omponents f thispolity.105n particularwe shouldnote that, in all threecaseswe havelooked at, the initiativefor involving the outlying town with thepalacecame from elements n the towns themselves.The dynamicbehindsuch involvementwas the conflictproducedby local rivalry.Here, insteadof oppositionalonga horizontal laneacrossdifferentareasand causingdisintegration,we have it in one place, expressedverticallyand actingas a force for integration.A notionof rivalry s

extremely ommon n writingof the period.In hagiography, ivalrycausedby envy, which is in turn nspiredby the devil, is a standardmotif. Envy in fact appearsas the primarymedium hroughwhichthe devil works upon mankindand as a favouredexplanation orinter-Christian onflict, for it had the advantageof providing ascapegoat n a commonenemy and could help re-establish eace nthe community.The Passio Praejecttprovidesa good exampleofthis. 06It is, of course, not surprising o see invidiousrivalryprominentin a society which is well attestedas being violently competitive.Rathermore unexpected s the way in which local rivals ookedforoutside support n their competition nd seem to have had a fairlysophisticated pproach o the politicsof the widerworld.This is truenot just of the workswe have lookedat, but of a wide rangeof textsfromthe period.07 LaterMerovingian agiography enerally evealsa politicalconsciousnessn which the affairsof the palaceand of thewhole aristocraticommunitywere prominent.l08his maybe partlyunderstood y seeingpoliticalactivityas a normalpartof the sharedcultureand behaviourof an elite which was spread hroughout hekingdom. A complementary xplanation ould be that there was alingeringperceptionof the state as a body of superiorauthority owhich one could appeal o relieve ocal injustice.In all threeof ourcases, contactsbetween he periphery nd centrecouldbe described

105 For example, ee J. Durliat,"Lesattr1butionsivilesdes evequesmerovingiens:l'exemplede Didier evequede Cahors,630-655",Annales u Midi, xci (1979), pp.237-53, wherea much more positivepictureof the Merovingian olity s producedfrom the sourcematerial roupedaroundDesiderius,bishopof Cahors.

106 PassioPraejecti, h. 29 (ed. Krusch,pp. 242-3).107 See, for example,Vita Lantberti, h. 3 (ed. Krusch,pp. 610-11).108 By contrast, regional onsciousness nd dentity eading o polit