JOHN MOORHEAD

Clovis’ Motives for Becoming a Catholic

Christian

The conversion of the Frankish king Clovis from paganism to catholic

Christianity in about 500 changed the religious map of the Christian world.
At a time when the Visigoth, Ostrogoth, Vandal and Burgundian rulers
of the other successor states of the Roman Empire in the west were Arian
and the Byzantine emperor Anastasius was himself suspected of heretical
leanings, Clovis’ adherence to Catholicism was striking. Writing the better
part of a century after his baptism, Gregory of Tours was able to compare
him to another famous royal convert: Clovis was a novos [s/c]
Constantinus.1 But many modern scholars would see a similarity between
Clovis and Constantine undreamed of by Gregory. Just as an influential
tradition has held that Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity was
politically motivated, so it has frequently been asserted that Clovis’
becoming a catholic was an act of opportunism: the pagan king of
territories in the main catholic, facing an Arian rival in the king of the
Visigoths, Clovis made a bid for catholic support, whether in his own lands
or those controlled by the Visigoths, by seeking baptism. A moderate
version of this thesis would hold that, even if Clovis’ reason for conversion
was not entirely opportunistic, it had as a beneficial side-effect, presumably
foreseen, the gaining of the support of the Gallo-Romans.2 Against this
tradition, I propose to offer reasons for seeing the conversion of Clovis
as having been prompted by sincere religious conviction. It will be argued,
firstly, that conversion to Catholicism would have had little impact on the
1. Hist., 2.31 (ed. B. Krusch, MGH SRM 1, p. 77).
2. For various statements of this position, see M.-M. Gorce, Clovis, Paris 1935, p. 157;
F. Lot, Naissance de ia France, Paris 1948, p. 28; G. Tessier, Le Bapteme de Clovis, Paris
1964, p. 96; R. Latouche, Caesar to Charlemagne, Engl, trans., London 1968, p. 221; G.
Fournier, Les Merovingiens, Paris 1969, p. 12; J. Hillgarth, The Conversion of Western
Europe, Englewood Cliffs 1969, p. 73; M. Rouche, L’Aquitaine des Wisigoths aux Arabes,
418-781, Paris 1979, pp. 43, 46; M. Reydellet, La Royaute dans la litterature latine de Sidoine
Apollinaire a Isidore de Seville, Paris 1981, p. 89. See too now J. M. Wallace-Hadrill The
Frankish Church, Oxford 1983, pp. 23-5. Dissentient voices are those of E. A. Thompson,
‘The conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, Vol. 4,
1960, pp. 4-35 at pp. 5f. and The Goths in Spain, Oxford 1969, pp. 26f, and of F. Graus,
Volk Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger, Prague 1965, p. 150.

John Moorhead is Senior Lecturer in History, University of Queensland.

Abbreviations: CCSL = Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, MGH=Monumenta Germaniae Historica (AA=Auctores
Antiquissimi, SRM=Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum). Among the works of Gregory of
Tours, Hist. = Libri Historiarum (generally translated under the title History of the Franks)
and Virtutes= Virtutes Sancti Martini. I wish to acknowledge the benefit I have derived from
discussing this topic with Dr Ian Wood, as well as from consulting his unpublished D.Phil.
thesis, ‘Avitus of Vienne: Religion and Culture in the Auvergne and the Rhone Valley, 470-530’
University of Oxford 1980.

329
330 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY

way catholic provincials regarded a barbarian king, for it was a matter

of little consequence to them whether barbarians were catholics or Arians,
and secondly, that the religious concerns of the newly-converted Franks,
however bizarre some of their manifestations, seem to answer to a genuine
commitment to a new faith which was perceived as something culturally
desirable, a commitment which we may presume Clovis shared.3
Firstly, it is necessary to evaluate the role of Arianism in relations
between Romans and barbarians. According to one distinguished scholar,
‘a wall of dumb hatred’ stood between catholic Romans and Arian
barbarians,4 but we may take leave to doubt this. Writing in Italy early
in the sixth century, Ennodius, possibly intending an attack on Clovis,
who was baptized as an adult, could describe the Arian Ostrogoth
Theoderic as one who had been a worshipper of the highest God from
the beginning of his life.5 In 533 Cassiodorus could ask his friend Pope
John II to pray for the Ostrogothic monarchs, so that the heavenly princeps
might make their lives long, and from the context of this expression it
seems that Cassiodorus may have been afraid that the Arian Goths would
be attacked by the catholic Byzantines.6 Provided that the Ostrogoths did
not intervene unasked in the affairs of the catholic church their Arian
convictions were of small concern to the Romans; thus the Liber Pontificalis
only styles Theoderic hereticus in its account of Pope John 1(523-6) when,
at the end of his reign, Theoderic turned against this pope.7 Provided that
the peace was kept, the Romans were by and large uninterested in the
religious beliefs of barbarians;8 when the armies of Justinian attacked the
Ostrogoths they enjoyed a large measure of support, but there is no
evidence that this was because they fought for a catholic emperor.9
Needless to say the Arian Vandals were execrated and the prevalent image
of them in both Africa and elsewhere seems to have stressed their Arianism.
3. It is not my intention to canvass such problems as the date and place of Clovis’ baptism.
G. Tessier has supplied a useful conspectus of the various theories: ‘La Conversion de Clovis
et la christianisation des Francs,’ in La Conversions al christianesimo nell’Europa dell'alto
medioevo, Spoleto 1967 (= Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo,
Vol. 14) pp. 149-89 at pp. 149-69. Since then, note the studies of R. Weiss, Clodwigs Tauf:
Reims 508, Bern 1971, critically discussed by K. Schaferdiek, ‘Ein neues Bild der Geschichte
Chlodwigs?’, Zeitschrifl fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 84, 1973, pp. 270-7, and L. Fleuriot,
Les Origines de la Bretagne, Paris 1980, pp. 180f.
4. P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, London 1971, p. 124; in similar vein J. Zeiller,
‘Etude sur l’arianisme en Italie’, Melanges d’archeotogie et d’histoire, Vol. 25, 1905, pp. 127-46
at p. 134, and J. Hillgarth, ‘Coins and chronicles: Propaganda in sixth-century Spain and
the Byzantine background’, Historia, Vol. 15, 1966, pp. 482-508 passim, e.g. ‘The Byzantines
knew perfectly how to make use of the latent antipathy between the Roman provincials and
their Arian rulers’ (p. 494).
5. ‘Te summi dei cultorem ab ipso lucis limine’, Panegyricus dictus Theoderico 80 (in Opera
ed. F. Vogel, MGHAA 7, p. 213). Note too a passing non-judgmental allusion to Theoderic’s
being an Arian: ‘fides nostra apud eum, aliud ipse sectetur, in portu est’ (ep. 9.30, p. 319).
6. Variae, 11.2.2 (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH AA 12); Cassiodorus immediately goes on
to seek John’s prayers that God would bring to naught the enemies of the Roman state and
grant peaceful times; in June 533 a Byzantine fleet sailed against the Vandals.
7. L. Duchesne (ed.) Liber Pontificalis, 2nd ed., Vol. 1,Paris 1955, p. 275 1,6, 17; p. 276
1, 3, 5, 10.
8. On the lack of attempts to convert them, consult E. A. Thompson, ‘Christianity and
the Northern Barbarians,’ in A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and
Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1963, pp. 56-78.
9. J. Moorhead, ‘Italian Loyalties during Justinian’s Gothic War’ Byzantion, Vol. 53, 1983,
pp. 575-96.
 CLOVIS 331

But this does not entitle us to conclude that the Vandals were disliked
simply because they were Arians; rather, it may well be that ‘Arianism
was not so much the real cause of the conflict as an occasion for it to break
out’.10
We may therefore accept that the Arians were not condemned tout court
because of their religion. But in any examination of the possible role of
Arianism in the conversion of Clovis the case of the Visigoths is crucial.
They were his chief rivals in Gaul and if, contrary to the argument of the
preceding paragraph, it could be shown that their Arianism rendered them
objectionable to the Gallo-Romans to such an extent that by conversion
to Catholicism Clovis could have gained the support of the catholic
provincials, we might well be in the position of having to accept a partially
political motivation for that conversion. It will therefore be worthwhile
to examine the case of the Visigoths in some detail.
Of the Visigothic monarchs, Gregory of Tours represents Euric (466-84)
as having been a persecutor of catholics, and a ferocious one at that.11
But Gregory’s account of Euric can be shown to rest on a misreading of
a passage of Sidonius Apollinaris, in which we are simply told that
numerous bishops had been deprived of their sees, which remained vacant
and suffered decay.12 While the interpretation of this passage is difficult,
it is impossible to argue for anything like a general persecution on the
strength of it.13 In his Historia Gothorum written early in the seventh
century, Isidore of Seville failed to credit Euric with any persecution. He
only mentioned kings Agila (549-54) and Leuvigild (568-86) as having been
anti-catholic, two figures from after the time of Clovis, and against them
may be set Theudis (531-48) who ‘although he was a heretic, nevertheless
granted peace to the church’, and the mysterious failure of Isidore to
mention the conversion of Leuvigild’s rebellious son Hermenigild to
Catholicism.14 One hardly gets a picture of a society for which the division
between Arian and catholic was of great concern, and indeed our sources
supply evidence of Gallo-Romans who were sympathetic to Euric.
Arvandus, praefectus praetorio Galtiarum 464-8, wrote to Euric advising
him against peace with the emperor Anthemius and recommending that
10. L. Musset, The Germanic Invasions, Engl, trans., London 1975, p. 188; cf. Ch.
Courtois, Les Vandales et I’Afrique, Paris 1955, pp. 286-9.
11. Hist., 2.31.
12. Sidonius Apollinaris, ep. 7.6. 7-10. On the relationship between this passage and Gregory,
see K. F. Stroheker, Eurich Konig der Westgoten, Stuttgart 1937, pp. 40-4, 47f.
13. So G. Yver ‘Euric, roi des Wisigoths’, in Etudes d’histoire du moyen age dediees a Gabriel
Monod, Paris 1896, pp. 11-46 at pp. 42-6 (although not all his conclusions are to be accepted);
C. E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age, Oxford 1933, p. 154 with n. 3; Stroheker,
Euric, esp. pp. 47-50.
14. Historia Gothorum (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH AA 11) 45 (Agila), 50 (Leuvigild), 41
(Theudis), 49 (Hermenigild). Another example of the suppression of Hermenigiid’s conversion
is given by the Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeretensium, which says of Reccared, the younger
brother of Hermenigild, ‘non patrem perfidum sed Christum dominum sequens ab Arrianae
haereseos pravitate conversus est’ (ed. and trans. J. N. Garvin, Washington D. C. 1946,
5.9.4.) This is a direct borrowing from the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, except that
‘Christum dominum’ has been inserted for Gregory’s ‘fratrem martyrem’ (cf. Gregory,
Dialogues, ed. and trans. A. de Vogue and P. Antin, Paris 1979, 3.31). For reasons I cannot
go into now, I believe that the lack of enthusiasm seventh-century authors display for
Hermenigiid’s conversion accurately reflects the attitude of his contemporaries of the sixth
century.
332 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY

Gaul be split amongst Visigoths and Burgundians; he was taken to Rome,

accused of treason and exiled.15 One Seronatus was executed in or shortly
before 475 for having delivered territory to the Visigoths;16 he is described
as exulting the Goths and insulting the Romans.17 We know of one Gallo-
Roman distinguished for his piety who collaborated with Euric. Victorius
was appointed to high office by Euric, but on his arrival in Clermont began
constructing ecclesiastical edifices with gusto and together with Sidonius
he was present at the burial of the holy man Abraham.18 Such catholics
seem to have felt no qualms about collaborating with the Goths.
It is against this background that we must locate the data supplied by
Gregory for the time of Glovis. According to Gregory many of the Gauls,
meaning in this context those living in the part of Gaul controlled by the
Visigoths, strongly desired to have the Franks as their lords.19 Elsewhere
Gregory attributes a similar desire to people living under the Burgundians
at a time before Clovis was converted to Catholicism,20 which would seem
to exclude Clovis’ being a catholic as the only reason for people wishing
to be under the Franks. Gregory appears to have felt, or to have been seeking
to create the impression, that the Visigoths behaved so badly that deliverance
would have been welcome from Clovis, whatever his religious convictions.
Clearly this weakens the case for Clovis’ conversion having been politically
motivated, but even Gregory’s position may be questioned, for when it is
read with care his narrative provides little evidence for the claim that people
were longing to come under the domination of the Franks. He reports that
bishop Quintianus of Rodez was accused by the people of his city of wishing
that the Franks possessed the land. Discord developed between him and
the citizens, the Goths became suspicious and having taken counsel (whether
with each other or with the citizens is not clear) they sought to attack him
with the sword, whereupon Quintianus betook himself to Clermont.21 But
Quintianus was an African,22 and hence an unreliable guide to Gallo-Roman
opinion, although one cannot help but note that he may have been a refugee
from Vandal persecution, whose presence in Visigothic territory would be
a pointer to the perceived tolerance of the Visigoths. There is no evidence
that he really sought Frankish domination and the charge against him may
well have been fabricated by townspeople anxious to see the end of him.
The story told by Gregory implies that the people would not have supported
any disloyalty to the Goths on the part of their bishop, and surprisingly
when Quintianus fled it was to another town controlled by the Goths!23
15. Sidonius Apollinaris, ep. 1.7; cf. Cassiodorus, Chronicon (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH
AA 11), sub anno 469.
16. Sidonius Apollinaris, ep. 7.7.2; on his visits to Euric’s court, 2.1.1 and 5.13.1.
17. Ibid., 1.2.1.
18. Gregory, Hist. 2.20; Liber vitae patrum, 3; cf. Sidonius, ep. 7.17 on Victorius ‘erga
famulos Christi cura’. It is hard to know how to take Gregory’s allegations that Victorius
lived a dissolute life (Hist., 2.20); perhaps they represent a tradition seeking to explain his
fall from power. On the nature of the offices he held, consult J. R. Martindale, The
Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. 2, Cambridge 1980, pp. 1162-4.
19. Gregory, Hist., 2.35.
20. Ibid., 2.23 (MGH edn, p. 69).
21. Ibid., 2.36.
22. Gregory, Liber Vitae patrum, 4.1.
23. In the same way the one bishop Gregory mentions as having been unhappy with the
rule of the Arian Burgundians, Abrunculus, fled to Clermont: Hist., 2.23.
 CLOVIS 333

Gregory also mentions bishop Volusianus of Tours, who was suspected

by the Goths of wishing to be under the Franks and taken to Spain in
captivity,24 and his successor Verus, who was exiled for the same reason.25
There is no reason not to take these cases at face value and we may note
that no bishop of Tours was on hand at the council of Agde in 506, so
the city may have been without a bishop at that time.26 But Tours, located
on the Loire, was on the frontier of the Visigothic kingdom, so some
nervousness on the part of the Goths is understandable.27
Gregory’s list of three bishops, one an African and the other two bishops
of Tours, is scarcely compelling evidence of a widespread desire among
the Gallo-Romans for a Frankish takeover, whether before or after the
conversion of Clovis. Against it we may set a passage at the beginning
of the proceedings of the council of Agde held under the presidency of
Caesarius of Arles in 506, the year before the battle of Vouille saw the
defeat of the Visigoths by Clovis:
When the holy synod had come together in the city of Agde, in the name of
the Lord and with the permission of our lord the most glorious, splendid and
pious king, there with knees bent to the ground it prayed to the Lord for his
kingdom, long life and people, and for the Lord to extend with felicity the
kingdom of the one who gave us permission to meet, to govern it with justice
and to protect it with his might.28
Here we have a clear sign that the catholic bishops located within the
kingdom of the Visigoths were not dissatisfied with their government. Even
more striking is the testimony of Gregory of Tours that at the battle of
Vouille there fought ‘a large number of the men of the Auvergne who had
come with Apollinaris and who were first among the senators’.29
Apollinaris was the son of Sidonius Apollinaris and as there is no hint
that the force with which he fought crossed lines we may take it that he
did battle on the side of the Goths. We may therefore conclude that the
government of Euric and his successor Alaric enjoyed widespread support
among the Gallo-Romans, both lay and clerical, and that if the contingent
of Apollinaris at the battle of Vouille is any guide this support persisted
even after Clovis received catholic baptism. The religion of the Goths was
not an issue.30
24. Ibid., 2.26, 10.31.7.
25. Ibid., 10.31.8.
26. Verus was represented by the deacon Leo (Concilia GaliaeA. 3I4-A. 506, ed. C. Munier,
CCSL 148, pp. 214, 219).
27. Note too that Theoderic had to deal with an accusation of ‘proditio patriae’ against
a bishop of ‘Augusta’, which is probably Aosta although it could be Turin: Cassiodorus,
Variae, 1.9. At the risk of being over-subtle, one wonders how much of the anti-Gothic
and anti-Arian bias of Gregory of Tours was due to the traditions of the church over which
he presided, which have been stressed by P. Courcelle, Histoire litteraire des grandes invasions
germaniques, 3rd edn, Paris 1964, pp. 247f.
28. Concilia Galiae, ed. Munier p. 192. Caesarius of Arles expected that a council would
be held at Arles in 507: Epistulae ad Ruricium, 7 (CSEL 21, p. 449).
29. Hist., 2.37 (MGH edn, p. 88).
30. Perhaps mention should be made of the Lex Romana Visigothorum issued under Alaric’s
auspices in 506. While I would not interpret this as a bid for Gallo-Roman support, it may
have won some. Schaferdiek, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 84, 1973, p. 276, is
sensible on this issue, unlike E. F. Bruck, ‘Caesarius of Arles and the “Lex Romana
Visigothorum” ’ in Studi in onore Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, Vol. 1, Naples, 1953, pp. 201-17.
334 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY

An excellent example of the relations which obtained between a Gallo-

Roman bishop of this period and barbarian kings of different religious
persuasions is provided by Caesarius of Arles (502-42) and again it suggests
that religion was not relevant to matters of politics.31 Shortly after the
beginning of his episcopate Caesarius was accused by one Licinianus, an
otherwise unknown notarius, of wishing to betray the city to the
Burgundians. Alaric, the Visigothic monarch in whose territory Arles then
lay, exiled him to Bordeaux, but was later convinced of Caesarius’ innocence
and had him recalled.32 But in the early sixth century the Burgundians were
still an Arian people; hence, Alaric was not only nervous about possible
betrayals of cities to catholic powers, but able to suspect prelates of wishing
to hand cities over to Arians, suspicions which may have been fuelled in
this case by the metropolitan authority Caesarius claimed over some dioceses
in Burgundian territory.33 Caesarius’ time in Bordeaux may not have
weighed heavily on him; we know that a fellow bishop, Ruricius of Limoges,
was able to see him there.34 Following the defeat of the Visigoths and the
slaying of Alaric by the Franks at the battle of Vouille, the Arian Ostrogoths
moved to occupy Arles, only to find that the city had been besieged by the
Franks and Burgundians.35 This combination of forces is itself of some
significance, for it indicates that the now catholic Clovis was not averse
to co-operation with Arian Burgundians. More interestingly, from the fact
that the Ostrogoths found the city besieged we may deduce that its catholic
citizens and bishop had not opened the gates to the Franks and Burgundians.
When the Ostrogoths moved in Caesarius was again accused of having
sought to betray the city, but his biographers implicitly deny the charge
by attributing it to the ill-will of the Jews36 and noting that during Caesarius’
episcopate Arles passed from the sway of the Visigoths to that of the
Ostrogoths to that of the most glorious king Childebert. During this time
it was besieged but never captured, something which they felt was due in
part to the prayers of Caesarius.37 Shortly afterwards Caesarius was yet
again accused and taken to Ravenna in custody, but the mere sight of him
was enough to convince the Arian Theoderic of his innocence. The
Ostrogothic king sent him on his way laden with gifts and spoke of himself,
using words unexpected in an Arian addressing a catholic bishop, as ‘the
king who is your son’ (filius vester rex).38
31. The most helpful study of Caesarius is that of C. F. Arnold, Caesarius von Arelate,
Leipzig 1894.
32. Vita Caesarii, 1.21-26 (ed. G. Morin, in Caesarius, Opera, Maredsous 1942-53). Note
too a story contained in one manuscript of the Vita of a meeting between Caesarius and
Alaric in which the bishop was received ‘with reverence’ (1.20). But this passage seems to
have been interpolated into the original text (see Morin’s note ad loc.), perhaps in the interests
of a claim made by the church of Arles to be free of tax (S. Cavallin, Literarhistorische
und textkritische Studien zur Vita S Caesarii Arelatensis, Lund 1934, p. 101).
33. G. Bardy, ‘L’Attitude politique de Saint Cesaire d’Arles’ Revue d’histoire de I’eg/ise
de France, Vol. 33, 1947, pp. 241-56 at pp. 244f. I am in agreement with most of Bardy’s
position, although he seems a little hard on the Visigoths.
34. Ruricius, ep. 2.33 (ed. CSEL 21).
35. Vita Caesarii, 1.28. For whatever reason Gregory of Tours fails to mention Frankish-
Burgundian co-operation after the battle of Vouille.
36. Ibid., 1.29-31.
37. Ibid., 1.34. Sermo 70.2 shows Caesarius’regret at the ruin caused by the siege of the Franks.
38. Vita Caesarii, 1.36-38. Independent testimony of Caesarius’ triumph is supplied by
Ennodius, ep. 9.33.
 CLOVIS 335

In short, the information at our disposal for Caesarius does not suggest
that the issue of Arianism and Catholicism played a part in the way he
dealt with barbarians on the political plane. Indeed, the one reference to
Clovis in his Vita does not specify that he was a catholic.39 It should straight
away be said that Childebert is described as a catholic, and it is implied
that Caesarius was pleased at this.40 Doubtless Caesarius was, but there
is no evidence that his Catholicism made him politically attractive to the
bishop. Rather, I would suggest that Caesarius kept his religion and his
politics distinct. His attitude was well caught by his biographers: he
rendered unto God the things which were God’s and unto Caesar the things
which were Caesar’s, which involved obedience to kings and princes when
they enjoined just things, although he despised the perversion of Arian
dogma in a prince.41 Clovis must have realized that this attitude prevailed
among the Gallo-Roman episcopate and, a fortiori, the populace at large.
There was no political reason for conversion to Catholicism.42
Why, then, did Clovis become a catholic? The preceding argument, by
excluding a conversion prompted by political considerations, enables us
to posit that the decision to become a catholic was prompted by genuine
conviction. But our sources, being Gallo-Roman rather than Frankish,
clerical rather than lay, and in the case of our most sustained narrative,
that of Gregory of Tours, late rather than early, do not offer easy access
to Clovis’ mind, and the emphases they suggest, such as the influence of
a believing wife, reaction to a success in battle, and respect for the working
of miracles on which catholics seemed to enjoy a monopoly, are so
widespread in the literature of conversion as to induce scepticism on any
one occasion when they occur: perhaps they were merely things authors
thought likely to have been important.43 Even the figure of more than 3000
which Gregory supplies for the warriors who were baptized with Clovis
is suspicious, for it seems to be borrowed from Scripture.44 Rather than
attempting to sift such traditions in search of a motive for conversion,
it will be more worth our while to assess what we know of the Catholicism
of the Franks after their conversion, seeking to use the practices of the
people to understand the motives of the individual.
39. Vita Caesarii, 1.28.
40. Ibid., 2.45; cf. ‘in nomine Christi’ 1.34.
41. Ibid., 1.24.
42. Mention should be made of a famous letter written to Clovis on the occasion of his
baptism by bishop Avitus of Vienne (ep. 46, in Avitus, Opera, ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA
6). Commending Clovis on his decision, Avitus notes ‘your faith is our victory’ (vestra fides
nostra victoria est). Seen in context, Avitus’ comment has no political significance; rather,
the ‘victory’ is that of the catholic religion. The letter contains no hint of political benefits
which Clovis could have expected to flow from his converson.
43. Influence of Clovis’ wife: Gregory, Hist., 2.29.31 (but note her unexpected ability to
insert a quotation from Virgil into an argument! The citation, however, is hardly apt, for
whatever the nature of Clovis’ religion at this time it presumably did not involve the worship
of Roman deities. Presumably the speech reported here owes a good deal to Gregory’s
imagination). This case was cited by Nicetius of Trier in a letter to the Lombard queen
Chlodosuintha (Epistulae Austasicae, ed. W. Gundlach, CCSL, 117, p. 422), yet for example
Ingund persuaded Hermenigild to convert (Hist., 5.38).
Success in battle: Hist., 2.30, but cf. the conversion of Constantine.
Respect for miracles: letter of Nicetus to Chlodosuintha, CCSL 117, pp. 421f, but cf. Gregory
Hist., 2.3, 9.15.
44. Gregory, Hist., 2.31 (MGH edn, p. 77); cf. Acts 2:41.
336 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY

In the first place, it is clear that the Franks took their religion very
seriously. The history of mixed marriages arranged with the Visigoths while
the latter were still Arian makes this plain: while Visigothic princesses who
married Franks became catholic, Frankish princesses who married
Visigoths retained their faith, and one was able to convert her husband.45
Many sees came to be occupied by Franks in the sixth century, although
needless to say the qualifications for becoming a bishop were by no means
entirely spiritual.46 Again, while some later traditions which describe the
earliest catholic Merovingians as enthusiastic donors to churches are
certainly to be rejected,47 many Franks of the sixth century were indeed
generous in their gifts.48 The hostile attitude of king Chilperic towards
property left to churches is notorious,49 but perhaps we should see this
attitude as displaying not so much unreasonable hostility towards churches
as concern at the large tracts of land escaping effective royal control, and
so constituting a testimony to the success of the churches in attracting
grants of property from Franks as well as Gallo-Romans.
Franks also seem to have constituted a high proportion of those who
found themselves involved in the cult of St Martin at Tours, and it can
be a worthwhile exercise taking the information Gregory gives concerning
individuals in the Virtutes Sancti Martini in conjunction with what we are
told in the Libri historiarum. Guntram Boso, for example, was enough of
a pagan to consult fortune tellers and lots frequently,50 but when threatened
with drowning he cried out for the aid of St Martin.51 The married priest
Wiliacharius, who was involved in the burning of St Martin’s church,52 was
freed from chains after he had cried out in a loud voice for Martin to have

45. Brunhild and Galsuinth abandoned Arianism (Gregory, Hist., 4.27f)> Clotild persevered
in Catholicism, despite persecution (ibid., 3.10), as did Ingund, who converted her husband
Hermenigild (ibid., 5.38).
46. Helene Wieruszowski, ‘Die Zusammensetzung des gallischen und frankischen Episkopts
bis zum Vertag von Verdun (843)’, Bonner Jahrbucher, Vol. 127, 1922, pp. 1-83 at pp. 14-29.
Her general conclusions must be accepted, even though names can be deceptive as guides
to race, as in the case of the Frank Claudius (Hist., 7.29).
47. For example, the story in Hincmar’s Vita Remigii that Clovis agreed to give Remigius
whatever land the bishop could traverse while he took his midday nap (ed. B. Krusch, MGH
SRM 3, p. 306f).
48. Perhaps a precedent had been set by Clovis’ Burgundian wife Chrotchildis, who gave
generously to churches, monasteries and holy places (Gregory, Hist., 3.18 [MGHedn, p. 120]);
the priest Anastasius was among the beneficiaries of her largesse, conveyed through chartae
(ibid., 4.12.). Childebert I endowed a monastery at Arles (Gregory the Great, ep. 9.216 [ed.
P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann, MGH Epistolae 2]); Ingeburg willed property to churches
(Gregory, Hist., 9.26; one wonders how significant is the presence of Gregory in the
background); one Beretrude made bequests to the convents which she herself had founded
as well as to churches and basilicas (ibid., 9.35). The illness of a son could make such a
hardened sinner as Fredegund vow to give money to the basilica of St Martin (ibid., 10.11).
The impressive activity of Merovingian monarchs as endowers of monasteries is discussed
by F. Prinz, Friihes Monchtum im Frankenreich, Munich 1965, pp. 151-62.
49. Gregory, Hist., 6.46 (destruction of wills drawn up in favour of the church), cf. 4.51
(conduct of his chamberlain Charegisel), 7.7 (Guntram fulfilled provisions of wills). Church
councils reveal a concern with this issue; Concilia GalliaeA.5ll-A.695 (ed. C. de Clercq,
CCSL 148 A), Cone. Aurelianense 538 can. 25(22), Cone. Parisiense 556-73 can. 2, Cone.
Matisconense 581-83 can. 4 provide examples.
50. Hist., 9.10 (fin.). His behaviour furnishes a reminder of the persistence of pagan practices
among the Franks, for which see as well Procopius, 1Vars, 6.25.9f.
51. Virtutes, 2.17.
52. Hist., 4.20.
 CLOVIS 337

mercy,53 and his daughter Theoda regained the use of a foot after praying
to Martin.54 The turn-coat Siggo55 was cured of deafness after sitting next
to Gregory when the latter had on his person relics of Martin.56 In 589
the mayor of the palace Florientianus and the count of the palace Romulf,
whom I take to be Gallo-Roman and Frank respectively, were sent by
Chilperic to Poitiers and Tours to levy tax. Gregory of Tours, in a passage
which offers a most revealing indication of what the balance of power could
be between royal and episcopal authority in a city, shows how they were
thwarted in Tours.57 A hard-bitten pair of officials, one would have
thought, yet even these men, Gregory states, felt ‘no slight wonder’ at the
miracles the Lord worked through Martin.58 The unfortunate Ultrogotho,
wife of Clovis’ son Childebert, who was to be exiled following the death
of her spouse in 53859 came to Michael’s church having heard of his
miracles, and witnessed the healing of three blind men.60 The parade of
Franks involved in the cult of St Martin in various ways does not differ
significantly from the procession who murder and cheat their way across
the pages of the Libri historiarum.
It may be objected at this point that the Christianity of the Franks in
the sixth century was of a somewhat implausible kind. Doubtless the
conjunction of an apparently high level of belief with what now seems an
extraordinarily underdeveloped code of personal morality is incongruous,
but that does not warrant our writing off that belief as hypocritical or
superstitious; perhaps it means no more than that the Franks of this period
were able to hold together things we would regard as contradictory. We
may examine Chilperic, one of Clovis’ grandsons. Two of his wives and
one of his sons were murdered,61 two of his other children found themselves
in monasteries,62 and he was an opponent of property being left to
churches,63 so that one can easily see how Gregory of Tours came to describe
him as ‘the Nero and Herod of our time’.64 Yet he took his faith seriously
enough to issue a pronouncement on Trinitarian theology65 and write poetry
in imitation of the Christian author Sedulius; one of his poems, a hymn
on the solemnity of St Medard, survives.66 Gregory was scathing in his
criticism of Chilperic’s verse,67 but apparently did not realize that Chilperic
composed according to rhythm and did not seek to obey the classical laws

53. Virtutes, 1.23.

54. Ibid., 3.13.
55. Hist., 5.3.
56. Virtutes, 3.17.
57. Hist., 9.30.
58. Virtutes, 4.6.
59. Hist., 4.20.
60. Virtutes, 1.12.
61. Hist., 4.28 (Galsuintha), 5.39 (Audovera and Clovis).
62. Ibid., 5.14 (Merovech), 5.39 (Basina).
63. Above p. 336.
64. Hist., 6.46; see too the words attributed to Fredegund (5.34) and 5.50, fine examples
of Gregory’s writing.
65. Ibid., 5.44.
66. Ibid., loc.cit. The poem is ed. K. Strecker, MGH Poetae 4, pp. 455-7. Chilperic’s
devotion to Medard is confirmed by Gregory, Hist., 5.34 (ed. MGH p. 240).
67. Hist., 5.44, 6.46.
338 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY

of scansion.68 Venantius Fortunatus could write of him with respect.69

Such a figure is reminiscent of Clovis, whose Catholicism could co-exist
with attempts to murder his entire family.70 Murderous behaviour does
not disprove the reality of religious conviction.
We may conclude from this that catholic Christianity met with a fairly
easy acceptance among the Franks, which could be held to indicate that
they were in some way ready for it, and that the passage to it was not
foisted on them by a king for political reasons but came naturally, to both
the people and to Clovis. Indeed, one almost has the feeling that the Franks
wanted to be catholic Christians, and that, if the history of mixed marriages
is any guide, they wanted to be catholics more than the Visigoths wanted
to be Arians.71 I should like to conclude this paper with some reflections
on this.
In a famous observation the Ostrogoth Theoderic pointed out that,
whereas the poor Roman imitated the Goth, the well-to-do Goth imitated
the Roman,72 and similarly there would have been Franks who wanted to
be like Romans. The contents of the tomb of Clovis’ father Childeric at
Tournai reveal that there was little Frankish about him when he was buried
at Tournai in 482,73 but Romanizing tendencies would have become stronger
as the Franks pushed south into Gaul, for they would have been coming
into areas which had been more strongly influenced by the Romans at the
same time as their numbers were being more and more diluted among the
Gallo-Romans. One thinks of Chilperic, builder of amphitheatres at Soissons
and Paris,74 and the Franks described by Procopius as watching horse-races
at Arles.75 For people who wanted to be like the Romans and who were,
one suspects, interested in some very general sense in cultural respectability,
catholic Christianity would have been attractive. For this kind of Christianity
was seen by the barbarians as very much pertaining to Rome,76 and it cannot
be accidental that both Clovis and the Burgundian royal convert Sigismund
seem to have entered into direct relations with the Roman church.77 Converts
such as Clovis would have seen Catholicism not merely as a religion, but
68. See Strecker’s notes to p. 455.
69. De radice patris flos generate potens,
aequali serie vos nobilitando vicissim
tu genus ornasti, te genus ornat avi.
Carm., 9.1.8-10, in Venantius Fortunatus, Opera poetica, ed. F. Leo, MGH AA 4.
70. Hist., 2.42 (fin.).
71. For mixed marriages see above p. 336; note too the eirenic sentiments of the Gothic
envoy Agila, which Gregory regarded as displaying ‘stultitia’ (Hist., 5.43). Of course Gregory’s
version of Agila’s words may be free.
72. Anonymous Valesianus (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH AA 9), 12.61. I hope to discuss
elsewhere some implications of this statement.
73. So E. James, The Origins of France, London 1982, p. 27; see as well P. Lasko, The
Kingdom of the Franks, London 1971, pp. 25-32.
74. Hist., 5.17.
75. Procopius, Wars, 7.33.5.
76. John of Biclar, Chronica (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH AA 11) sub anno 580; Leuvigild
legislated for those coming ‘de Romana religione [i.e. Catholicism] a [sic] nostra catholica
[i.e. Arian] fide.’ Similarly, according to Gregory the Visigoths during their Arian days styled
the catholics ‘Romani’ (Liber in gloria martyrum, 24).
77. Clovis sent a votive crown to the pope: Liber pontificalis, p. 271 (Duchesne’s n. 23
discusses the problem of the date). On Sigismund as a pilgrim to Rome, consult E. Caspar,
Geschichte des Papsttums, Vol. 2, Tubingen 1933, p. 127. Avitus of Vienne states that ‘the
apostle’ (presumably Peter) was Sigismund’s ‘special patron’, ep. 31 (MGHedn, p. 62: 1. 23f).
 CLOVIS 339

as a sign of induction into a wider culture. I suspect that catholics in

situations of evangelical proclamation played up to this by stressing cultural
differences. Thus the baptism of Clovis amid white drapery, incense and
candles78 took place in a setting which could hardly be called Frankish,
but which offered a taste of the cultural world to which Catholicism would
give pagans contemplating baptism access. Other encounters with potential
barbarian converts were stage-managed to the same end. In 597 Augustine
and his companions approached Canterbury carrying a cross and an image
of Christ, singing a Latin litany.79 In 735 Boniface asked his correspondent
Eadburga for a copy of the letters of St Peter written in gold, to impress
the Saxons to whom he was preaching.80 And when, in the tenth century,
envoys from Kiev arrived in Constantinople in search of a good religion,
the Byzantines were in no doubt as to what to do: they led the Russians
to the place where they worshipped God (presumably the great church
of Hagia Sophia) and the architecture, if not the liturgy, worked its magic:
‘we did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth’.81 Conversion
was a rite de passage for barbarians on the way to becoming civilized, which
meant that for barbarians anxious to become and be seen as civilized it
was a desirable thing. Students of the conversion of Clovis would do well
to stress this. Clovis’ conversion was not prompted by a politically-
motivated desire to look well in the eyes of the Gallo-Romans, but rather
by a culturally motivated desire to be like the Gallo-Romans. That this
did not exclude genuine religious feeling is shown by the enthusiasm which
the Franks who followed him displayed in their practice of catholic
Christianity.

78. Hist., 2.31 (MOH edn, p. 77). Similarly, when her first son was baptized Clovis’ wife
had the church decorated with drapes and curtains so that the king, who could not be swayed
by preaching, ‘facilius . . . provocaretur ad credendum’: Hist., 2.29 (MGH edn, p. 74).
79. Bede, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.25, although aspects of this story are open to question.
80. Boniface, ep. 35 (ed. M. Tangl, MGH Epistolae selectae 1, p. 286).
81. Laurentian Chronicle, trans. in G. Vernadsky et al. (eds), A Source Book for Russian
History from Early Times to 1917, Vol. 1, New Haven 1972, pp. 25f.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association, operating as Atla,
in accordance with the terms of Atla's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, Atla may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact Atla using the Contact Us link at www.atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2020 Atla.