The Baptism of Clovis,

Clovis, Towards a New Chronology, Part Five.

   
By Dane R. Pestano ©2015. Hover cursor over reference numbers for reference text.

496. The Baptism of Clovis. 

The baptism of Clovis as a Catholic was one of the most important moments in the history of western Europe. The Franks were pressured on all sides by Arianism and had been contained by the Visigoths who had also supported their barbarian enemies over the Rhine, some of whom were nominally Arian Christian as well. The Byzantine empire though in the east had continued a policy of supporting the Franks since the time of Clovis' father Childeric making Clovis consequently a man of sufficient means to support an army to counter the Visigothic and Gothic threat. It was not in the interests of the eastern empire to have a western empire that was sufficiently strong enough to challenge them. Clovis had made closer ties with the Burgundians by marrying the niece of Gundobad, the Catholic Clotilda. Gundobad had no love for the Goths either having had his eye on Italy himself in the past when he had set up Glycerius as Emperor in 473, and having subsequently devastated Liguria in 490. Although Gundobad was himself Arian the Burgundian people were more likely a Catholic people, like Clotilda, her parents, her sister and the famous Avitus of Vienne were. He had also aligned and allied with the neighbouring Catholic Armoricans. In light of these political manoeuvrings Clovis' choice of Catholicism was the only sensible choice he could make. By doing so he would find acceptance for the Franks as Christian protectors in northern Gaul; he would align with the nominally Catholic Burgundians and Armoricans, and snub the Goths and their Arianism. He would also please the Eastern Empire by continuing anti Gothic policies. By having the support of the Church of Rome and the Pope in Italy, Clovis now had a back door influence there, in direct opposition to Theoderic in Ravenna. It was also to be a momentous choice for the future of Europe, as summarised by Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh:

“The pact between Clovis and the Roman church, in short, was one of momentous consequence to Christendom - not only the Christendom of the time, but also the Christendom of the next millennium. Clovis' baptism was deemed to mark the birth of a new Roman Empire – a Christian empire, based on the Roman church and administered, on a secular level, by the Merovingian bloodline. In other words an indissoluble bond was established between church and state, each pledging allegiance to the other, each binding itself to the other in perpetuity.” ^1a

Indeed, but dating the baptism has been a matter of contention for some time with modern authors seeking to move the baptism to the early sixth century. It was fixed at 496 as Gregory had stated it took place after the battle of Tolbiac, which was, according to him or an interpolator, fifteen years after Clovis began to reign, basing the start of this reign in 481/2. However, as discussed in the introduction Van de Vyver and others soon realised that the battle of Tolbiac took place in around 506. So Clovis' conversion to Christianity could have happened then, (with this battle then conversion scenario) and his baptism was subsequently placed in 507/8,shortly after. However as discussed at the end of part four of this work, the conversion and baptism can be seperated from the Battle of Tolbiac.

Danuta Shanzer had, as early as 1998, proposed that the baptism be dated to 507 in her ground breaking work – Dating the Baptism of Clovis: the bishop of Vienne vs the bishop of Tours. Wood, in concert with Mathisen, in agreeing suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 507/8, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter of Avitus and of Clovis and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date. 

Shanzer also suggests a comment made by Theodoric the great shows or hints that he considered Clovis was still a pagan.^1b This is the occasion when Theodoric was asking Boethius to find and send a harp to Clovis, probably in around 506. He used the words “facturus aliquid Orpheus, cum dulci sono gentilium fera corda domuerit,” which is commonly translated as, “he will be another Orpheus, taming the wild hearts of these foreigners [gentilium] with sweet music.”1c There is no hint of paganism here, in the non ecclesiastical context of the letter, the word means foreigners, which the Franks were to the Goths. If anything Theodoric is hinting that the Franks were not as yet fully Romanised and were still intent on war. In fact Gregory had got the date right in his scheme but had manufactured the event of his conversion to make Clovis appear as a new Constantine, converting and baptising after a tough battle. By the time the battle of Tolbiac took place in 506 Clovis had been a Catholic for ten years as we shall now see. 

Clovis, now around twenty-three years of age, decided to be baptised on Christmas Day 496, probably at Reims by Remigius, as suggested by Fredegar and then Hincmar¹. He may have delayed this event since his marriage in 492 for a number of reasons. The first, as Gregory hints, is that he had lost his first son soon after baptism and he was worried that his fellow Franks would not support him if he accepted the faith at this time, but now after several victory's he was more secure of his command. The second reason was the problems of the Acacian schism that was affecting the church at the time. This had begun in 484 and was not solved until 519. When Clovis had possibly chosen Christianity in 492 the schism was tearing the church apart and these are probably part of the perverse doctrines that Avitus described in his letter to Clovis. When Pope Gelasius took power in 492 he tried to heal the schism and it is during his reign that Clovis decided to be baptised. As it was, he became a competens only days before Gelasius died in November 496. The third reason was the allure of Arianism which may still have been on his mind in the years before he was baptised.

But why now, what had changed, what prompted his choice of faith as Avitus puts it? Gregory may have given us a subtle negative clue. He tells us that Clovis' first son Ingomer was baptised a catholic but then soon died. Clovis, after this event, was in no hurry to profess his faith to Clotilda's Catholicism. However, over the next four years Clotilda had successfully given birth to Chlodomer around 494, Childebert in 495 and possibly Clothar by 496 who had all survived baptism and thrived. More than this the Catholic Clotilda had successfully given him three healthy sons! A daughter was to follow in the next couple of years. He had also in the interval expanded his kingdom and driven the Visigoths from the Loire. In his mind therefore, his conversion to Christianity in 492 had not brought him any bad luck and in fact his alliances with Catholics had brought him only good luck and an extended kingdom! We will proceed to the letter of Avitus to Clovis on his baptism shortly, which will confirm this chronology, but let us first read of how Gregory described the baptism :

“He (Clovis) met with his followers, but before he could speak the power of God anticipated him, and all the people cried out together: "O pious king, we reject our mortal gods, and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remi preaches.” This was reported to the bishop, who was greatly rejoiced, and bade them get ready the baptismal font. The squares were shaded with tapestried canopies, the churches adorned with white curtains, the baptistery set in order, the aroma of incense spread, candles of fragrant odour burned brightly, and the whole shrine of the baptistery was filled with a divine fragrance: and the Lord gave such grace to those who stood by that they thought they were placed amid the odours of paradise. And the king was the first to ask to be baptised by the bishop. Another Constantine advanced to the baptismal font, to terminate the disease of ancient leprosy and wash away with fresh water the foul spots that had long been borne. And when he entered to be baptised, the saint of God began with ready speech: "Gently bend your neck, Sigamber; worship what you burned; burn what you worshipped...And so the king confessed all-powerful God in the Trinity, and was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, and was anointed with the holy ointment with the sign of the cross of Christ. And of his army more than 3000 were baptised. His sister also, Albofled, was baptised, who not long after passed to the Lord ”

Avitus, the Burgundian bishop of Vienne had written to Clovis in 497 to congratulate him on his recent baptism. The dating of this letter has been much debated and the strange references to the Greek Emperor and a chosen leader have puzzled historians, mainly because without the correct reading of the letter they were placing his baptism in the early sixth century as late as 508, instead of where it belongs in the late fifth century. Wood in concert with Mathisen suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 508, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date as we shall find. Shanzer makes the comment that the baptism took place late in Clovis' life, just three years before he died. We should therefore now examine the letter of Avitus to prove the baptism was over ten years earlier in 496. Here is the letter in full :

Bishop Avitus to King Clovis

      The followers of error have in vain, by a cloud of contradictory and untrue opinions, sought to conceal from your extreme subtlety the glory of the Christian name. While we committed these questions to eternity and trusted that the truth of each man's belief would appear at the Future Judgement, the ray of truth had shone forth even among present shadows. Divine Providence has found the arbiter of our age. Your choice is a general sentence. Your Faith is our victory. Many others, in this matter, when their bishops or friends exhort them to adhere to the True Faith, are accustomed to oppose traditions of their race and respect for their ancestral cult; thus they culpably prefer a false shame to their salvation. While they observe futile reverence for their parents (by continuing to share their unbelief) , they confess that they do not know what they should choose to do. After this marvellous deed, guilty shame can no longer shelter behind this excuse.

     Of all your ancient genealogy you have chosen to keep only your own nobility, and you have willed that your race should derive from you all the glories which adorn high birth. Your ancestors have prepared a great destiny for you; you willed to prepare better things (for those who will follow you). You follow your ancestors in reigning in this world; you have opened the way to your descendants to a heavenly realm.

     Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office. Your sphere burns with its own brilliance, and in the person of a king , the light of a rising sun shines over the western lands. It is right that this light began at the Nativity of our Redeemer, so that the waters of rebirth have brought you forth to salvation the very day the world received the the birth of its redemption, the Lord of Heaven. The day celebrated as the Lord's nativity is also yours, in which you have consecrated your soul to God, your life to your contemporaries, your glory to posterity.

     What should be said of the glorious solemnity of your regeneration? If I could not assist in person among the minsters (of the rite) I shared in it's joy. Thanks to God, our land took part in the thanksgiving, for, before your baptism, a messenger of Your Most Subtle Humility informed us that you were “competens” (that is, to be baptised within forty days). Therefore the sacred night (of Christmas) found us sure of what you would do. We saw (with the eyes of the spirit) that great site, when a crowd of bishops around you, in the ardour of their holy ministry, poured over your Royal limbs the water of life; when that head, feared by the masses, bowed down before the servants of God; when your royal locks, hidden under a helmet, were steeped in holy oil; when your breast relieved of it's cuirass, shone with the same whiteness as your baptismal robes. Do not doubt most flourishing of kings, that this soft clothing will give more force to your arms; whatever Fortune has given up to now, this sanctity will bestow.

     I would wish to add some exhortations to your praises if anything escaped either your knowledge or your attention. Should we preach the faith to the convert who perceived it without a preacher; or humility, which you have long shown towards us (Bishops), although you only owe it to us now, after your profession of faith; or mercy attested, in tears and joy to God and men, by a people once captive, now freed by you?

     One wish remains for me to express. Since God, thanks to you, will make your people His own possession, offer a part of the treasure of faith which fills your heart to the peoples living beyond you, who, still living in natural ignorance, have not been corrupted by the seed of perverse doctrine. Do not fear to send them envoys and to plead with them the cause of God, who has done so much for your cause. So that the other pagan peoples at first being subject to your kingdom for the sake of religion, while they still seem to have another ruler, may be distinguished rather by their race than by their prince. [end of letter missing.]

The first comment Avitus makes is that Clovis has averted the choice of a perverse doctrine. This could be Arianism and the argument against Catholicism at the time could have been the troubles due to the Acacian schism causing divisions within the Catholic church. Clovis though had made the right choice in the eyes of Avitus. This adulation of Clovis by a Burgundian Bishop would make no sense after 500CE when Clovis had invaded Burgundy to help Godigisel take on Gundobad and brought the Burgundians to submission and tribute. But in 496, with the Franks and Burgundians on good terms and Clovis married to a Burgundian Catholic princess, all was well between the two nations and this correspondence shows it. 
 

The next major statement Avitus makes is that which will ultimately date the letter and which has caused so much confusion. Due to it's importance it requires a close study and for that we must turn to Shanzer, whose important work provides us with all the answers. Only the final solution eluded her, which I will produce here. The traditional reading of this came from Hilgarth, writing in 1969²:

Gaudeat equidem Graecia principem legisse nostrum, sed non iam quae tanti muneris donum sola mereatur

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has elected an emperor who shares our faith; it is no longer alone in deserving such a favour”

Shanzer had already compiled a close study of the Latin and the manuscript variants and states that this reading is from the oldest manuscript 'L'. She dismissed the word elected as a viable translation of legisse but suggested that it should rather be translated as chosen. So she translates the first part of the sentence as “As far as I am concerned let Greece rejoice in having chosen our ruler”. However having come to a nearly correct reading she fails to understand the context of the message. She poses the question “who is the Princeps?” After discussing some alternatives suggested by other historians, such as it referring to Anastasius or even Clovis, she cannot come to a conclusion as to who could be meant. With no conclusion she must dismiss the idea that this person was chosen:

“L's text principem legisse nostrum simply does not mean much in itself. It is insufficiently transparent. Chosen our ruler for what? The purpose of choosing, or else the object of choice, must be deducible from the context or explicitly stated. It is not.”

It is perfectly deducible as I will soon show. As she was unable to explain the context of the sentence she dismissed it entirely, but before she did she thankfully also explained the feminine case involved in the reading, translating the second part as “..but she is no longer the one to deserve so great a gift alone”. Not coming to a viable context she then dismissed the 'L' reading and suggested we use a much later variant of the text by Sirmond, the 'S' manuscript from 1647CE:

“Gaudeat ergo quidem Graecia habere se principem legis nostrae, sed non iam tanti muneris dono sola mereatur illustrari” which she translates as :

“Therefore let Greece be sure to rejoice, that she has a ruler who is orthodox, but she is no longer the only one to bask in the illumination of such a great gift.”

Unfortunately Shanzers translation of Sirmonds corrupted reading does little to enhance our understanding of the context. The emperor Anastasius was far from Orthodox. He had Miaphysite tendencies and there was an Acacian schism between the churches of east and west during his time. He was not well regarded in the west because of this and so the choice of this emperor has fallen by the wayside. In fact all it shows is that Sirmond was as confused about the meaning of the original reading as all historians have been.

Shanzer's examination of the 'L' manuscript has shown that nostrum means ours / belonging to us, i.e. someone who Avitus, a Burgundian, considers a western leader on equal terms to Anastasius in the East. She says nostrum must be separated from Graecia³ and indeed this is the correct reading of the Latin. So, if we actually look at the original reading again we can see how it should have been translated, as I have used in the above translation of the letter , i.e.:

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office”

The keys here are the words principem and muneris The meaning of muneris is commonly office⁴, the less used meaning favour making no sense in the context. Shanzer seems to overlook the word completely. Principem therefore refers to a leader, chosen by Anastasius in the East, that Avitus would consider a leader in the west on nearly equal terms with Anastasius. This can only be Theoderic the Great himself.⁵ Theoderic had grown up in Constantinople as a hostage and had become thoroughly Romanised by the time he was eighteen. He commanded his Goths in the service of the Eastern Empire becoming Magister Militum and then Consul by 483. The emperor Zeno sent Theoderic in 488 to overthrow the Patrician Odoacer, who had become king of Italy, but was now disrespecting the Eastern Empire and causing conflict. Theoderic eventually killed Odoacer with his bare hands and took control of Italy in 493. By this time Zeno had died in 491 and in his place Anastasius ruled as Eastern Emperor. Theoderic was then in 497 sent the imperial regalia by Anastasius who formally recognised him as Princeps of the Western Roman Empire based in Italy.⁶

Anastasius though considered him as merely a viceroy and Theoderic appears to have honoured this position in the early years, becoming more independent as the years progressed, so much so that by 507 Anastasius had sent a fleet of 200 ships to Italy to distract Theoderic whilst Clovis and Gundobad defeated the Visigoths. Anastasius needed a counterbalance to the increasing power and influence of Theoderic. That man was Clovis. The date of being chosen then by Anastasius is 497, it cannot be when he first entered Italy in 488 as he was then merely sent by Zeno. The west was overjoyed, as Avitus exclaims, it had it's own leader again, at last, after a period of four years when Anastasius ruled alone. Anastasius was no longer alone, the West had a man in an office equal to that of Anastasius. Avitus was writing therefore in around 497 and so Clovis' baptism was in December 496. The old chronology had got this one right.

Avitus then speaks about the timing of Clovis' baptism, which was on Christmas day 496. He next mentions the humility that Clovis has “long shown to us Bishops” which must once again show that Clovis had been Christian for some years. He continues this same exhortation by mentioning “a people once captive, now freed by you”. Who were the much debated populus captivus? Shanzer helps us by defining the phrase. It means a Christian people, perhaps recently conquered, but not the Allamani of course who were pagan⁷. She rejects Reverdy's idea that it could have been the Frankish people, which has some merit, many of whom had baptised with Clovis, as they were previously pagan. She then returns to the idea that they were actual captives and suggest they were prisoners of the Visigothic war in 507-508 as this is where she wants to place the baptism. However, she does mention that they could be a Catholic people who were religiously captive, as they would be under Arian Visigothic control. She admits the possibility of this being very good, but then dismisses this obvious solution⁸. The captive people were the Catholic populations of the provinces of the Tractus Armoricanus who had been under Visigothic control, that Clovis had recently freed. Bishops such as Volusanius of Tours were persecuted by Alaric's Arian government and he was taken captive and died in exile in Toulouse or Spain⁹.

About fifty years after Clovis died Bishop Nicetius of Trier wrote to Clotsinda, granddaughter of Clovis trying to get her to convert her husband, the Lombard King Alboin to Catholicism. In this letter he mentions how Clovis had prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, was then baptised and then mentioned his subsequent exploits against Gundobad and Alaric:

“...You have frequently heard how your grandmother Clotilda, of blessed memory, came to the kingdom of the Franks and how she brought King Clovis to the Catholic Faith. As he was a man of good understanding, he declined to accede to her wishes until he had fully grasped the truth of our doctrines. Once convinced, he prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, and promised to receive baptism without delay. You have been told of his subsequent exploits against the heretics Alaric and Gondebald ; you cannot have forgotten the noble gifts that fell even in this world to the lot, both of him and of his sons...”

Therefore the Bishop of Trier placed the baptism before the Burgundian civil war. But when exactly? Tours was back in Visigothic hands by 497¹⁰, so this must have occurred shortly before in 496. Another indicator in this letter is that Clovis had taken some time before acceding to the wishes of Clotilda to be Baptised, and had chosen the truth of 'our doctrines', i.e. Catholicism rather than Arianism.

One small puzzle in all of this is that Burgundian Sigismund, son of Gundobad is said by historians to have converted from Arianism to Catholicism sometime around 502-506¹¹. The reason for suspecting this is that Avitus had written to Pope Hormisdas following the accession of Sigismund in 516. Shanzer states that Sigismund “had made a further visit to Rome in the time of Pope Symmachus, more importantly, the Bishop of Vienne apparently places Sigismund's conversion from Arianism to Catholicism in the context of this second visit”, Symmachus was pope from 498 to 514, so we are talking of events during this time. Shanzer continues, “In addition, he seems to indicate that it took place before the conversion of Clovis”. Shanzer then explains the evidence from the letter, so that according to Avitus, Sigismund was “the only one of the kings who was not ashamed to convert”. As some historians thought Clovis's baptism did not occur in 496 but perhaps in 503 or later, Sigismund's conversion was placed earlier than this. What Avitus meant of course, was that Sigismund was the only one of the Arian kings to convert from Arianism to Catholicism, not that he had converted before Clovis. In effect, Clovis had never been an Arian Catechumen. 

There is no need therefore to try and squeeze Sigismunds conversion to Catholicism as early as 502, which was unlikely anyway whilst his father still lived. It couldn't have been early in the sixth century because there was civil disturbance in Rome between rival factions to the Pope from 502, the Laurentian schism, where there were two Popes, which did not end until 506. Following this was the Visigothic war in 507-508 and then Theoderic's invasion of Provence and Burgundy in 509-510. If Sigismund did convert as a result of his second visit to Rome in the time of Symmachus it was probably around 513-14, as he founded his first monastery at Agaune in 515¹². Michael Moore, agreeing with Wood suggests that Sigismund came to the throne soon after his conversion¹³.

The last point is one that has been noted many times before. Avitus in his letter to Clovis does not mention the honorary consulate awarded to Clovis by the Emperor Anastasius. For Woods, Mathisen and Shanzer this is problematical, as it would have taken place the very year of his baptism in their revised dating of 508, so we should expect Avitus to mention it, if only in passing, but he doesn't. The reason then is clear why he didn't; it wasn't to happen until another eleven years had passed.

Clovis' baptism was unfortunately overshadowed in the annalistic record by two events; the death and selection of a new Pope in 496 and the elevation of Theoderic to imperial status in 497. Next part six.

Footnotes:

1 Lynch, Joseph H. Christianizing Kinship: Ritual Sponsorship in Anglo-Saxon England,Cornell University Press, 1998, p.39

1a Lincoln, H, Baigent, M, Leigh, R. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Arrow; New edition, 2006, p.265 

1b Shanzer, Danuta, Vouille 507: Historiographical, Hagiographical, and Diplomatic Reconsiderations and Fortuna ,- The Battle of Vouillé, 507 CE Where France Began p.68, 2012.

1c See O'Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus, chp.3, University of California Press, 1979.

2 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.37, fn.59.

3 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.40, “In that case, whatever nostrum means is clearly opposed to what Greacia means” Greece of course represents the Byzantine Empire.

4 From the Perseus Latin word study tool : `a service, office, post, employment, function, duty'

5 Principem Nostrum could also be a referral to the Pope. It had been used in this context as early as the fifth century. The new Pope in 496 was named Anastasius, the same as the Emperor. However the Emperor in the East did not choose this Pope.

6 See Arnold, J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration Cambridge University Press, 2014.

7 Shanzer :”These people cannot be the recently conquered Allamani” ibid Shanzer 1998, p.44

8 Shanzer writes : “while I would agree that the idea is problematic, if one takes it literally, it is perfectly possible, if understood figuratively.” Ibid Shanzer 1998, P.45

9 Greg. Histories II.26

10 As Volusanius had been deposed and sent to Toulouse in 497.

11 Favrod and Shanzer as examples, Shanzer, Avitus of Vienne, p.18

12 Dunn, Maralyn., Belief and Religion in Barbarian Europe c. 350-700, Continuum Publishing, 2013, P.61

13 Moore, Michael E., A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300-850, The  Catholic University of America Press, 2011, p.142 

Clovis,King of the Franks.Towards a New Chronology,Part One

Clovis, King of the Franks, Towards a New Chronology.

Part One.

By Dane R. Pestano ©2015

Introduction.

In these posts I will look at the chronological framework of the events of the life of Chlodovech, or Clovis as he is more commonly known, Catholic King of the Franks in early sixth century Gaul. In doing so the evidence of contemporary sources will be used exclusively to date and structure the chronological events of his life. The testimony of Gregory of Tours, in his 595 work The Histories in Ten Books, will be examined alongside these sources to determine where Gregory may have any useful information to add or where he actually placed events in the correct time-frame. Other later secondary sources, such as works by Fredegar, Marius of Avenches, letters, Vitae, Chronicles, Archaeology and the Liber Historia Francorum will also be considered. Historians have long noticed and mentioned many of the problems I will discuss. Halsall, being the most recent to raise serious doubts about the early chronology in his 2001 paper Childeric's Grave, Clovis' succession and the origins of the Merovingian kingdoms, which has been a great help. He comments :

“As has long been recognized, however, Gregory’s knowledge of Clovis was sketchy and his chronology of the reign entirely artificial. Thirty years was a convenient and appropriate length for the reign of a great king, with suitable biblical precedent. Furthermore, Gregory’s approach to numbers was such that, like many of his contemporaries, he worked in multiples of five (using poetic lustra as a unit of chronological measurement), but more usually in simple multiples of ten. It is difficult, therefore, to take Gregory’s statement that Clovis reigned thirty years literally. By the same token, one must be sceptical of the bishop’s statement of Clovis’ age at death: forty-five. This may have been derived from the age at which Merovingian kings appear to have come of age (fifteen), but it seems more likely that Gregory has once again thought of a suitable age given as a multiple of five (in this case, Clovis had lived nine lustra). Gregory is simply saying that Clovis died in his prime. The placing of events at five-yearly intervals has been shown to be the work of a later interpolator.”

Halsall's comment citing Krusch, regarding an interpolator, will be examined later. Shanzer, writing her foreword in 2012¹, had already seen the strange obits for Clovis in Gregory's work commenting “...but if one collates Gregory's claims about when Clovis died, one comes up with no fewer than three different dates: 509, 511 and 518.” In fact, the obit of 511 for Clovis may not actually be indicated in his work for reasons we will discuss, showing either that he was quite inaccurate or that a proposed interpolator confused the chronology. The first date of 509 is a simple mathematical mistake by Gregory, miscalculating the number of years from the death of St Martin to the death of Clovis. The final obit of 518 appears to be much too late when the evidence of later religious Councils are taken into account, which contain the regnal years of some of Clovis' sons. Unfortunately, no contemporary source mentions the death of Clovis.

Current Chronology 511, henceforth CC511, places Clovis' father Childeric's death, between 482 and 484 and hence the beginning of the reign of Clovis to one of these dates. So popular sources make Clovis reign from 481/482 to 511 or even 513. Some modern authors make him reign from 486 to 511², dismissing, probably with good cause, the idea that Clovis reigned thirty years according to Gregory. Patrick Geary goes as far as to say that Childeric's grave confirms the death of Childeric in 482, “It was in 481 or 482 that Clovis succeeded his father. The date of his father's death is corroborated by the signet ring.” The problem is that he follows this by mentioning the coins of the emperor Zeno which were also found in Childeric's grave. Emperor Zeno didn't die until 491. So this is actually the terminus ante quem.³ 

Confusion has also arisen as to when Clovis converted and was baptised as a Catholic, with dates ranging from 496 to 506/508. The conversion has also been separated from the baptism by some authors, who rightly see no reason for them to be necessarily linked. Then there is the question of whether Clovis was an Arian Christian before his baptism, an impossibility, or perhaps an Arian Catechumen. Letters show he was well acquainted with Christianity.

Finally there is confusion over when several of Clovis' battles occurred, such as the battle of Tolbiac and the battle against Thuringians. Contemporary evidence seemingly at odds with Gregory's chronology. Only three events in the life of Clovis can be dated with any certainty up until now, the battle of Vouillé in 507 against the Visigoths, the Burgundian civil war in 500 and the Council of Orleans in 511. With so many differing opinions existing as to the periods and events of his life, a look at Chlodovean chronology in a new light is long overdue.

To understand how the chronology has become so confused we need to briefly examine the chronology of Gregory's Histories and come to some conclusions about them. These chronologies have been much discussed over the last one hundred years. Ian Wood tackled some of the problems in his work Gregory of Tours and Clovis (1985). He gives a fine summary of the debate at that time⁴: 

“For over a century the chronology of the reign of Clovis has been the subject of debate. The onslaughts on Gregory of Tour's account, especially those directed by Krusch and van de Vyver, exposed the weaknesses of the chapters associated with the king's conversion in Book Two of the 'Libri Historiarum', but a host of major scholars continued to defend the traditional outline of Clovis's reign, and prevented any alternative interpretation from securing unanimous support. Indeed the arguments over Clovis's baptism were so indecisive that Tessier proposed a truce, insisting that the exact date did not matter. Nevertheless historians have continued to argue about the chronology, with Weiss upholding the attitude of acute scepticism towards Gregory's account , while Reydellet has asserted his acceptance of the bishop of Tour's narrative... Much of the best work on Gregory has preferred not to discuss the precise factual problems created by his reconstruction of events. Meanwhile the defenders of Gregory's account of Clovis have tended to treat it as a primary source, although Books One and Two of the Libri Historiarum are secondary narratives written a considerable time after the events concerned.”

Gregory had placed quite precise dating in the framework of the chronology he set down in his work – The Histories in Ten Books (commonly known as the History of the Franks). He states that Clovis reigned for thirty years and died at the age of forty-five. Histories II.43⁵:

“He passed away in the fifth year after the battle of Vouillé, and all the days of his reign were thirty years, and his age was forty-five. From the death of St. Martin to the death of king Clovis, which happened in the eleventh year of the episcopate of Licinius, bishop of Tours, one hundred and twelve years are reckoned.”

Unfortunately, even this reign length and obit chronology is as questionable as the rest of Gregory's work concerning Clovis, when contemporary evidence is consulted. It has been suggested that Gregory was creating a hagiographical story of Clovis' life, re-ordering events to present Clovis as a Catholic saviour, converting to the faith early on in his career to justify defeating the nasty Arian Christians. Richard Fletcher sums up this line of thinking:

 “If we confine ourselves to what Gregory had to say about Clovis, we need to take into account three things. First, Gregory felt concern about the squabbling kings of his own day and their endless internecine wars: he wished to uphold their ancestor before them as an example of strenuous valour. Second, Gregory wanted to show how God had helped the Catholic Clovis in all his wars, not just some of them; this affected his chronology of the kings reign and conversion. Thirdly, we must make a large allowance for ignorance; like every historian Gregory was at the mercy of his sources, which were meagre.”⁶

A study of those contemporary sources will show that Gregory's chronology is a confusion, some due to his own errors and some probably due to later interpolation. However his overriding message of Clovis as a warrior of the Catholic faith deserves some reconsideration in the light of the sources we will discuss. Gregory appears to have many of the events in nearly the right order, but the dating of these events are corrupted by various dating mechanisms within the work. There appear to be two strands of chronology within the Histories, one agreeing roughly with CC511 for his birth in 466 and obit in 511 and one quite different; Gregory's interpolated chronology 518 henceforth GC518, placing his birth in 474 and obit in 518, as mentioned above.

To determine how these two chronological strands came about we must look at Gregory's own words. In the above quote from Gregory one small error crept in when describing the end of Clovis' reign; Gregory miscalculating by two to ten years the number of years from the death of St Martin in 397 ⁷to the death of Clovis, which he gives as CX11 - 112 years, when it should have been CXIV -114 years (to 511) or CXXII – 122 years (to 518). We can see here the obvious error point CXII/CXXII. In the very same sentence where he gives this date he states that it was also in the eleventh year of Bishop Licinius of Tours (508-519), which is 518. Gregory, earlier in his work indicated the 397 obit of St. Martin which would place Clovis' death 112 years later in 508/509, obviously a mistake.

Historians realised that the battle of Vouillé occurred in 507, and they added on Gregory's statement that Clovis died five years later, so placing his death in 511, which appears correct. As Clovis had convened the Council of Orleans in 511, he must have been alive then, so that then must have been the year Clovis died when the evidence from later Church Councils are considered⁸. All that needed to be done then was to count back all chronological event dates given by Gregory from that date, so creating a chronology that has Clovis start to reign thirty years previously in 481.

However, this was not quite as simple as it looks. Gregory appears not to have dated the battle of Vouillé to 507; or an interpolator created a secondary strand of dating. This alternative piece of information was overlooked. In his Histories he mentions that Euric had reigned twenty-seven years (instead of seventeen) and hence had died in 492 instead of 485, Histories, II.20 ⁹: 

 “Euric, king of the Goths, in the 14th year of his reign, placed duke Victorius in command of seven cities. And he went at once to Clermont (this is 479 as Euric started to reign in 466)..He was at Clermont nine years..(so 488)...Euric reigned four years after Victorius's death, and died in the twenty-seventh year of his reign (so 492 in both instances).... There was also at that time a great earthquake..”

Gregory (or interpolator) certainly meant 492 as he also mentions an earthquake at that time, which did indeed occur in 493 at Gargano, Italy¹⁰. Perhaps he confused Euric with Odoacer, who died in 492. He also states that Alaric, Euric's son, reigned twenty-two years¹¹, which is correct; hence Alaric in GC518 did not die until 513 (492+22^nd year). Which is confirmed when Gregory says in II.37 that Vouillé was around the twenty-fifth year of Clovis' reign, so 513. He then links a statement to this saying that Clovis died in the fifth year after this date for the battle of Vouillé, i.e. in 518. Quite clearly then, a secondary (interpolated) strand had placed Clovis' death in 518 and hence his accession as king to 489, thirty years earlier. This obit of 518 though is far beyond the accepted date for his death in 511. These two strands then became confused. One where his accession as King appears to be placed in around 489 and one where he died in 511. Combine both and we might be nearer the truth.

This seven year error caused Wood to comment “Thus Gregory's hagiography reveals that the exile of Quintianus of Rodez...is placed a decade earlier in the Histories”¹². It possibly wasn't. In the secondary strand it occurred just before Vouillé in 512. Which is actually around the correct time for his exile from Rodez. We will return to Quintianus later but this chapter of Gregory actually covered a wide period of time.

Gregory's chronology appears to work in multiples of five. Five years to Syagrius, ten years to Thuringian battle, fifteen years to the Battle of Tolbiac, twenty-five years to Vouillé, thirty years reign and forty-five years at death. Halsall, agreeing with Handley, has suggested that Gregory was working to a poetic lustra pattern with his event dating mechanism, numbering them in multiples of five, but then appears to dismiss this hypothesis when he states that Krusch has shown that the numbering system was a later interpolation¹³. Looking at the Latin¹⁴, some of the year numbering could indeed be interpolations, year fifteen and year twenty five, and nearly all of the detail in II.43 could be an interpolation after the first sentence saying he died five years after Vouillé. If we also look carefully at the Latin in II.20 about Euric, some of the dating there could be later additions.

If they were interpolations, then the interpolator was working to a scheme to re-adjust the life of Clovis. This is evident as we can see above in II.20 where the interpolator was clearly placing Euric's death in 492; hence Alaric must have died in 513 in this scheme; hence the interpolator's statement that Vouillé was around the twenty-fifth year from 489 is actually correct for the scheme he was creating. What is not explained is why the proposed interpolator created an adjusted life for Clovis and why he missed out a twentieth year in the supposed lustra scheme. The answer to these questions will dealt with later.  

Let us then present three strands of chronology, side by side. One is the interpolated chronology based on the given synchronism of years and dates within this and one the old combined chronology from 482, based on a combined effort of sources and the Gregory/interpolated chronology. The third is based on an accession date of 484. Dates in brackets are more up to date suggestions for events.

 

Event	Interpol. Chronology GC518	Combi. Chronology CC511	484 Chronology
Death of Childeric Start of Clovis	489	482	484
Siagrius 5th year	493	486	489
Thuringians 10th year	498	491	493
Marriage to Clothilda	499	492	494
Birth of Chlodomer	501	494	495
Battle of Tolbiac 15th year	503	496 (506)	498
Clovis converts /Baptism	503/4	496 (508)	499
Godigisel and Gundobad	504	500	500
Gundobad converts (dubious)	505	501	501
Meeting with Alaric	506	503	502
Battle of Vouillé 25th year.	513	506 (507)	508
Clovis Consul /Patrician	514	508	509
Defeat of Frankish kings	514 - 517	509 - 510	509-512
Death of Clovis, five years after Vouillé.	518	511	513

We can see from this an obvious hiatus in the GC518 scheme. The interpolator has completely removed six years between 506 and 512 and placed them in 512-518. We can also see that CC511 is based on actual events and a usage of the interpolated chronology. Accurately speaking, if we dated the reign of Clovis from 481 the numbered years would not work with known events so they need to start from 482. Hence why the other date for the beginning of his reign in some sources is 484 and death in 513. His death in 513 though appears to be untenable. So we are left with three chronologies which fail to work because they are dependent on Gregory or the interpolator's synchronisms, although CC511 is closest to getting it right.

Then there is the date of 486 for his accession in some modern works as discussed. 484 would, in effect, reduce Clovis' reign by three years and 486 by five years. A thirty year reign is now twenty-five. What is evident is that the date for the accession of Clovis has been slowly creeping up and I will continue in this direction with some caveats. CC511 is actually fairly accurate in it's dating but has been confused by more recent ideas as to when the baptism and certain wars took place. What we now require is a new chronology based on the sources rather than this combined confusion.

When we examine the rest of Gregory's statements concerning Childeric and Clovis and the letters of Cassiodorus, Avitus, St. Remigius and other characters we will discover that Clovis must have died in 511, but this does not mean that his rule began in 482, as we cannot take for granted anything that Gregory or the interpolator has said about the thirty year reign length. It has been questioned by Halsall, who expressed his scepticism¹⁵. I would agree with that scepticism, as only contemporary evidence can show us an approximate reign length and I will propose that this was instead, around twenty-three years..

The second assertion that we must dismiss is that Clovis was forty five years old at the time of his death. Letters of Cassiodorus on behalf of King Theoderic the Great, show that Clovis was a young king under the age of forty at the time letters were written to him in 507. Theoderic calls Alaric II and Clovis “Regii Juvenes”. Clovis therefore cannot have been born in 466 as this would make him about forty-one at that time.¹⁶ His correct age must have been early to mid thirties. When we examine the life of his father Childeric we will be able to better place his birth in the context of events at that time.

As there is no contemporary annalistic evidence for Clovis' death, much later Gallic annalistic evidence wildly differs. Some sources support the interpolated chronology obit of 518 but these annals are not known for their accuracy so we can only mention them as insignificant sources¹⁷. In the Gallic Annals of Flaviniacenses, a ninth century annal which covers the period 384CE to 853CE, it gives the year of the start of Clovis' reign as 488 and states he reigned thirty years (Clodoveus annis XXX), hence 517/518 for his death. In the continuation of these annals – the Annals of Luasonensibus, (ninth to tenth century) Clovis' obit is given as 517 (Chlodoveus rex obiit). There are another fifty or more annals or chronicles that mention obits for Clovis, many placing his obit after 511. Such as the Chronicle of Saint Claude, obit 524, Annales of Saint Gregoire's Abbaye, (14th century), obit, 514. Annals of Saint Denis, (11th century to 13th century), obit 524. This secondary annalistic evidence must therefore be dismissed.

The Chronicle of Marius of Avenches (late sixth century) only gives some details about Clovis' attack on the Burgundian Gundobad with Godigisel, dating it to around 500CE. In the Gallic Chronicle of 511, no mention is made of the death of Clovis, a strange omission. 

In conclusion, it is clear that there was an effort to place the death of Clovis in 518. It follows therefore, that the interpolator, to make this appear correct, would have to have added on seven years to Clovis' age at death and seven years to his reign length. Remove these spurrious assertions and we will see that Clovis was actually born in 473, became King in 488 at the age of 15 and died aged 38 in 511.  So let us now examine a full life of Clovis to prove this and see how events can be placed in the correct time-frame when the sources are examined, in part two.

Footnotes :

1 Mathisen-Shanzer, The First Franco-Visigothic War and the Prelude to the Battle of Vouillé, Battle of Vouillé, Brill, 2012, 3-10

2 See works of Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, 2006. David Rollason - Early Medieval Europe 300-1050: The Birth of Western Society, 2014 and Christopher Tadgel The West: From the Advent of Christendom to the Eve of Reformation, 2013, to name just a few.

3 Also pointed out by Halsall.

4 Wood, Ian N. Gregory of Tours and Clovis. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire. Tome 63 fasc. 2, 1985. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine — Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 249-272

5 II.43: His ita transactis, apud Parisius obiit, sepultusque in basilica sanctorum apostolorum, quam cum Chrodechilde regina ipse construxerat. Migravit autem post Vogladinse bellum anno quinto. Fueruntque omnes dies regni eius anni triginta; [aetas tota XLV anni]. A transitu ergo sancti Martini usque ad transitum Chlodovechi regis, qui fuit XI. annus episcopatus Licini Toronici sacerdotes, supputantur anni CXII. Chrodechildis autem regina post mortem viri sui Toronus venit, ibique ad basilica beati Martini deserviens, cum summa pudititia atque benignitate in hoc loco commorata est omnibus diebus vitae suae, raro Parisius visitans. 

6 Fletcher, Richard. The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity University of California Press; First Edition edition, 1999, P.103

7 Greg, Histories I.48. “In the second year of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, Saint Martin, bishop of Tours, departed this life”. Arcadadius became Empeor in 395, Honorius was already Western Emperor from 393. So date is 397.

8 The fifth Council of Orleans is dated to the thirty-eighth or thirty-ninth year of Childeric in 550.

9 Hist.II.29: Eoricus autem Gothorum rex Victorium ducem super septem civitatis praeposuit anno XIIII, regni sui. Qui protinus Arvernus adveniens, civitatem addere voluit, unde et criptae illae usque hodie perstant. Ad basilicam sancti Iuliani colomnas, quae sunt in aede positae, exhibere iussit. Basilicam sancti Laurenti et sancti Germani Licaniacensis vici iussit aedificare. Fuit autem Arvernus annis novem. Super Euchirium vero senatorem calumnias devolvit; quem in carcere positum nocte extrahi iussit, ligatumque iuxta parietem antiquum, ipsum parietem super eum elidi iussit. Ipse vero dum nimium esset in amore mulierum luxoriosus et ab Arvernus veriritur interfeci, Romam aufugit, ibique similem timptans exercere luxoriam, lapidibus est obrutus. Post cuius excessum regnavit Euricus annus IIII; obiit autem anno vicissimo septimo regni sui. Fuit etiam et tunc terrae motus magnus.

10 Gianfreda,F., Mastronuzzi, G., Sanso P., Impact of historical tsunamis on a sandy coastal barrier: an example from the northern Gargano coast, southern Italy, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2001) 1: 213–219, P.218 “The second event had a similar magnitude and was responsible for the development of the Foce Cauto fan at 1550 years BP (488±55 cal AD). It was caused by the strong earthquake that occurred on the Gargano Promontory in 493AD and reported by a medieval sacred legend”. We could of course now add that it was mentioned by Gregory.

11 Hist II.37: Regnavit autem Alaricus viginti duos annos. There is plenty of evidence for Alaric's reign length.

12 Wood, Ian N. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450 – 751. London, 1994, P.14

13 Halsall, Guy. Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul: Selected Studies in History and Archaeology, Brill's Series on the Early Middle Ages 1992-2009 p.171

14 http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gregorytours.html

15 Ibid Halsall 2009 Pgs. 170-171

16 Halsall comes to the same conclusion.”by the same token one must be sceptical about the Bishop's statement of Clovi's age at death: 45....Gregory guessed that Clovis had been forty-five when he died which, as noted above, was certainly a shorthand for ‘in his prime, but not old.” ibid Halsall 2009, p.171

17 See study by Santschi, C. Les évêques de Lausanne et leurs historiens des origines au 18e siècle: érudition et société, Société d'histoire de la Suisse romande. Mémoires et documents, 1975