Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:46:17.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecclesiastical Politics in the Regnum Chramni: Contextualising Baudonivia's Vita Radegundis, ch. 15

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

GREGORY HALFOND
GREGORY HALFOND*
Affiliation:
303 May Hall, Framingham State University, 100 State Street, Framingham, MA 01701, USA; e-mail: ghalfond@framingham.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In her seventh-century vita of St Radegund, Baudonivia refers in passing to the attendance of a layman named Leo at an Aquitanian ecclesiastical council. This Leo may be identifiable with the ‘Leo of Poitiers’ named by Gregory of Tours as a partisan of Chramn, the rebellious son of King Chlothar i (r. 511–61). If so, then Leo's attendance suggests that the council assembled during the brief period of alliance between Chramn and Childebert i, 555/8. This long-neglected council thus provides insight into one of the major events of a comparatively obscure decade in the history of the regnum Francorum.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 474 - 492
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Embedded within the nun Baudonivia's early seventh-century Vita Radegundis, at roughly the halfway point, is a multi-chapter sequence detailing the sixth-century acquisition by the queen-turned-nun of holy relics upon her adoption of the ascetic life.Footnote 1 Writing within the walls of Radegund's own convent of the Holy Cross in Poitiers, Baudonivia followed her abbess Dedimia's directive to address the lacunae in Venantius Fortunatus' earlier vita by providing additional information on the former queen's deeds and miracula.Footnote 2 In the process, Baudonivia reconceived the saint as a still regal holy woman, whose intercessions with, and healings of, secular elites benefitted both her religious foundation and the regnum.Footnote 3 Within this context, Baudonivia particularly emphasised Radegund's procurement of relics for ‘the honour of that place [i.e. her convent] and the salvation of the people’.Footnote 4 While the most illustrious and celebrated of these relics was a fragment of the true cross procured from Constantinople with the aid of the Merovingian king Sigibert i (r. 561–75), Baudonivia also included in her litany an object associated with Radegund herself: the latter's cilicium (or ascetic vestment), whose miraculous powers, Baudonivia claimed, once healed a so-called vir inlustris named Leo.Footnote 5

Baudonivia's account of this miracle is terse, but specific in its details: en route to an ecclesiastical council convoked by Bishops Leontius and Eusebius, identifiable with the sees of Bordeaux and Saintes respectively, Leo made an unplanned stop at Radegund's convent of the Holy Cross in Poitiers.Footnote 6 His sojourn was necessitated by a mysterious malady of the eyes, which obscured his vision and made further travel impossible. Leo was very familiar with the convent, having earlier cloistered his own daughters within its walls. Upon his arrival, Leo entered an oratorium dedicated to Mary, and prostrated himself upon the cilicium until his eyes cleared, and he was able to continue on his journey to the council, at which he related the story of his miraculous cure. He stopped at the convent once more upon his return journey, at which time he repeated his story. Sometime later, according to Baudonivia, Leo formally expressed his gratitude to Radegund by helping to fund the construction of a funerary basilica for the queen, subsequently dedicated to the Virgin Mary.Footnote 7

Baudonivia does not explicitly state the year of Leo's arrival at the convent of the Holy Cross. Nevertheless, her references to specific architectural details allow a tentative dating to the years between 552, after which year construction on the convent likely began, and 561, the year by which the Marian basilica was erected.Footnote 8 However, in direct opposition to this dating, it has been suggested that the ecclesiastical council to which Baudonivia refers is identical with the Council of Saintes (561/7), the proceedings and context of which are described by Gregory of Tours in the fourth book of his Decem libri historiarum.Footnote 9 This council was convoked by Leontius of Bordeaux for the purpose of deposing Bishop Emerius of Saintes, originally appointed by King Chlothar i (r. 511–61) without Leontius’ approval as provincial metropolitan. After Chlothar's death in 561, Leontius convinced his provincial suffragans to depose Emerius in favour of Heraclius, a presbyter from his own civitas of Bordeaux.Footnote 10 Chlothar's son, Charibert (r. 561–7), however, rejected the council's move as an insult to his father's memory, and ordered Emerius’ restoration. The enraged monarch furthermore commanded Heraclius to be exiled and Leontius to pay a monetary fine.Footnote 11

Assuming that the details that Baudonivia provides about the council attended by Leo are accurate, an association with the Council of Saintes (561/7) is impossible. Baudonivia's account assumes that Eusebius of Saintes, who died no later than 561, was still bishop at the time of Leo's journey, whereas the Council of Saintes was convoked with the specific purpose of deposing Eusebius’ successor, Emerius.Footnote 12 As for the possibility that Baudonivia inadvertently misdated the Council of Saintes, this too seems unlikely. There is an internal consistency to Baudonivia's dating: she accurately associates both Eusebius’ episcopate and the construction of the Marian basilica implicitly with Chlothar's reign, rather than with that of Charibert. The Council of Saintes (561/7) assembled, of course, in the regnum Chariberthi.

Furthermore, the Council of Saintes was a major scandal that attracted the attention of bishops from beyond the borders of Aquitanica Secunda, and even the royal court. It would be odd for Baudonivia to recall precise details of the convocation of a provincial synod held over fifty years earlier, including the identities of several of the attendees, but to so confuse the circumstances of its convocation.Footnote 13 Even if her knowledge of the identities of former bishops of Saintes was spotty, it is difficult to believe that she would have forgotten that Council of Saintes was convoked with the very purpose of removing from office the bishop of that civitas. Her account clearly credits Eusebius of Saintes (along with Leontius of Bordeaux) with convoking the synod to which Leo travelled. Baudonivia also had no obvious motives for deliberately misidentifying the bishop of Saintes; it was Leontius of Bordeaux, not Emerius of Saintes, who was publically humiliated in the aftermath of the Council of Saintes, and had Baudonivia wished to obscure the scandalous nature of the synod in her account, she could simply have withheld entirely the names of one or both of its episcopal convokers.

In short, it does not seem that Baudonivia’s account of Leo's journey was influenced by any knowledge of the Council of Saintes (561/7), and so we are left with a pithy account of an otherwise-unattested synod, with no details about its agenda, acts, or even precise date or location of assembly. Nevertheless, Baudonivia's specific reference to Leo's attendance, as well as her identification of the two synodal convokers, offer possible clues as to the context of the council's convocation and even its agenda. The following analysis of Baudonivia’ narrative will suggest that the council in question assembled in the transitory realm established in Aquitaine in the 550s by Chlothar's rebellious son Chramn (d. 560), and that the meeting's convocation was a direct response by the Aquitanian episcopate to these events. While Gregory of Tours, a witness to the latter's occupation of Clermont, remembered the violence and disorder associated with Chramn's short reign, other Aquitanian contemporaries, ecclesiastical and lay, tacitly or openly sided with Chramn, motivated both by political necessity and the opportunities for patronage by the rebellious prince. This long-neglected council thus may not only represent a local episcopal perspective on royal affairs, but also offer potential insight into one of the major events of a comparatively obscure decade in the political history of the regnum Francorum.

Identifying Leo

There are no further references to an Aquitanian Leo identified explicitly as a vir inlustris (or illustris) in either contemporary or near-contemporary sources. Nevertheless, a certain ‘Leo of Poitiers’ does make a fleeting appearance in Gregory of Tours's Decem libri historiarum. This Leo was a partisan of the Merovingian prince Chramn, who would eventually lose his life in open rebellion against his father, Chlothar. Gregory provides scant details regarding this otherwise-unknown Leo. While he is not identified as possessing a specific office or title, his proximity to Chramn is strongly suggestive of a high social status, if only locally.Footnote 14 He was a native of Aquitaine and a member of the prince's inner circle in Clermont, who, according to Gregory, was immediately (‘statim’) rendered deaf and mute after encouraging Chramn to tax the churches of SS Martin of Tours and Martial of Limoges. A subsequent vigil at the tomb of St Martin in Tours failed to cure Leo, who some time afterwards (Gregory's timing here is vague) died insane (‘amens’).Footnote 15

At first glance, these two Leos would appear to be distinct individuals.Footnote 16 Gregory's Leo suffered from different physical maladies, persecuted rather than patronised churches, and seemingly died prematurely, in the mid-550s, as a result of his crimes against the saints. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to think that Baudonivia and Gregory are describing one and the same individual. First of all, both Leos share a remarkably close chronological and geographical proximity, i.e. Aquitanica Secunda in the 550s (including links to Poitiers specifically), a high social status associated with public service, and a name relatively uncommon among the mid sixth-century Aquitanian elite.Footnote 17 While the presence of Leo of Poitiers within a royal entourage is certain, the attendance of Leo the vir inlustris at an ecclesiastical council is also suggestive of royal service.

Commonalities aside, there is nothing in Gregory's pithy account that prohibits an identification of Leo of Poitiers with the vir inlustris. That the two men suffered from different physical ailments certainly does not preclude the possibility of a single Leo being the unlucky sufferer of multiple maladies in the 550s, or of either Gregory or Baudonivia misidentifying his symptoms.Footnote 18 Furthermore, Gregory's narrative is constructed so as to strongly imply a direct cause-and-effect between Leo's poor counsel and his unfortunate fate. However, Gregory never states explicitly that Leo's death closely followed the appearance of those maladies that necessitated a visit to Martin's tomb, instead drawing an implicit connection between these maladies and Leo's untimely demise for the purposes of crafting a moral exemplum. Significantly, Gregory's description of Leo's failed efforts at atonement follows, rather than precedes, the description of his death.Footnote 19 Gregory employs a similar literary technique just a few chapters later, when he conflates the events surrounding the death of King Charibert i in order to illustrate the physical consequences of sin.Footnote 20 Thus, the Leo described by Gregory could have died anytime between 555, the year that Chramn arrived in Clermont (and ostensibly of Leo's illness), and the composition of the Decem libri historiarum in 585–94.Footnote 21

Not only does Gregory's account provide no sure evidence regarding the timing or cause of Leo of Poitiers's death, its didactic aim naturally discourages any references to ecclesiastical patronage by Leo, assuming that Gregory was even aware of such activity. Although frequently dismissed by their ecclesiastical critics as covetous, or more damningly as necatores pauperum,Footnote 22 lay officials who sought to tax or appropriate church property were not necessarily motivated by anti-clericalism, and could even have the explicit or tacit approval of bishops in asserting their claims. Indeed, several conciliar canons issued during the first half of the sixth century by Gallic synods address the frequency with which Frankish kings granted ecclesiastical property to beneficiaries, and attempt to regulate (via episcopal oversight) but not end this practice.Footnote 23 Furthermore, the abusers and purloiners of church property often had more complex motivations than those assigned to them by their critics. Gregory's own bête noire, Chilperic i (r. 561–84), who famously complained of episcopal wealth, generously (and strategically) patronised both individual prelates and ecclesiastical foundations, including Radegund's convent.Footnote 24 Therefore, patronage of the Holy Cross by Leo the vir inlustris should in no way discourage an identification of him with that Leo who sought to tax the churches of Tours and Limoges.

Chramn's revolt and Aquitanian politics in the 550s

If it can be hypothesised that Leo the vir inlustris and Leo of Poitiers were one and the same person, his expanded profile can potentially shed additional light on the dating and context for Baudonivia's council. This necessitates a re-examination of Leo of Poitiers's service to Chramn in the context of that prince's short-lived revolt. Gregory of Tours describes Chramn's abbreviated career over the course of eight chapters (i.e. 3, 9, 11, 13, 16–18 and 20) in the fourth book of his Historiae. That Gregory pays so much attention to a failed monarch is all the more surprising in light of the fact that the historian devotes slightly fewer than twenty chapters (out of a total of fifty-one in book iv) to the history of Gaul in the 550s. Gregory's interest in Chramn no doubt can be credited in part to Chramn's occupation of Clermont, the civitas of the historian's birth, and where he resided during the prince's short rule.Footnote 25 Chlothar had sent Chramn to the city in 555 following news of the death of his nephew, Theudebald i (r. 548–55), Clermont's previous royal master.

There Gregory witnessed first-hand Chramn's subsequent actions, which the historian remembered decades later as including the harassment of local secular and ecclesiastical elites, coveting church assets, and even intervening in a contested episcopal election.Footnote 26 The last of these transgressions had the consequence of drawing Chramn into the deeply factionalised ecclesiastical politics of Clermont, which had become especially belligerent following the disputed episcopal election of 551, when the selection by the clergy of one candidate, the presbyter Cato, was effectively vetoed by royal proclamation, and an alternative candidate, the archdeacon Cautinus, was ordained in his place. Gregory, whose uncle Gallus was the previous occupant of the episcopal seat of Clermont, was not terribly impressed by either of the disputants, although from the perspective of hindsight judged Cato comparatively less objectionable.Footnote 27 While Chramn's father, Chlothar, had attempted to pacify the two rivals by promising Cato the episcopal see of Tours as a consolation (an offer that the presbyter refused), Chramn chose simply to take sides, promising Cato that Cautinus would be deposed as soon as Chlothar died, and making threats against the sitting bishop. Despite Gregory's disgust at the factionalism encouraged by the disputed election, he explicitly cites Chramn's threats against Cautinus as evidence of the prince's malicious behaviour.Footnote 28

In Gregory's narrative, Leo of Poitiers and Chramn first appear together in 555 amidst this supposedly brutal occupation of Clermont.Footnote 29 Despite the hostility of Gregory's narrative, it is clear that Chramn managed to attract as many local potentates – laymen and ecclesiastics alikeFootnote 30  – as he repelled.Footnote 31 While the historian callously dismisses Chramn's partisans in Clermont as ‘common persons of a young and restless age’, he also identifies among the prince's supporters a presbyter, a comes and a vir magnificus.Footnote 32 There certainly is no reason to assume Leo's own social status from Gregory's dismissive comments. Leo's purportedly covetous behaviour (reflected, notes Gregory, in the ravenous implications of his name) is far more applicable in Gregory's worldview to an individual of means.Footnote 33 Those ‘common persons’ alluded to by Gregory probably should be identified with those (most likely armed) ministri who had accompanied Chramn to Clermont, rather than with locals.Footnote 34 Gregory's account of acts of thievery perpetrated by five of these individuals, for instance, seems to imply both the non-elite status of these particular latrones, as well as the civitas of Orléans as their place of origin.Footnote 35

Conversely, within Clermont itself, Chramn strategically inserted himself into local ecclesiastical and secular conflicts in part to establish alliances with those local elites open to his overtures. Thus, he not only intervened in the dispute over the hotly-contested episcopal election between Cato and Cautinus, he also allied himself with the Hortensii family, which previously had monopolised the office of comes, by ejecting from office Count Firminus, who possibly had inherited his title from his father-in-law, Britianus, a member of another prominent local family. Chramn then replaced Firminus with Salustius, the son and grandson of previous counts.Footnote 36 Too much should not be made, however, of the apparent rivalry between these two aristocratic families: Firminus in 571 would support the nomination of Salustius’ brother Eufrasius as bishop of Clermont, despite the harsh treatment that earlier had been directed against both himself and his mother-in-law Caesaria on Chramn's orders.Footnote 37 Still, Chramn's own actions in the 550s are suggestive of a conscious effort to take advantage of the competition between local factions in order to attract prominent allies.

While Chramn probably had contemplated breaking with his father while still in Clermont, his first decisive act of rebellion occurred only after his move to Poitiers, a city also controlled by Chlothar, later in 555.Footnote 38 The timing of Chramn's decision to rebel is suggested not only by his alleged behaviour while occupying Clermont, including his overtures to prospective local allies, but also by Chlothar's apparent assumption that Chramn was still in the Auvergne when he ordered two of his other sons, Charibert and Guntram, to confront their brother.Footnote 39 Gregory does not explicitly state whether Leo himself remained in the entourage that accompanied Chramn to Poitiers, and it is possible that his purported ailments temporarily prevented him from following the young king.Footnote 40 On the other hand, Leo's own ties to Poitiers as well as his characterisation by Gregory may suggest that he was among those intimate counsellors who accompanied Chramn to Poitiers, and there convinced him to forge an alliance with his (heirless) uncle, Childebert i (r. 511–58), against his father.Footnote 41 In any case, it is at this point that Leo disappears from Gregory's narrative.

The historian does go on to describe how, later that same year (555), following the secret negotiations with his uncle, Chramn moved on to Limoges, which further increased the size of his newly-established sub-regnum.Footnote 42 Recognising the threat that his son now posed, in about 556 Chlothar sent Charibert and Guntram to oppose Chramn, as the king himself was occupied in a war against the Saxons. Chramn employed a ruse to avert a direct military confrontation, and then took advantage of his brothers’ retreat to press into Burgundy, and eventually to Paris, where he reaffirmed his alliance with Childebert.Footnote 43 It was probably at this time, c. 557/8, that Chramn issued a coin naming both himself and Childebert.Footnote 44

While Chramn's victory now seemed assured, his father's return, followed shortly thereafter in 558 by Childebert's death, assured the failure of the revolt. Chramn sought refuge in Brittany, where he died two years later, in 560, strangled and then burned along with his wife and children on his father's orders.Footnote 45 Despite his fury, Chlothar would seek forgiveness for his acts at the tomb of St Martin shortly before his death the very next year.Footnote 46

Contextualising Baudonivia's council

By grafting those spare details supplied by Baudonivia onto the chronology of Chramn's reign in Aquitaine, it may be possible to narrow further the chronological span during which the council assembled. Although Baudonivia never explicitly says so, it seems reasonable to suppose that the council in question assembled in the civitas of Saintes, which was the location of several provincial synods in the mid-sixth century.Footnote 47 In comparison, no councils are known to have been held in Agen, Angoulême or Périgueux during this century, while the only council held in Bordeaux was convoked by the royal pretender Gundovald.Footnote 48 Furthermore, Baudonivia's account implies that the council was not held in Poitiers either. The location of the council in Saintes would also explain the role of Bishop Eusebius, Leontius's suffragan, in its convocation. At the time of Chramn's rebellion, Saintes seems to have been part of the regnum of his political ally Childebert, an established promoter of conciliar activity.Footnote 49 It is unknown, however, whether Chramn himself ever directly occupied this civitas, which lay between the already-secured Poitiers and Childebert's Bordeaux.Footnote 50 Regardless, Saintes effectively constituted the political border between the two newly-allied regna.

The possible presence of Leo of Poitiers, a member of Chramn's entourage, at the council may therefore suggest that the council assembled during the period of the prince's alliance with Childebert, between 555 and 558. The presence of laymen at ecclesiastical councils in sixth-century Gaul was not, in itself, unusual. Leaving aside the servants of attending bishops, the presence of laymen might be necessitated by specific agenda items requiring royal approval or action. Secular officials could serve as representatives of the Merovingians in the absence of the monarchs themselves. While lay attendance at a council therefore could be instigated by a convening rex, convoking bishops also could take the initiative of extending an invitation, as was the case in the council described by Baudonivia.Footnote 51 In short, it would be difficult to explain Leo's own summons to attend the council at Saintes if he was not recognised by the episcopal convokers as a legitimate agent of a king.

Consequently, it is very unlikely that Leo of Poitiers would have been invited to attend the council in an official capacity following Chlothar's securing of Aquitaine in about 558. Chlothar's merciless treatment of his own son does not suggest that he would have extended any greater leniency towards Chramn's allies, let alone have appointed them to (or permitted them to retain) public office. Conversely, if it is safe to assume that at least some time elapsed between the foundation of the convent of the Holy Cross (552/7) and the construction of the Marian basilica (prior to 561), as Baudonivia's account suggests, then a convocation date in the mid-550s would be preferable, particularly as Baudonivia's narrative describes the convent as an already-functioning institution at the time of Leo's brief sojourn there. That the convent's construction preceded Chramn's occupation of Poitiers is suggested by the insecure political position of one of its original patrons, the dux Austrapius, c. 555–7.Footnote 52

Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Leo of Poitiers held political office, let alone high offices such as dux or comes, between 552 and 554, the earliest possible years during which the council theoretically could have assembled. Austrapius, later an opponent of Chramn, was dux in these years, with authority extending over Poitiers and Tours. While the name of the comes of Poitiers in 552/4 is unknown, as both Gregory of Tours and Baudonivia refer to Leo by alternate titles or descriptors it seems highly unlikely that he ever occupied this office. In general, contemporary epigraphic evidence does not link the title of vir inlustris to one specific office; rather it was a marker of aristocratic status.Footnote 53 Leo, regardless of any specific offices that he may have held during his adult life, was a regional potentate whose local influence would have been especially attractive to an ambitious Merovingian prince struggling to form alliances in his newly-established putative regnum. Chramn's patronage, in turn, could have aided Leo in enhancing his own political profile in Aquitaine. In sum, if Leo of Poitiers can be identified with Leo the vir inlustris, then his presence at the council suggests that it assembled in the mid-550s, during the brief existence of the regnum Chramni.

This conclusion is supported by Baudonivia's identification of Bishop Leontius of Bordeaux as one of the meeting's two convokers, along with Eusebius of Saintes. Leontius, the son of a similarly named bishop of Bordeaux, was a member of the powerful Leontii family, and related by blood and marriage to several of the wealthiest and most influential Aquitanian noble lineages.Footnote 54 Prior to his ordination, he had served in the army of Childebert i. As a bishop, he became well known both for his rigorous defence of metropolitan prerogatives, as well as for his sponsorship of numerous ecclesiastical building projects in Bordeaux and beyond, including several in Saintes itself.Footnote 55 Although Gregory of Tours never directly implicates Leontius in Chramn's revolt, there are several reasons to suspect the bishop's tacit approval, if not his direct involvement.

First, Leontius enjoyed strong ties to Chramn's political ally, Childebert. Not only had Leontius earlier served Childebert in a military capacity, but the civitas of Bordeaux formally became part of Childebert's regnum after the death of King Chlodomer in 524.Footnote 56 Following Chlothar's death in 561, Leontius led the effort to depose Bishop Emerius of Saintes, Chlothar's appointee, supporting instead the presbyter Heraclius, a former legatus of Childebert. Charibert, who fined Leontius for his audacity, believed that the bishop's actions constituted an insult to his father's memory.Footnote 57 Second, Leontius was the metropolitan bishop both of civitates claimed by Chramn during the revolt, including Poitiers, as well as civitates of Childebert's, including some also possibly occupied by Chramn during these years, such as Agen and Périgueux.Footnote 58 At the very least, it would have been politically expedient for Chramn to establish friendly relations with the metropolitan see of Bordeaux and its influential occupant. Conversely, it would have been unwise for Leontius to risk the enmity of both Childebert and Chramn by publically disavowing the alliance. To be sure, Gregory of Tours does not name Leontius among the several prominent Aquitanian potentates and families who rejected Chramn's overtures.

Third, it was, according to Baudonivia, Leontius (along with Eusebius of Saintes) who invited Leo the vir inlustris, whose association with Chramn has been postulated, to attend an ecclesiastical council. The convokers of the council to which Leo was invited certainly would not have been ignorant of his political loyalties, and their summons was an implicit recognition of his representative authority. Thus, Leontius may not have been a partisan of Chramn per se, but as a loyal subject of Childebert's, and as the metropolitan of civitates in both Chramn and Childebert's regna, he would have understood the necessity of recognising the newly-established alliance.

The political loyalties of Eusebius of Saintes are comparatively more opaque. As a resident of Saintes, he likely would have recognised Childebert as his royal master. Considering the proposed dating of the council, and Eusebius’ role in its convocation, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that he shared Leontius’ willingness to recognise Childebert's alliance with Chramn. Unfortunately, it is impossible to even hazard a guess at the personal political loyalties of the majority of Leontius’ other provincial suffragans possibly in attendance, including the bishops of Agen, Angoulême and Périgueux. In fact, even the names of most of these individuals are uncertain.Footnote 59

The one possible exception is the bishop of Leo of Poitiers's own civitas. It is fairly certain that the episcopal seat at the time of the council was occupied by Bishop Pientius, who had assisted Radegund in the building of her convent in the early 550s. We can only speculate as to whether Pientius, a subject of Chlothar, openly or tacitly supported Chramn's rebellion. On the one hand, Poitiers was an occupied city, and Pientius would have had to tread carefully so as not to incur Chramn's ire. On the other hand, there no evidence to suggest that Chlothar ever sought to discipline Pientius in the aftermath of the failed revolt. Pientius was also on sociable terms with at least one of Chramn's local antagonists, the dux Austrapius. Austrapius, who at one point had to seek asylum from Chramn's men in the church of St Martin at Tours, later would be rewarded by Chlothar for his loyalty by the promise that he would succeed Pientius as bishop of Poitiers.Footnote 60 During this same decade Austrapius collaborated with Pientius in the construction of the convent of the Holy Cross, and presumably the latter was distressed by Chramn's subsequent treatment of his associate.Footnote 61 Nevertheless, his relationship with Austrapius alone may not have been enough to compel the bishop of Poitiers to take the dangerous step of vocally opposing the rebellious prince. Pientius’ episcopal colleague, Tetricus of Langres, for example, had demonstrated necessary caution by allowing Chramn to receive communion in extramural churches, but forbidding him entrance to Dijon itself.Footnote 62 Certainly, there is no reason to assume that any personal misgivings regarding Chramn on the part of Pientius were enough to keep the bishop away from the council.

There is no way of knowing, of course, precisely what issues constituted the council's agenda. Nevertheless, the identities of three of the participants do permit speculation. The hypothesised presence of Leo of Poitiers at the council implies that its business was relevant to Chramn, the new royal master of several civitates in Aquitanica Secunda. Baudonivia's account is clear that it was the conciliar convokers themselves who determined that Leo's presence was desirable. As the council's attendees would have included residents of both the regnum Chramni and the regnum Childeberthi, it is certainly conceivable that the convokers’ intention in extending an invitation to Leo was to establish an amicable relationship between the royal and episcopal governors of the newly-established Aquitanian kingdom. Leontius and Eusebius, of course, had no way of knowing that Chramn's rule would be short-lived; at the time of the council, the alliance between Chramn and Childebert seemed indicative of a political landscape which had been altered permanently.

Furthermore, Gregory of Tours's account suggests that Chramn's presence in Aquitaine revived sensitive and longstanding debates regarding royal claims to ecclesiastical assets and the role of the court in determining episcopal succession. Ecclesiastical synods were the traditional forums for addressing these issues, and both continued to be subjects of significant conciliar attention in the decade immediately following the postulated Council of Saintes (555/8). As the acta of these subsequent councils were, according to custom, forwarded to the royal court, their episcopal authors generally were conciliatory, if by no means submissive, in their efforts to defend episcopal prerogatives.Footnote 63 If the council did indeed address the aforementioned concerns, it seems reasonable to suppose that the episcopal convokers adopted a similar approach, particularly if they did choose to invite a representative of Chramn to attend their deliberations.Footnote 64 If so, it more likely was out of prudence, not reckless partisanship, that the episcopal convokers extended their invitation to Leo. His participation in the bishops’ discussions ideally might generate consensus between the Aquitanian episcopate and the regnum Chramni, and prevent any additional and unpleasant friction.

This is not to say that this council would have been unusually preoccupied with materialistic and diplomatic concerns; rather, like all sixth-century Gallic synods, its convocation, agenda and attendance were influenced by a wide range of contextual factors that transcended any divisions between the sacred and the secular. Just as shifting royal and ecclesiastical territorial borders could both overlap and diverge, the acta of contemporary councils reflect the complexities of their compositional contexts. Perhaps not surprisingly, it often was those conciliar canons with the most general application that were the most widely disseminated in subsequent canonical collectiones. Similarly, the historical memory of individual councils was determined in no small way by their continued relevance over time. That Baudonivia's council was largely forgotten by chroniclers of mid sixth-century Gallic history – and neglected entirely by the compilers of Gallic conciliar acta – may not so much suggest the attendees’ failure to reach consensus with the monarchy as the failure of Chramn to establish a long-lasting regime in south-western Gaul. Had Childebert not died suddenly in 558, depriving Chramn of his most powerful ally, the subsequent political and ecclesiastical history of Aquitaine presumably would have been quite different, and conceivably the historical memory of a Council of Saintes (555/8) more potent. It is perhaps rather fortunate then that Leo's eyesight happened to fail him as he rode past the convent of the Holy Cross on his way to council.

References

1 Baudonivia, Vita Sanctae Radegundis liber II, ed. Krusch, Bruno, MGH, SRM, ii, Hanover 1888, 13–17 Google Scholar. For the dating of Baudonivia's vita see Wattenbach, Wilhelm and Levison, Wilhelm, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger, I: Die Vorzeit von den Anfängen bis zur Herrschaft der Karolinger, Weimar 1952, 97–8Google Scholar. On Radegund, her cult and her biographers see Aigrain, René, Sainte Radegonde (vers 520–587), 2nd edn, Paris 1918 Google Scholar; Scheibelreiter, Georg, ‘Konigstochter im Kloster: Radegund (d. 587) und der Nonnenaufstand von Poitiers (589)’, Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen Instituts fur Geschichtsforschung lxxxvii (1979), 1–37 Google Scholar; Brennan, Brian, ‘St Radegund and the early development of her cult at Poitiers’, Journal of Religious History xiii/4 (1985), 340–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gäbe, Sabine, ‘Radegundis: sancta, regina, ancilla: zum Heiligkeitsideal der Radegundisviten von Fortunat und Baudonivia’, Francia xvi (1989), 1–30 Google Scholar; Folz, Robert, Les Saintes Reines du moyen âge en occident (VIe–XIIIe siècles), Brussels 1992, 13–24 Google Scholar; George, Judith, Venantius Fortunatus: a Latin poet in Merovingian Gaul, Oxford 1992, 161–77Google Scholar; Moreira, Isabel, ‘ Provisatrix Optima: St Radegund of Poitiers’ relic petitions to the east’, Journal of Medieval History xix (1993), 285–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Dam, Raymond, Saints and their miracles in late antique Gaul, Princeton 1993, 30–41 Google Scholar; Favreau, Robert, ‘Le Culte de Sainte Radegonde à Poitiers au moyen âge’, in Bouter, Nicole (ed.), Les Religieuses dans le cloitre et dans le monde des origines à nos jours, Saint–Etienne 1994, 91–109 Google Scholar; Coon, Lynda L., Sacred fictions: holy women and hagiography in late antiquity, Philadelphia 1997, 126–35Google Scholar; Coates, Simon, ‘Regendering Radegund? Fortunatus, Baudonivia and the problem of female sanctity in Merovingian Gaul’, in Swanson, R. N. (ed.), Gender and Christian religion (Studies in Church History xxiv, 1998), 37–50 Google Scholar; Kitchen, John, Saints' lives and the rhetoric of gender: male and female in Merovingian hagiography, Oxford 1998, 115–23, 134–53Google Scholar; Rosenwein, Barbara, Negotiating space: power, restraint, and privileges of immunity in early medieval Europe, Ithaca 1999, 52–8Google Scholar; Wehlau, Ruth, ‘Literal and symbolic: the language of asceticism in two lives of Radegund’, Florilegium xix (2002), 75–89 Google Scholar; Joye, Sylvie, ‘Basine, Radegonde et la Thuringe chez Grégoire de Tours’, Francia xxxii (2005), 1–18 Google Scholar; and Glenn, Jason, ‘Two lives of Saint Radegund’, in Glenn, Jason (ed.), The Middle Ages in texts and texture, Toronto 2011, 57–70 Google Scholar. See also the contributions to Études mérovingiennes: actes des journées de Poitiers, 1er–3 mai, 1952, Paris 1953 Google Scholar, and La Riche Personnalité de Sainte Radegonde: conférences et homélies prononcées à Poitiers à l'occasion du XIVe Centenaire de sa mort (587–1987), Poitiers 1988 Google Scholar.

2 Baudonivia, Vita Sanctae Radegundis liber ii, prologus.

3 Glenn, ‘Two lives of Saint Radegund’, 61–5.

4 ‘ad honorem loci et salvationem populi’: Baudonivia, Vita Sanctae Radegundis liber ii, 16. See also Moreira, ‘Provisatrix optima’, 285–305.

5 C. H. Kneepkens identifies Radegund's cilicium as an ‘ascetic garment which … also served as a prayer rug’: ‘“Supra sanctae Radegundis cilicium”: notes on Baudonivia's Life of Radegund (ii, 15)’, in Bartelink, G. J. M., Hilhorst, A. and Kneepkens, C. H. (eds), Eulogia: mélanges offerts à Antoon A. R. Bastiaensen à l'occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire, The Hague 1991, 163–73 at p. 173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the senatorial grade of vir inlustris (or illustris), which indicated the highest-ranking individuals of office-holding status, see Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ix (1916), 1070–85Google Scholar, s.v. illustris; Jones, A. H. M., The later Roman Empire, 284–602: a social, economic, and administrative survey, Baltimore 1986, 528–36Google Scholar; and, more generally, Näf, Beat, Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrömischer Zeit, Freiburg 1995 Google Scholar, and Badel, Christophe, La Noblesse de l'empire romain: les masques et la vertu, Seyssel 2005, 387–401 Google Scholar on Gaul specifically (see also n. 53 below). It is unnecessary to rehearse here old debates over the extent to which the sixth-century Gallic senators could claim direct familial descent from the late imperial aristocracy. What is important is that Leo was recognised by Baudonivia as possessing high social status within Aquitanian society.

6 These are the identifications proposed by Krusch in his edition (387 n. 1), in the case of Eusebius following Mabillon. Louis Duchesne identifies thirteen Gallic bishops named Leontius, of whom eleven can be dismissed as possible candidates on chronological grounds: Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, 2nd edn, Paris 1907–15Google Scholar. While two Leontii held episcopal office in mid sixth-century Bordeaux, it was the son rather than the father who reigned in the 550s. Duchesne similarly identifies eleven bishops named Eusebius. Among these prelates, only two possibly held office between 552 and 561: the bishops of Antibes and Saintes. As only the latter was a suffragan of the metropolitan of Bordeaux, an identification with Eusebius of Saintes would seem far more likely.

7 ‘Vir inluster Leo nomine ad consilium sinodi evocatus a viris apostolicis Leontio et Eusebio episcopis, dum iter ageret, oculi eius gravi sunt caligine obducti, sanguinis nube cooperti; nisi se a famulis sustentatus pergeret, penitus viam nec videret. Qui ingressus monasterium beatae, ubi filias suas ei devotus tradidit Domino servituras, introivit in oratorium domnae Mariae nomini dedicatum. Post orationem datam prosternit se fide plenus supra sanctae cilicium, viriliter eam invocans, et tamdiu superiacuit, quousque dolor discessit, caligo fugata est, coagulatus sanguis se, venis ministrantibus, perduxit, clarisque oculis, qui manibus sustentatus venerat, sanus rediit. De cilicio beatae lumen recepit; laetus atque incolomis ad sinodum, ubi coeperat, ambulavit. Quod post, ipso referente, universa sinodus audivit, ac inde regrediens, nobis hoc ore proprio disseruit. Ipsa ei fecit devotio fundamentum basilicae dominae Radegundis percutere, ubi et centum dedit solidos ad fabricam ipsam faciendum’: Baudonivia, Vita Sanctae Radegundis liber ii , 15.

8 In dating the construction of the convent to the period between 552 and 557 I follow Labande-Mailfert, Yvonne, ‘Les Debuts de Sainte-Croix’, in Labande, E.-R. (ed.), Histoire de l'Abbaye Sainte-Croix de Poitiers, Poitiers 1986, 25–69 at p. 35 Google Scholar. This dating has been affirmed by, among others, Klingshirn, William, Caesarius of Arles: the making of a Christian community in late antique Gaul, Cambridge 1994, 265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Favreau, ‘Le Culte de Sainte Radegonde’, 91; and Reydellet, Marc (ed.), Venance Fortunat: poèmes, Paris 2002–3, ii. 189 n. 131Google Scholar. Jo Ann McNamama, John E. Halborg and E. Gordon Whatley prefer a slightly different range of years (555/560) but acknowledge that Radegund must have received Caesarius of Arles's monastic rule from Caesaria the Younger prior to the latter's death (c. 560): Sainted women of the dark ages, Durham 1992, 89 n. 87Google Scholar. On the construction of the Marian basilica prior to 561 see Labande-Mailfert, ‘Les Debuts de Sainte-Croix’, 35, and Favreau, ‘Le Culte de Sainte Radegonde’, 91. Based in part on this dating, Kneepkens broadly dates Leo's arrival at the convent to sometime prior to 561, in the process correcting a mistaken association of the oratory with the basilica, both of which were dedicated to Mary: ‘Supra sanctae Radegundis cilicium’, 163–7; c.f. Viellard-Troiekouroff, May, Les Monuments religieux de la Gaule d'après les œuvres de Grégoire de Tours, Paris 1976, 224–30Google Scholar. On the Marian basilica see also Kneepkens, C. H., ‘À Propos des débuts de l'histoire de l'église-funéraire Sainte Radegonde de Poitiers’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale xxix (1986), 331–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum, ed. Krusch, B. and Levison, W., MGH, SRM i/1, Hanover 1937–51, iv. 26Google Scholar. Martindale, J. R. (ed.), The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii, Cambridge 1992, 769 Google Scholar, conflates the two councils.

10 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum v. 36.

11 On the council of Saintes and its context see von Hefele, Karl Joseph and LeClercq, Henri, Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux, Paris 1907–52, iii/1, 181–2Google Scholar; Pontal, Odette, Histoire des conciles mérovingiens, Paris 1989, 155–6Google Scholar; and Halfond, Gregory, ‘Charibert i and the episcopal leadership of the Kingdom of Paris (561–567)’, Viator xliii/2 (2012), 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Labande-Mailfert, ‘Les Debuts de Sainte-Croix’, 112 n. 75; Kneepkens, ‘Supra sanctae Radegundis cilicium’, 166; Halfond, Gregory, The archaeology of Frankish church councils, Leiden 2010, 229 Google Scholar.

13 It may well have been Leo's own daughters who preserved the story of their father's journey, and who directly or indirectly passed it on to Baudonivia.

14 Weidemann, Margarete, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken Gregors von Tours, Mainz 1982, ii. 312 Google Scholar. Although Gregory does not explicitly refer to Leo as such, a sentence earlier he refers to another local supporter of Chramn, Ascovindus, as a civis. On this terminology see Loseby, S. T., ‘Lost cities: the end of the civitas-system in Frankish Gaul’, in Diefenbach, S. and Müller, G. M. (eds), Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter: Kulturgeschichte einer Region, Berlin 2013, 223–52 at p. 232 Google Scholar. Loseby identifies cives as ‘major local landowners’.

15 ‘Habebat enim et Leonem Pectavinsim ad omnia mala perpetranda gravem stimulum, qui nominis sui tamquam leo erat in omni cupiditate saevissimus. Hic fertur quadam vice dixisse, quod Martinus et Marcialis confessoris Domini nihil fisci viribus utile reliquissent. Sed statim percussus a virtute confessorum, surdus et mutus effectus, amens est mortuos. Venit enim miser ad basilicam sancti Martini Toronus celebravitque vigilias, dedit munera, sed non eum respexit virtus consueta. Cum ipsa enim qua venerat infirmitate regressus est’: Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16.

16 Martindale identifies Leo 2 (Chramn's advisor) and Leo 8 (vir inlustris) as distinct individuals: The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 768–9. So do Pietri, Luce and Heijmans, Marc: Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne (314–614), Paris 2013, 1117–18Google Scholar.

17 This is suggested by the prosopographical data compiled by Stroheker, Karl Friedrich, Der senatorische Adel im spatantiken Gallien, Tübingen 1948 Google Scholar; Selle-Hosback, Karin, ‘Prosopographie merowingischer amsträger in der Zeit von 511 bis 613’, unpubl. PhD diss. Bonn 1974 Google Scholar; Heinzelmann, Martin, ‘Gallische Prosopographie, 260–527’, Francia x (1982), 531–718 Google Scholar; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit; Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii; and Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne. The episcopal fasti similarly do not suggest the popularity of the name among the Aquitanian episcopal elite of the sixth century: Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux, ii. 1–102. Regarding those few Leos from the mid-sixth century with Aquitanian links, there is insufficient evidence to identify either Leo of Poitiers or Leo the vir inlustris with Leo, brother of the rector Provinciae Jovinus, and possible son of Bishop Aspasius of Eauze, mentioned in Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina, ed. F. Leo, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, iv/1, Berlin 1881, vii.12.121 (c. 566). On this Leo see Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1117. Similarly, it is impossible to say whether Leo of Poitiers or Leo the vir inlustris can be associated with a witness to the testament of Aredius of Limoges and his mother Pelagia from 572. See Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1117.

18 Gregory of Tours relates that five ministri of Chramn who joined the prince at Clermont stole valuables from the oratory of St Saturninus: Liber in gloria martyrum, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH, SRM, i/2, Hanover 1885, 65. One of the thieves was subsequently punished for his sin by experiencing temporary blindness caused by his eyes congealing with blood. While it is tempting to associate this thief with Leo due to their common afflictions, there are several reasons to reject such an association. First, Gregory does not identify the thief by name, when clearly he was familiar with Leo of Poitiers. Second, although Gregory accuses Leo of covetousness towards the Church, he does not describe him as a common thief. Finally, Gregory's account seems to imply that the thieves originally came from Orléans, to which they fled after the theft. More likely, Gregory was drawing here upon a common hagiographical motif that associated ocular ailments with greed: Van Dam, Saints and their miracles, 88.

19 It is tempting to hypothesise that Leo's journey to the council at Saintes began at Tours, following his vigil, as Poitiers would have been along his route. This, of course, is mere conjecture.

20 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.26.

21 On the dating of the Decem libri historiarum see Murray, Alexander C., ‘Chronology and the composition of the Histories of Gregory of Tours’, Journal of Late Antiquity i (2008), 157–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 On necatores pauperum see Rosenwein, Negotiating space, 42–7; Olivier Guillot, ‘“Assassins des pauvres”: une invective pour mieux culpabiliser les usurpateurs de biens d’église, aidant à resituer l'activité conciliaire des Gaules entre 561 et 573’, in Hoareau-Dodinau, Jacqueline and Texier, Pascal (eds), La Culpabilité: actes des XXèmes Journées d'histoire du droit, Limoges 2001, 329–66Google Scholar; Wood, Susan, The proprietary Church in the medieval West, Oxford 2006, 25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Moore, Michael E., A sacred kingdom: bishops and the rise of Frankish kingship, 300–850, Washington, DC 2011, 194–9Google Scholar.

23 For example Orléans (511), c. 7; Epaone (517), c. 18; Clermont (535), c. 5 and Epistle; Orléans (541), c. 25. On these conciliar efforts to regulate secular confiscations of ecclesiastical property see Halfond, ‘Charibert i’, 17–21. Jean Durliat has argued controversially that ecclesiastical resources could be claimed legally by Frankish royal authorities: Les Finances publiques de Dioclétien aux Carolingiens (284–889), Sigmaringen 1990, 148–9Google Scholar. On the ownership of ecclesiastical properties see also the contributions of Michel Rouche, Jean Heuclin and Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier to Magnou-Nortier, Elisabeth (ed.), Aux Sources de la gestion publique, Lille 1993, ii. 125–69Google Scholar, and Wood, The proprietary Church, 16–32. For a traditional view of the secular threat to ecclesiastical property see Lesne, Emile, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France, Lille 1910, i. 439–52Google Scholar.

24 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum vi.46. On Chilperic's patronage see Halfond, Gregory, ‘ Sis quoque Catholicis religionis apex: the ecclesiastical patronage of Chilperic i and Fredegund’, Church History lxxxi/1 (2012), 48–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Heinzelmann, Martin, Gregory of Tours: history and society in the sixth century, trans. Carroll, Christopher, Cambridge 2001, 29–30 Google Scholar.

26 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.11, 13, 16.

27 Ibid. iv.5–7, 11–12, 15, 31. On the ecclesiastical politics of Clermont see Wood, Ian, ‘The ecclesiastical politics of Merovingian Clermont’, in Wormald, Patrick, Bullough, Donald and Collins, Roger (eds), Ideal and reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon society, Oxford 1983, 34–57 Google Scholar. Heinzelmann suggests that Cato was actually a relation of Gregory's: Gregory of Tours, 25.

28 ‘Chramnus vero apud Arvernus diversa, ut diximus, exercebat mala, semper adversus Cautinum episcopum invidiam tenens’: Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16.

29 On Chramn's arrival see ibid. iv.9.

30 Chramn's supporters included Ascovindus, a vir magnificus of Clermont (Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, ii. 313; Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 136); Cato, presbyter and pseudo-bishop of Clermont (Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 155; Godding, Robert, Prêtres en Gaule mérovingienne, Brussels 2001, 481 Google Scholar; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 442–4); Imnacharius and Scapthar (Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 618; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1037, 1720); Count Salustius of Clermont (Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel, 212; Selle-Hosback, ‘Prosopographie merowingischer’, 153–4; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 72; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1699); and Wiliachar, whose identification with the presbyter mentioned by Gregory of Tours in De virtutibus sancti Martini episcopi 1.23, 3.13 has been questioned, but seems to me likely (Godding, Prêtres en Gaule mérovingienne, 521; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 239; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 2030; Hilchenbach, Kai Peter [ed.], Das vierte Buch der Historien von Gregor von Tours, Bern 2009, ii. 513–14Google Scholar). Luce Pietri suggests that Wiliachar was not actually ordained a priest until after Chramn had been defeated: La Ville de Tours du IVe au Vie siècle: naissance d'une cite chrétienne, Paris 1983, 227 n. 225Google Scholar.

31 His opponents included Duke Austrapius of Tours and Poitiers (Selle-Hosback, ‘Prosopographie merowingischer’, 51–2; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 34 and i. 80; Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 157; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 302); Bishop Cautinus of Clermont (Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux, ii. 36; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 155–6; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 446–7); Count Firminus of Clermont (Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel, 174–5; Selle-Hosback, ‘Prosopographie merowingischer’, 91–3; Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 71–2; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 775–6); Caesaria, wife of Count Britianus of Javols (Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel, 158; Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 258; Wood, ‘Ecclesiastical politics’, 48; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 385). Wood observes that ‘While in Clermont, [Chramn] emerged as the focus for those who were dissatisfied with the status quo’: Merovingian kingdoms, 83. Cf. Rouche, Michel, L'Aquitaine, des Wisigoths aux Arabes, 418–781: naissance d'une région, Paris 1979, 62–3Google Scholar.

32 ‘vilibus personis aetate iuvenele fluctuantibus’: Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.13.

33 ‘qui nominis sui tamquam leo erat in omni cupiditate saevissimus’: ibid. iv.16. Gregory also associated cupiditas, for example, with the hated King Chilperic: Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, 49–50.

34 Imnacharius and Scapthar, whom Gregory (iv.13) identifies only as ‘primus de latere suo’ (in reference to Chramn), should be included among this group. Bernard Bachrach identifies the two men as ‘leaders of [Chramn's] bodyguard’: Merovingian military organization, 481–751, Minneapolis 1972, 28 Google Scholar. On the seizure of the daughters of local senatores by Chramn's entourage see Rouche, Michel, ‘La Stratégie du pouvoir des lignages sénatoriaux d'Aquitaine (ve–viiie siècle)’, in Bréteau, Claude H. and Zagnoli, Nello (eds), Production, pouvoir et parenté dans le monde méditerranéen de Sumer à nos jours, Paris 1993, 147–74 at p. 170 Google Scholar, and Joye, Sylvie, La Femme ravie: le mariage par rapt dans les société du haut moyen âge occidental, Turnhout 2012, 212–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Gregory of Tours, Liber in gloria martyrum, 65. Gregory reports that the thieves fled to Orléans following their crime. That Chramn may already have been surrounding himself with partisans from Childebert's regnum could suggest possible preliminary support from Childebert even prior the establishment of an open alliance between uncle and nephew.

36 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.13. On these two families see Wood, ‘Ecclesiastical politics’, 48. On the counts of Clermont see also Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 70–3. On Gregory of Tours's personal hostility towards the Hortensii see Walter Goffart, ‘Foreigners in the Histories of Gregory of Tours’, in Goffart, Walter, Rome's fall and after, London 1989, 275–91 at pp. 282–3Google Scholar.

37 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.35.

38 On the political allegiance of Poitiers see Longnon, Auguste, Géographie de la Gaule au VIe siècle, Paris 1878, 561 Google Scholar. There is no evidence to suggest that Chramn's move to Poitiers was the result of a compromise between himself and Chlothar; c.f. Hilchenbach, Das vierte Buch der Historien von Gregor von Tours, ii. 509.

39 ‘Porro Chlotharius rex duos filios suos, id est Chariberthum et Gunthramnum, ad eum diriget. Qui per Arvernum venientes audientesque, quod in Lemovicino esset’: Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16.

40 Leo's civitas of origin is not compelling evidence for the suggestion that Chramn only met his accomplice after moving to Poitiers; cf. Hilchenbach, Das vierte Buch der Historien von Gregor von Tours, ii. 510.

41 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16. Marius of Avenches implies that Childebert encouraged Chramn's defection: ‘Eo anno Chramnus filius Chlothacarii regis sollicitanti Childeberto patruo suo ad ipsum latebram dedit’: Chronica, ed. Favrod, Justin, Lausanne 1993, s.a. 555Google Scholar. Childebert's actions may have been inspired in part by his anger over Chlothar's annexation of the entirety of Theudebald's regnum: Agathius, Historiarum libri quinque, ed. Keydell, Rudolf, Berlin 1967, ii.14.8–11Google Scholar. C.f. Rouche who suggests that it was the senatorial aristocracy of Poitiers who encouraged the alliance with Childebert: L'Aquitaine, 63. On Childebert's progeny see Martindale, J. R. (ed.), The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, ii, Cambridge 1971, 284–5Google Scholar, and Eugen Ewig, ‘Die Namengebung bei den ältesten Frankenkönigen und im merowingischen Königshaus’, in Ewig, Eugen, Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien, iii, ed. Becher, Matthias, Theo Kölzer and Ulrich Nonn, Munich 2009, 163–211 at p. 196 Google Scholar.

42 Rouche argues that Chlothar had already granted Chramn a ‘vice-kingdom’ centred at Clermont: L'Aquitaine, 64. Similarly, Hilchenbach suggests that Chramn exercised royal authority while in Clermont (either delegated by Chlothar or usurped): Das vierte Buch der Historien von Gregor von Tours, ii. 503. It is true that Gregory (iv.13) explicitly refers to Chramn as a rex in describing his time in Clermont, and that those lands under Chramn's supervision apparently also included Tours and Limoges (iv.16). None of this, however, assured Chramn's ultimate inheritance. See Wood, Merovingian kingdoms, 58–60, who explains Chramn's motivations as those of ‘a prince determined to have some share in the Merovingian Kingdom’. Wood (p. 92) also plausibly suggests that as the lone son of Chlothar and Chunsina, Chramn may have believed that his share in his father's inheritance was precarious. Régine Le Jan defines Chramn's status as ‘quasi royale’: ‘La Sacralité de la royauté mérovingienne’, Annales Histoire Sciences Sociales lviii (2003), 1217–41 at p. 1235 Google Scholar.

43 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16; Marius of Avenches, Chronica s.a. 556. On Chramn's military activities during this period see Bachrach, Merovingian military organization, 28–30. The Liber historiae francorum, ed. Krusch, Bruno, MGH, SRM, ii, Hanover 1888, 28 Google Scholar, adds to Gregory's account the unverifiable detail of Chramn taking treasure to Paris to win the support of Childebert; see Gerberding, Richard, The rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum, Oxford 1987, 36 Google Scholar.

44 Grierson, Philip and Blackburn, Mark, Medieval European coinage: the early Middle Ages (5th–10th centuries), Cambridge 1986, 91 (re. B 5492 = 5493 = P 34)Google Scholar.

45 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.20; Marius of Avenches, Chronica s.a. 560. Gregory's account explicitly parallels the actions of Chlothar and Chramn to those of David and Absalom: Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours, 205. T. M. Charles-Edwards suggests that Chramn inherited Breton support from Childebert: Wales and the Britons, 350–1064, Oxford 2013, 65–6Google Scholar. On his ally, Conomer, see also pp. 67–8.

46 On Chlothar's pilgrimage to the tomb of Martin, and his confession of sin, see Van Dam, Saints and their miracles, 23. On Marius of Avenches's dating of Chramn and Chlothar's deaths see Favrod, Justin, ‘Les Sources et la chronologie de Marius d'Avenches’, Francia xvii (1990), 1–21 at pp. 16–18 Google Scholar.

47 Besides the meeting in question, councils assembled in Saintes also in 561/7 and 579: Halfond, Archaeology, 229–31.

48 On the Council of Bordeaux (584/5) see ibid. 249.

49 On the political allegiance of Saintes see Longnon, Géographie, 555; Eugen Ewig, ‘Die fränkischen Teilungen und Teilreiche (511–613)’, in Ewig, Eugen, Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien, i–ii, ed. Atsma, Hartmut, Munich 1976–9, i. 114–71 at vol. i. 121Google Scholar. If the dating for the council proposed below is correct, then Chlothar's aforementioned intervention in an episcopal election of Saintes occurred in the aftermath of Chramn's failed revolt and Childebert's death. On Childebert's role in the convocations of the Councils of Orléans (533 and 549, and probably 538 and 541) and Paris (551/2) see Charles de Clercq, La Législation religieuse franque de Clovis à Charlemagne (507–814), Louvain 1936, 14–17, 20–35; Pontal, Histoire des conciles mérovingiens, 101–4, 107–32; and Halfond, Archaeology, 226–8.

50 Rouche, L'Aquitaine, 65 (carte 7).

51 Halfond, Archaeology, 70, 77–8.

52 Aigrain, Sainte Radegonde, 69.

53 See Handley, Mark, Death, society and culture: inscriptions and epitaphs in Gaul and Spain, AD 300–750, Oxford 2003, 35–56 Google Scholar. On the evolving use of the title in seventh-century royal charters as a marker of royal service see Bergmann, Werner, ‘Personennamen und Gruppenzugehörigkeit nach dem Zeugnis der merowingischen Konigsurkunden’, in Geuenich, Dieter, Haubrichs, Wolfgang and Jarnut, Jörg (eds), Nomen et Gens: zur historischen Aussagekraft frühmittelalterlicher Personennamen, Berlin 1997, 94–105 Google Scholar, and Reimitz, Helmut, History, Frankish identity and the framing of western ethnicity, 550–850, Cambridge 2015, 299–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 On the Leontii, and Leontius of Bordeaux specifically, see Griffe, Elie, ‘Un Évêque de Bordeaux au vie siècle: Léonce le Jeune’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique lxiv (1963), 63–71 Google Scholar; Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel, 188; Heinzelmann, Martin, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien, Munich 1976, 217–20Google Scholar; Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, iii. 774; George, Venantius Fortunatus, 70–4, 108–13; and Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1145–9. For a stemma of the Leontii, Ruricii, Aviti and Appolinares and their relations see Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel, 236–7.

55 i.e. the Basilicas of SS Vivien and Eutropius: Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina, i.12–13.

56 Longnon, Géographie, 545. Leontius may also have attended the Council of Orléans (549), convoked by Childebert i, although it is very possible that it was Leontius i who subscribed to the conciliar acts: Griffe, ‘Un Évêque de Bordeaux au vie siècle’, 63.

57 ‘Et sic principis est ulta iniuria’: Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.26.

58 Rouche, L'Aquitaine, 65 (carte 7). Leontius’ familial links to the Aviti-Apollinares and Ruricii families may have encouraged the bishop's interest in Chramn's Clermont and Limoges as well.

59 Agen: Bebianus (fl. 549) or Polemius (fl. 573)?; Angouleme: Abthonius (fl. 541/549)?; Perigueux: Sebaudis (fl. 541/2)? See respectively Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux, ii. 63, 68–9, 88.

60 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.18; Fredegar, Chronica, MGH, SRM ii, ed. Bruno Krusch, Hanover 1888, iii.52. Ultimately the appointment would be blocked by Charibert, who preferred an alternative candidate. Rouche hypothesises that Wiliachar replaced Austrapius as dux during the latter's exile: L'Aquitaine, 63.

61 Baudonivia, Vita Sanctae Radegundis liber ii, 5.

62 Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum iv.16. On Tetricus see Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit, i. 164; Pietri and Heijmans, Prosopographie de la Gaule chrétienne, 1863–5; and Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux, ii. 186–7. Van Dam suggests that Tetricius had a ‘low opinion’ of Chramn: Saints and their miracles, 58.

63 Halfond, ‘Charibert i’, 17–22, 24, re. the Councils of Paris (556/73; dated by Halfond to 561/4) and Tours (to 567). Cf., on the Council of Tours, Dumézil, Bruno, ‘Consultations épiscopales et délibérations conciliaires dans la Gaule du vie siècle’, in Charageat, Martine and Leveleux-Teixeira, Corinne (eds), Consulter, délibérer, décider: donner son avis au moyen âge (France-Espagne, VIIe–XVIe siècle), Toulouse 2010, 61–7 at pp. 73–5Google Scholar. The acts of the far less conciliatory Council of Saintes (561/7), which nevertheless were hand-delivered to the court of Charibert by Heraclius of Saintes, do not survive.

64 Leontius of Bordeaux attended both Paris (556/73) and Saintes (561/7), the latter along with his provincial suffragans.