Words of silence or silence in words:
Essay on the deconstruction ofHistoriarum Libri Decem by Gregory of Tours[*]
Shoichi Sato[*] This paper is an English version of myessay written in French and entitled “Textede silence ou silence du texte: essai de déconstruction des Historiarum Libri Decem deGrégoire de Tours. SITES. Journal of Studies
for the Integrated Text Science, Vol.1, No.1,(2003) pp.13-29; and also Japanese version
entitled “Shikyô Gregoriusu no Chinmoku”
published in “Yôroppa Chiyusei-sekai no
Dôtaizou. Collected papers dedicated to Prof.
Yoshiki Morimoto”, in 2004, Fukuoka, pp.
3-20. I would like to express my sincere gratitude here to anonymous reviewers for theirvaluable comments and suggestions.

“I have tried to discover what he did not say” Gisella de Nie, Views from a ManyWindowed Tower. Studies of Imagination in the Works of Gregory of Tours.
Abstract
This essay seeks, as the title shows, a deconstruction of texts which composed a famous historical accounting, the Historiarum Libri Decem, written by bishop Gregory of Tours, at theend of the 6th century. As the author, Gregory should have been completely free to choose thesubjects and narrative style to tell the events and persons in it. Nevertheless, there is a case atwhich the narratives on so complicated a series of events have to be forced to produce what theauthor did not have an intention to uncover. In Gregory’s Historiarum, the topic on the hostileand violent confrontations between the party of Sichar and the clan of Aunon, having peopleof the region of Tours shaken with fears for many years, by interrelating with a story of thearrival of royal delegate for tax imposing at the city, seems to give an unusual opportunity to
seize, otherwise unable, a historical reality all through the intertwining threads of event.

The curse of Gregory of Tours[1] I quote only studies that have appeared
relatively recently: M. Reydellet, La royautédans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville, (Rome, 1981), pp.
297-344; B. Brennan, The career of Venantius Fortunatus, Traditio, 41, 1985, pp. 49-78;
P. Godman, Orpheus among the Barbarians,
in Poets and Emperors. Frankish Politics andCarolingian Poetry, (Oxford, 1987), pp. 1-37;
J. George, Venantius Fortunatus. A Poet in
Merovingian Gaul, (Oxford, 1992). The author also recommends readers to refer to two

1

Gregory of Tours remains an invaluable author for all scholars of post-Romantimes in the West and especially in the region of Gaul. Invaluable, because hegives us a detailed and lively account of all the events and countless facts thatcreated a society in which Roman hegemony had recently ceased and because heis the only historian having bequeathed to us a wealth of memories on all aspects
and figures of sixth century Gaul. Without his significant contribution, we would
have remained ignorant of most of the events which took place on Roman Empire
soil during the very crucial times that shaped the future of European history.
True, there is also Venance Fortunat, who, thanks to his various writings,
brings us a myriad of valuable information on the officials that served the
Merovingian royal courts, not to mention his poetic works that praise the peopleof the royal entourage.[1] These works give us a glimpse into the unusual profiles
and personalities of the royal entourage, which Gregory chose to overlook forvarious reasons. However, it should straight away be added that the contributionof Fortunat, no matter how significant, is only complementary to Gregory’s work.
If the Histoires of Gregory had never come to light, thus providing the framework
which enables us to interpret the palatine activities, Fortunat’s data would havebeen largely deprived of its historical value in efforts to reconfigure the society of
the Royal Court at the time.[2]Certainly, one may quote the collection of correspondence exchanged be-

SPICILEGIUM: Online Journal of Japan Society for Medieval European Studies, VOL. 2 (2018)
Copyright © 2019 Japan Society for Medieval European Studies.

works of translations of his poetry into modern languages: Venance Fortunat, Poèmes. t.
1, Livres I-IV, t. 2, Livres V-VIII, text edited
and translated by M. Reydellet, (Paris, 1994
and 2003); Venantius Fortunatus: Personaland Political Poems, translated by J. George,(Liverpool, 1995).
[2] As for the Merovingian royal court, see
P. S. Barnwell, Kings, Courtiers & Imperium. The Barbarian West, 565-725, (London,
1997), pp. 5-53.
[3] Cf. P. Goubert, Chronologie des lettres
austrasiennes, in Mélanges d’histoire du Moyen Âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen,(Paris, 1951), pp. 293-295 ; Byzance avant
Islam. Byzance et l’Orient sous les successeursde Justinien, t. 2, Byzance et les Francs, (Paris,
1956).
[4] On the social function of the Merovingian
hagiography, cf. the pioneering book written by Czech medievalist F. Graus, Volk,
Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger. Studien zur Hagiographie der
Merowingerzeit, (Prague, 1965); B. Voss,
Berührungen von Hagiographie und Historiographie in der Spätantike, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Bd. 4, 1966, pp. 291-310 andparticulaly the synthesizing work of M. Van
Uytfanghe, Stylisation biblique et condition
humaine dans l’hagiographie mérovingienne(600-750), (Bruxelles, 1987).
[5] M. Heinzelmann et J.-Cl. Poulin, Les Vies
anciennes de sainte Geneviève de Paris. Études
critiques, (Paris, 1986).
[6] A. Jacobs, Géographie de Grégoire deTours. Le pagus et l’administration en Gaule,(Paris, 1858) ; M. Vieillard-Troiekouroff, Lesmonuments religieux de la Gaule d’après lesoeuvres de Grégoire de Tours, (Paris, 1976) ; M.
Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken Gregors von Tours, 2
vols, (Mainz, 1982).

2

tween the Merovingian kings and the emperors; letters commonly known as
Epistulae Austrasiacae, or perhaps, one can refer to the letters of the kingdom’s
prelates written under different circumstances and for various purposes.[3] The
former provide less information on the affairs that took place within the kingdom
but focus instead on the diplomatic relations between the two political entities.
The latter, written by the people of the Church, often provide details that lack any
historical context but nonetheless allow us to appreciate the importance of facts
recounted in great detail.
We clearly can never ignore the most characteristic form of Merovingian literature par excellence, i.e. the Lives of the Saints.[4] Even if the said Lives had
been written in greater numbers in the seventh century, and granted that froma historical perspective, the Lives of Saints written in that same century are far
more interesting, we shall nevertheless turn our attention to a select number ofsixth century hagiographic works. Let’s recall the valuable work published twenty years ago by M. Heinzelmann and J.-Cl. Poulin that renders the Life of St.
Genevieve of Paris its historicity having placed the writing style within the last
half of the fifth century.[5] Unfortunately, we do not have studies much alike on
the Lives of Saints in the sixth century, unless we take into account of the contemporary hagiographic works written by Venance Fortunat.
Here is a quick overview of the state of historical sources which we possess atpresent that allow us to study sixth century Gaul society, behind the lens of the
exceptionally rich content that defines the narrative of the Books of Histories of
Gregory of Tours. It is not surprising that many successive generations of historians have presented this text as a “mine to be explored” in order to find the evidence required for their own reconstruction of sixth century society, considering
the anemic record of the narrative texts from that time.[6] However an essential
issue emerges here; i.e. the issue of methodology which is inextricably linked tothe source and where all historical work rests on. Therefore, since the Books ofHistories of Gregory of Tours forms a semi-exclusive historical source, how can
we then attempt to elaborate an entirely different image of the past than thatwhich we are forced to appreciate? How can we free ourselves from such pressure, when we have no other contemporary source that would otherwise allow us
to put things into the perspective, to deny or confirm Gregory’s words? Here is
the fundamental challenge that all the medievalists must constantly account forwhen conducting research on the sixth century.
To avoid reaching dead ends, I suggest the deconstruction of the text in theBooks of Histories of Gregory of Tours. The present concern is how a text can be
deconstructed. One method would be to reconstruct the text that its author did
not dare to effectively express, for whichever reason, but where we can sense thesignificance, according to all forms and circumstances. I’d like to call this “thesilence in words”.
To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, allow me to clarify what I refer
to when I say “silence in words”. Silence in words is absolutely not the mere absence of such and such sentence or statement. Instead, it’s this gap that we could
not reasonably accept as simple ignorance or lack of attention. This is a silence
that is consciously and intentionally produced by Gregory, who conceals from hisreader certain underlying messages of his narrative. This imaginary part of thetext is of a strategic nature and should make it possible to highlight the real subject of the speech, buried in depth under the words printed on various matters.
Consequently, under this perspective I shall delve into three chapters of the

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

Books of Histories, which are spread among different parts of the said work, butwhich in my opinion are chained together by their protagonists and flow of affairs.
A tax affair in Tours in 589[7] For all of the relevant details concerning
the events in 589, refer to Greg. Turon. Historiarum. lib. IX, c. 30, M.G.SRM. 1, pars 1.
fsc. 2, pp. 448-449. As for the time of arrivalof the delegation, it is said reported that thesenior members of it spent the Saint Martin’s
day at Tours. We assume that the day belongs
to the celebration of ordination of the saint to
the episcopal cathedra of Tours as has been
supposed by Bruno Krusche in his edition of
Monumenta, namely on the 4th July, cf. Libri
de virtutibus sancti Martini episcopi, lib. IV,
c.6, M.G. SRM. 1, pars 2, pp. 200-201 anda translated text by R. van Dam in his bookentitled Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul, (Princeton, 1993), pp. 286-287.
[8] “ ...id est Florentianum maiorem domus
reginae et Romulfus palatii sui comitem, ...”,
ibid. p. 448.
[9] “ Multi enim ex his defuncti fuerant, et
ob hoc viduis orfanisque ac debilibus tributis
pondus insiderat.”, ibid.
[10] About his character and his unfavourable bearing against the autonomic aspects
that were enjoyed by the monastery of Sainte
Radegonde, see G. Scheibelreiter, “ Königstöchter im Kloster. Radegunde (†587) undder Nonnenaufstand von Poitiers (589)”,
Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische
Geschichtsforschung, t. 87, 1979, pp. 1-37, passim. He might have had a harsh and stubborn
personality.
[11] Greg. Turo. Historiarum. lib. VII, c. 24,
ibid. p. 344.
[12] Gregory cites the whole body of the textof the agreement between an uncle and his
nephew in Histoires. See Greg. Turo. Historiarum. lib. IX, c. 20, ibid. pp. 434-439. Concerning the political meaning of this agreement, refer to H. Grahn-Hoek, Die fränkische
Oberschicht im 6. Jahrhundert. Studien zu
ihrer rechtlichen und politischen Stellung, (Sigmaringen, 1976), pp. 260-263.
[13] “ Quod hi discutientis per ordinem relaxantes pauperes ac infirmus, illos quos iustitiae conditio tributarius dabat censo publico
subdiderunt.” Greg. Turon. Historiarum. lib.
IX, c. 30, ibid. pp. 448-449 ; M. Garaud, “ Unerévision des rôles de l’impôt personnel tributum capitis en Poitou à l’époque mérovingienne (589), Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1941, pp. 576-585.

3

One fine day in the summer of 589, the city of Tours was stunned by the visitof government officials whose purpose was to conduct a tax investigation.[7] Themayor of the palace of Queen Florentianus, and count Romulfus of the same palace, were in charge of this delegation.[8] Before coming to Tours, the delegation
had gone to Poitiers, under the orders of the Austrasian king Childebert II, accompanied by a troop of palatine officials, in order to conduct a census and to implement a fairer taxation system. According to Gregory of Tours, Maroveus, thebishop of Poitiers had lodged a complaint to the king, and this was the root cause
for the investigation. Maroveus had sent a petition to Childebert II, explainingthat due the city’s cadastral review having ceased for many years, widows, orphans and the disabled had to pay tax on behalf of deceased taxpayers.[9]Maroveus, the Bishop of Poitiers, was a loyal supporter of Austrasianroyalty.[10] Around 585, when King Guntram had tried to subject this city to thesovereignty of Burgundy, Maroveus planned the resistance against Guntram’sarmy, who was willing to ransack the city but without being able to bring it under
his rule.[11] However, the treaty of Andelot, concluded in 587 between Guntram
and Childebert had officially confirmed that the cities of Poitiers as Tours belonged to the kingdom of Austrasia.[12] We must therefore place the request of
the Poitevin bishop to the king of Austrasia within a context of political relations
between the two kingdoms. The arrival of a delegation with Florentianus as its
leader inaugurated the Austrasian government’s takeover of this city that had
just entered under its rule.
The royal officials fairly conducted the tax investigation to adjust the weightof the tax burden and they imposed contributions to those who had been exemptof their tax duties without good reason. The poor and the disabled are once again
exempt from any tax burden.[13] The officials successfully completed the always
sensitive task of applying a new tax system. The only task remaining was forthem to return to Austrasia and report to the king. However, things didn’t go asplanned and they headed for Tours.
The delegation changed their plan and decided to go back via Tours, as in
Poitiers they had unexpectedly obtained a tax inventory of Tours, where all directtax imposed on the inhabitants of the city of Tours was logged.
This is a well-known narrative in the Books of Histories of Gregory, whose
interpretation, especially with regard to the Merovingian tax system, for a longtime has been the subject of a great deal of attention.[14] Now, with the sudden
appearance of the royal delegates in Tours who had come to collect a public tax
from its fellow citizens, Bishop Gregory drew up a long speech to dissuade themfrom carrying out their fiscal assignment. Gregory would then insist that the cityof Tours had for a long time been favoured with the privilege of tax exemption
from the kings, of which the city of Saint Martin had benefited since Chlothar I.
His plea against public taxation in Tours is quoted in extenso in the translation ofO. M. Dalton, with some modifications:“‘It is clear that a register of tax-payers for the city of Tours was made in thereign of King Chlothar, and that the books were taken away to be submitted to the

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

[14] An ample bibliograhy on this question
can be found in J. Durliat, Les finances publiques de Dioclétien aux Carolingiens (284889), (Sigmaringen, 1990), pp. 310-314.

[15] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, translated with an introduction by O.
M. Dalton, Oxford Clarendon Press, (Oxford,
1927), vol. II, pp. 400-401.

[16] F. Thürlemann, Der historische Diskurs
bei Gregor von Tours. Topoi und Wirklichkeit,
Bern, 1974, pp. 74 et seq.

[17]

Cf. Libri de virtutibus sancti Marti-

ni episcopi, lib. IV, c.7, M.G. SRM, op.cit. p.
201 et R. Van Dam, op.cit. pp. 287-288. It is
possible that the purpose of travel to Galicia
that assumed Florentianus might have hadsomething to do with the royal coronation ofKing Miro in 569, on behalf of Childebert. Cf.
P. David, Études historiques sur la Galice et lePortugal du VIe au XIIe siècle, (Lisboa, 1947),
p.68, n.3.

4

king. But smitten with fear of the holy bishop Martin, he caused them to be burned.
After the death of King Chlothar our people took the oath of loyalty to King Charibert, who likewise solemnly swore not to make new laws or customs binding on
our people, but to secure to them the same condition under which they had lived in
his father’s reign; he further promised to inflict no new ordinances upon them which
would cause them loss. But Gaiso, then count, took the lists, made, as I have said, by
former assessors, and began to exact the tax. He was opposed by Bishop Eufronius,
but took the amounts which he had wrongfully collected, and went to the king, towhom he showed the tax inventory in which the sums due were set down. The king,sighing, yet fearing the power of the holy Martin, threw the inventory into the fireand returned the pieces of gold already extorted to the church of the saint, declaringthat no citizen of Tours should pay any tax to the royal treasury. After his death
King Sigibert possessed this city, but laid no burden of tribute upon it. And Childebert, now in the fourteenth year of his reign, hath likewise exacted nothing, nor haththe city had to groan under the pressure of any taxation. It lieth in your power toassess this tax or not; but be ye ware of the harm that shall ensue if ye prepare to go
against the oath of the king.’ To this speech of mine they replied: ‘Here in our hands isthe book in which is entered the tax imposed on the people of Tours.’ I retorted: ‘Thisbook hath not issued from the royal treasury, nor hath it been valid throughout allthese years. There is no reason for surprise if, through the enmities of the citizens, it
hath been preserved in the house of some private person. But God shall judge those
who, to despoil our city, have produced it after so great a tract of time.’ Meanwhile
the son of Audinus, who had actually produced the book, caught a fever that veryday, and died the next day but one. We then dispatched a mission to the king, petitioning him to send us notice of his commands with regard to this matter. Forthwitha letter was sent confirming the immunity of the people of Tours from all assessmentin veneration of the holy Martin. After it had been read, the men who had been sent
for this purpose returned home” [15]
As we have just seen, Gregory had mustered all his will and intelligence toconvince the king’s officials to abandon tax collection in Tours. Most probably
held at the bishop’s residence, he vividly describes the direct exchanges he hadwith the delegates where direct speech is one of the characteristics of the Gregorian narrative style.[16] Here, I’m under the impression that this narrative stylefully operates as the agent of textual meaning. Gregory wanted to stop the implementation of a new public tax at all costs. However, he had trouble dissuading
the tax collectors because they showed him a tax inventory that went against
his allegation. Florentianus was a dreadful person, yet a clever diplomat whom
Childebert had sent to King Miro in Galicia for an assignment whose subject is
unknown.[17] Finally, following the petition from Tours it was the hasty grantingof the privilege of tax exemption, which saved Gregory whose back was facing
the wall. We may believe that Childebert granted this favor thanks to the gratitude he had felt for Gregory’s collaboration in concluding the Andelot treaty with
Guntram approximately one year prior.
I have digressed for a while on a political matter which took place in 589, andwhich Gregory of Tours has certainly reconstructed retrospectively. Let us now
note that the son of a certain Audinus had handed the former tax inventory to theking’s delegates. The question that now emerges is where the royal delegation did
discover the existence of the former tax inventory of Tours and how it came into
their possession. Did this occur in Tours, or elsewhere? Let’s recall that it was at
the request of Bishop Maroveus of Poitiers that King Childebert sent a troop of

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

[18] Durliat, op. cit. pp. 310-314.

[19] Cf. Greg. Turo. Historiarum libri, lib.
VII, c. 47. ibid. pp.366-368.

royal officials to Poitiers. This motion did not start under a royal initiative. It istherefore reasonable to think that this delegation had not intended to visit a city
other than Poitiers, and that it was in Poitiers that the said delegation had obtained this essential inventory from the hands of Audinus’ son. The son and thewrongdoer also died of fever three days after this “crime”.
Historians of Merovingian taxation have not ceased to make reference tothis story and have given various explanations. One of the recent explanation isthat of Jean Durliat, which I summarize: the assignment of the royal envoys ofChildebert II in Poitiers was not to collect tax itself, but to conduct a tax assessment, with the aim of updating the tax register. The arrival of the palace people
would be a good indicator of this assumption because the tax base materials were
to be reserved both for the royal court and for the place where this tax base wasused for collection.[18] Let’s now follow his trail to gain a global understanding on
tax revision. Nevertheless, we disagree with his statement that the delegates had
not given up on the idea of a new census. The city of Tours, he says, was always
subject to public taxation owed according to the former base. Now, in order for hisarguments to hold ground, the story on the discovery of the former tax inventory
had to be erased in Gregory’s account, as a pretext that it was complete fiction.
But this is unlikely. It was precisely the discovery of the tax inventory which had
brought the royal officials to Tours in the hope of taxing people whereas this city
had the opportunity to be exempted for a long time.
The fact that the son of Audinus has stolen the tax inventory, in my opinion,
is key to understanding the story. Who, then, was Audinus? We have to go backby four years to answer this question.[19]Trigger and spread of bloody struggles: the Sichar feud in 585[20] At the dawn of modern positivist historiography G. Monod, Aventures de Sichar,
Revue Historique, t. 31, 1886, pp. 259-290,
treated the question of these interpretations
all through the history of Sichar. More recently, two following studies were produced
at the occasion of the international colloquium about the revenge in the early and central Middle Ages: Ph. Depreux, “Une faide
exemplaire? À propos des aventures de Sichaire: vengeance et pacification aux temps
mérovingiens” in La vengeance, 400-1200,
direct. par D. Barthélemy, F. Bougard et R.
Le Jan, ( Rome, 2006), pp.65-85; P. Geary,“Gabriel Monod, Fustel de Coulanges et les«aventures de Sichaire»: la naissance de l’histoire scientifique au XIXe siècle”, ibid. pp.8799.
[21] For more precise details of the city ofTours at the time of the episcopal reign ofGregory, see L. Piétri, La ville de Tours du IVe
au VIe siècle. Naissance d’une cité chrétienne,(Rome, 1983), pp. 247-334. I would place an

5Four years before the arrival of the tax assessing delegation in Tours, a series ofparticularly violent armed conflicts took place between two Tourangeau clans;
Sichar was the leader of one of the two clans. He was a young warrior of barely
twenty years of age, whose reputation was unparalleled by his daring actions andcruelty; we can consider him among the anti-heroes in the Books of Histories of
Gregory of Tours.[20] Gregory voluntarily took on the significant responsibilityof appeasing the tensions between the two opposing parties and thus bringing
them to peace, and as bishop of the city he became the most prestigious of all
Gaul bishops thanks to the fame of Saint Martin, one of his predecessors.[21] It
was all the more serious that Gregory had asked King Sigebert I, during his coronation in 573, to grant him the right to elect a city count, to whom he would ask
to take an oath of fidelity to the bishop himself.[22] As we shall see later, he musthave ensured peace among the two hostile clans through a judicial settlement inwhich he mediated them in a quite subtle manner. We must never fail to consider
that this text is the testimony of a man who was actively involved in ending theconflict in question.
As previously, we refer to the Dalton translation, chapter 47 of Book VII of
The History of the Franks:“A cruel feud now arose between citizens of Tours. While Sichar, the son of one
John, deceased, was celebrating the feast of Christmas in the village of Manthelan,[23] with Austregisel and other people of the district, the local priest sent a servant
to invite several persons to drink wine with him at his house. When the servant
came, one of the invited drew his sword and was brutal enough to strike, so that the

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

emphasis on the remarks and criticism proposed by Ian Wood againt the view that in
the Merovingian times, Tours’ prestigieous
standing was alredy established. See I. Wood,
The Individuality of Gregory of Tours, The
World of Gregory of Tours, ed. K. Mitchell /I. Wood, (Leyde / Boston / Cologne), 2002,
pp. 34 et seq.
[22] M. Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours. History and Society in the Sixth Century, (Cambridge, 2001), p. 40.
[23] As to Manthelan, see Des paroisses deTouraine aux communes d’Indre-et-Loire. La
formation des territoires, sous la directiond’Elisabeth Zadora-Rio, (Tours, 2008), passim.
[24] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. p. 321.
[25] E.R. Curtius, EuropäischeLiteratur undlateinische Mittelalter, 2nd ed. (Bern, 1954),
pp.158-159, E. Auerbach, Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen
Literatur, 3rd ed. (Bern / München, 1964),
pp.78seq.
[26] “ De hinc cum in iudicio civium convenissent et praeceptum esset, ut Austrigiselus,
qui homicida erat et, interfectis pueris, ressine audientia diripuerat, ...”, Greg. Turo. Historiarum, lib. VII, c.47, op.cit. p. 322.
[27] “ ...initio placito, paucis infra diebus Sicharius audiens, quod res, quas Austrighyselus direpuerat, cum Aunone et filio adqueeius fratre Eberulfo retinerentur, postposito
placito, coniunctus Audino, mota seditione,
cum armatis viris inruit super eos nocte,
elisumque hospicium, in quo dormiebant,patrem cum fratre et filio interemit resqueeorum cum pecoribus, interfectisque servis,
abduxit.”, ibid. p. 322.

[28] “ ... Et haec dicens, optuli argentum aeclesiae redemitur; sed pars Chramnesindi
quae mortem patris fratrisque et patrui requirebat, accepere noluit.” ibid. p.322.

6

man fell dead upon the spot. Sichar was bound by ties of friendship to the priest;
and as soon as he heard of the servant’s murder he seized his weapons and went tothe church to wait for Austregisel. He in his turn, hearing of this, took up his arms
and equipment and went out against him. There was an encounter between the twoparties; in the general confusion Sichar was brought safely away by some clerics,
and escaped to his country estate, leaving behind in the priest’s house money andraiment, with four wounded servants. After his flight, Austregisel burst into house,
slew the servants, and carried off the gold and silver and other property.” [24]This was the first phase of the clashes. We can already identify the particularly sharp literary style that Gregory uses to depict the scenes of struggles anddescribe how the feud evolved, leaving the reader with goosebumps. Indeed, thepen that outlines this bloody event is full of that dark glow. And the description isso much appreciated and admired by E. R. Curtius and E. Auerbach, great modern
masters of Latin literature, as if it were a mirror reflecting the realities of a society at the time.[25]After this horrible act of crime was committed, together with multiple murders, a legal plea was summoned to Tours to sentence Austregisil, who had to bepunished for his crimes.[26] It must be highlighted here that the court was not ina position to issue a sentence without a detailed investigation of what had happened and before both parties had been heard. The court was in fact an arbitration
tribunal and therefore the trial took some time to settle on a ruling. In the meantime, an incident occurred which launched the second phase of the chain of actsof revenge: knowing that the goods extracted by force by the hands of Austregisil
had been held under the roof of a certain Aunon and his son, as well as the latter’s
brother Eberulf, Sichar attacked and killed them together with his warriors andwith the help of Audin during the night, before walking away with the goods.
These goods were the cause Austregisil had committed this crime.[27]Gregory was furious because Sichar had made him lose face by neglecting
the agreement established under his own initiative and authority. I would like topoint out here that there came another aspect to the fore of this power confrontation with full of acts of violence. Instead of the confrontation between the partyof Sichar and that of Austregisil a plan rendering Sichar against Chramnesind,another son of Aunon, now surfaced. However, Gregory does not mention the relationship he had with Austregisil. There is no doubt that Chramnesind’s father,
Aunon, had a parental relationship with Austregisil, though the accuracy of thelatter is not confirmed.
Now, according to the law of the audientia episcopalis, that is the arbitratingrole of the bishop assisted by a judex, i.e. local court judge (probably the comes
civitatis in Tours), Gregory sent people to both parties to summon them to reconciliation in court and thus put an end to the violence. It was now Chramnesind,son of the late Aunon, who became the leader of the clan against Sichar. In spiteof all Gregory’s efforts, who had drawn a sum of money from the church treasury
to settle Sichar’s financial penalties, Chramnesind would refuse to accept peace.[28]We know that the Church of Tours, with Gregory in charge, was very eager torestore peace in the region, and that was of utmost importance for the Church andhe was willing to grant compensation money to Sichar.
Arbitration did not succeed and the two parties left the court separately. It
goes without saying that Sichar then became a target for Chramnesind in theact of revenge. This explains why Sichar had gone to see his wife, who lived in avilla in Poitou, before joining the king, for whom he hoped to provide protection

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

[29] “ Interm sonus in Toronicum exiit, Sicharium fuisse defunctum. Cum autem
haec Chramnesindus audisset, commonitis
parentibus et amicis, ad domum eius properat. Quibus spoliatis, interemptis nonnullis
servorum, domus omnes tam Sichari quam
reliquorum, qui participes huius villae erant,
incendio concremavit, abducens secum pecora vel quaecumque movere potuit.” ibid.
p.322-323[30] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. p.323.

[31] Formulae Andecavense, n.5 and n.6;
Marculfi Formularum Liber II, no. 18, MG.
LL. Formulae, t.1, pp.6-7, 88-89.

[32] Formulae Turonenses, n.38, ibid; p. 156.

7

for his own safety against possible attacks from avengers. During his stay in the
Poitevine property, an incident occurred: Sichar had been injured by a slave who
was angry because of a very severe punishment Sichar had inflicted on him. The
news of this incident suddenly spread and arrived in Tours though it was not thefact: instead of being wounded, Sichar should have been dead. This triggered thethird phase of the clash.
When Chramnesind heard the rumor, it was not long before he and his parents and friends mounted the assault on Sichar’s house, a villa near Tours. They
ravaged the house, killed servants and set homes on fire after having looted aherd of cattle.[29] For the third time, the judicial assembly was summoned to listen
to the two opposing parties and force them to put an end to the hostilities. Let us
quote once more the relevant passages in Dalton’s translation:“The parties were now summond by the count to the city, and pleaded their own
causes. The judges decided that he who had already refused a composition and thenburned houses down should forfeit half of the sum formerly awarded to him, wherein they acted illegally, to ensure the restoration of peace; they further ordered that
Sichar should pay the other moiety of the composition. The Church then provided
the sum named in the judgement; the parties gave security, and the composition waspaid, both sides promising each other upon oath that they would never make further
trouble against each other. So the feud came to an end ” [30]Now that revenge has been fully executed, there was no reason for Chramnesind not to make peace with Sichar, granted the pressure was imposed by thecivil goverment, which was responsible for peace in the city of Tours. For this reason Chramnesind accepted the arbitration proposed by the judges, although theamount of compensation that Sichar was to grant Chramnesind was reduced byhalf compared to what had been offered before. Let’s recall that it was the Churchof Tours, and not Sichar, who had paid compensation to Chramnesind. Indeed, it
was the Church of Tours, and therefore Gregory as bishop, who had orchestrated
all the pre-requisites intending to establish peace with subtlety.
There is another component that is extremely important to better understanding of the flow of events in this story. This concerns the security charter. As
we saw earlier in the quoted passages of Gregory of Tours, Sichar had obtained
a safety charter, in exchange for the financial compensation. It was forbidden toturn against the holder of such a document. The charter is an integral part of thepeace making process and characteristic to the settlement of vindictive disputes.
Unfortunate is the fact that we no longer have such a document at our disposal, because once the holder dies, there is no longer any reason to safeguard it fromloss. Fortunately, however, there are different formularies that inform us of thecontent of such a safety charter. The oldest of these are those found in the Anjou
or Marculfi formularies, which date from the last half of the seventh century;[31]but, since these are almost identical, it is best to refer here to the method found in
the formulary of Tours. Even if published at a later date, this is nevertheless moretrustworthy, I suppose, as it reflects the tradition of the region of Tours where the
Sichar feud took place.
The Tours safety charter begins with the following address: Fratri illo ego
enim ille.[32] Which quotes:“As everyone is aware, a few days ago, at the request of an enemy, of my brother,or relative, you committed murder, and later you admitted to the fact and you havecome to give your defense, in my presence, before the judge, and to fully explain thedeath of my relative, and you have granted sums of money, as agreed. For this rea-

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

[33] “Dum et omnibus habetur percognitum,
qualiter tu ante hos dies, instigante adversario, germano meo, vel quolibet parente, interfecisti, unde et postea ex hoc conprobatus
apparuisti, et ante me apud illum iudicem
exinde in rationes fuisti et pro integra conpositione pro iam dicto parente meo pro ipsa
morte , sicut mihi bene conplacuit, argentum
soledos tantos dedisti: ideo hanc epistolam
securitatis tibi ex hoc emittendam decrevi, ut
neque a me neque ab heredibus meis neque a
quolibet opposita vel emissa persona nullam
calumniam neque repetitionem de iam dicto
homicidio habere non pertimiscas, neque tu
neque nullus de parte tua, qui tecum com-son, I have decided to issue you this safety charter so that you, and all other persons
living under your roof, shall not fear any accusations or claims for this murder frommyself or from my heirs, or from any enemy or envoy, and as such live safely in all
your belongings. However if anyone, be it myself, one of my heirs, or anyone else,
dares to go against this charter or oppose it and if anyone who has not been stopped
by me or my heirs, or the person initiating the quarrel pays the tax to the fiscaltreasurer generously, all claims are without any effect, and any complaint is for thisreason and at all times rejected equally from me and my heirs. And this safety charter, together with its clauses, is approved with my signature or that of the elders, andshall never be repealed in the future.”[33]It is very likely that the secrity charter signed by Chramnesind was similar
to that contained in the formulary of Tours, drawn up in the eighth century. Having received the sum in addition to delivering this document, Chramnesind was
obliged to give up any intent of revenge for the brutal deaths of his father, brotherand uncle. Together with Sichar, they were finally forced to swear never to quarrel with one another ever again. Thus a series of violent conflicts that shook thewhole of Tours society came to an end.
I would like to believe that this was a victory for Gregory, who had tried at
all costs to stop the brutality, however, behind this apparent success, hatred andhostility were still sprouting.

morantur, sed ducti atque securi in omnibus exinde valeatis residere. Si quis vero,
si fuerit aut ego ipse aut ullus de heredibus
meis seu quislibet persona, qui contra hancsecuritatem venire aut agere vel refragare
temptaverit, et a me vel ab heredibus meis defensatum non fuerit, sociante fisco, qui litem
intulerit soledos tantos conponat, et sua repetitio nullum obteneat effectum, sed sit internos vel heredibus nostris ex hac re omniquetempore calcanda causatio. Et haec securitas
meis vel bonorum hominum manibus roborata cum stipulatione inserta diuturno tempore
maneat inconvulsa”. ibid.
[34] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. pp.387-388.

[35] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. p. 387.

8

Three years later...
The peace restored through the bitter efforts of the bishop and the civil government of Tours was not permanent, and according to Gregory, violent conflict between Sichar and Chramnesind “resumed with a new rage of violence” in 588.[34] It
is important to note that this rage took place precisely one year before the arrival
in Tours of the delegation in charge of tax investigation, led by Florentianus. This
arrival was in fact strangely linked to a new confrontation between Chramnesind and Sichar, something that has never been noticed thus far when studying
the Historiarum libri decem. Once again, we refer to Dalton’s translation to show
how the hatred between the two warriors of Tours broke out after three years ofinterval (Book IX, Chapter 19):
“After the murder of the kinsfolk of Chramnesind, Sichar formed a great friendship with him; so fond of one another did they grow that often they shared eachother’s meals and slept in the same bed. One evening Chramnesind made ready asupper, and invited Sichar. His friend came, and they sat down together to the feast.
But Sichar, letting the wine go to his head, kept making boastful remarks against
Chramnesind, and is reported at last to have said: ‘Sweet brother, thou owest me
great thanks for the slaying of thy relation; for the composition made to thee for their
death hath caused gold and silver toabound in thy house. But for this cause, which
established thee not a little, thou wert this day poor and destitute.’ Chramnesindheard these words with bitterness of heart, and said within himself: ‘If I avenge not
the death of my kinsmen, I deserve to lose the name of man, and to be called weak
woman.’ And straightway he put out the lights and cleft the head of Sichar withhis dagger. The man fell and died, uttering but a faint sound as the last breath left
him” [35]
It is essential to note the conduct of Chramnesind after he committed themurder of Sichar. As he often does in his writings, Gregory describes how Chramnesind tried to make up for this irreparable mistake but did so pithily without

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

trator hid the corpse of homocide victim. Cf.
also J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired
Kings and Other Studies in Frankish History,(London, 1962), pp.141-142.

sufficiently explaining the reason or the situation the lead player found himself
in. Here is a glimpse:“Chramnesind stripped the body of its garments, and hung it from a post of his
fence; he then rode away to the king. Entering the church, he prostrated himself at
the king’s feet, and said: ‘I ask of thee my life, most glorious king, for I have slain
men who secretly did to death my kinsmen and plundered all their possessions.’ Hethen set forth the whole matter in due order. But Queen Brunhild took it exceeding
ill that Sichar, who was under her protection, should have thus been slain, and broke
into a fury against Chrmanesind, who, seeing that she was set against him, gained
the village of Bourges in the territory of Bourges, where his kinsmen lived, because it
counted to the kingdom of Guntram. Tranquilla, wife of Sichar, left her children andher husband’s property in Tours and Poitiers, where she married again.”[36]When Chramnesind removed the clothes from Sichar’s body and then hung it
on a stake – rather than on a branch, as in Dalton’s translation – he undoubtedly
followed a custom of German origin according to which anyone claiming the legitimacy of a murder and intending to take an oath of purity in a court case, wasto expose to the public the naked corpse to show that the one who had been killed
was guilty of violating the peace. This arrangement in those days was performed
quickly soon after a murder was committed to avoid the risk of being charged
with concealment of murder, which was the subject of a more serious charge.[37]Let us not ignore that Chramnesind was a man clever enough to hide all traces
in order to conceal the crime scene from the eyes of a number of eyewitnesses. It
all happened in complete darkness. Nevertheless, he may still be considered as a
victim of an eruption of anger provoked by the insults of Sichar.
According to Gregory, Chramnesind immediately left the scene of thisbloody tragedy to go and explain his action and ask King Childebert II to forgive
him. I wonder, though, whether Chramnesind rode alone and was confident that
he would be able to meet the king in order to defend himself and explain thelegitimacy of his murderous act. I’ll allow myself here to be a little more daring
and to launch a seemingly necessary, though uncalled, assumption to fill the information gaps and thus bring it to fruition. It is highly likely that Chramnesindsought Gregory’s advice immediately after Sichar’s assassination, as he had killed
Sichar in a moment of violent passion and he did not know how to deal with thetragic situation he had caused.
It was therefore better for Chramnesind to ask for the bishop’s help who had
assumed, three years prior, to settle the conflicts between the two clans and had
every interest in preventing the acts of revenge that could have emerged fromthis murder. As he faced a man who was clearly in distress, Gregory the peace
keeper, could quite possibly have thought that eradicating the contagion of endless conflicts was a must, at any price and for good. He would have thus reacted
without delay and in the interest of Chramnesind because Sichar was now dead.
The bishop could have suddenly taken the decision to abandon his position ofneutral mediator between the two parties and in this case to act in favor of Chramnesind.
In my opinion, the Bishop of Tours gave Chramnesind a letter of recommendation which in turn gave Chramnesind a greater chance of direct access to theKing in order to defend his position, or perhaps Gregory offered him one or morechaperones who could support him in the royal court. Despite the strategic steps
carefully taken by the bishop, Chramnesind’s first contact with the king did not
bear fruit because of opposition expressed by Queen Brunehaut, to whom Sichar

9

Spicilegium 2 (2018)[36] Ibid. pp.387-388.

[37] Cf. Lex Salica, § 41, 2; Lex Ribuaria, §80(77), M.G. LL, Sectio 1, t. 4, pars 2, p.115; t.
3, pars 2, p.129. Concerning the clauses stipulating that a crime commited concealdly wasconsidered worse and the fine to be paid to thekinsmen of the victim higher when the perpe-surkunde. Diplomatische Studien zum Problem der Kontinuität zwischen Altertum undMittelalter, (Thessaloniki, 1977), pp. 16-41.

had been the protégé, as read in Gregory’s account. For the queen, Chramnesind
was, for whatever reason, the murderer of the darling person she favored. It was
impossible for Chramnesind not to be punished. Perhaps, still under the guidance of the bishop, Chramnesind had taken shelter in Burgundy, at his parents,
until Gregory was able to convince the king to grant the latter a royal pardon in
Chramnesind’s favor. If Chramnesind was able to acquire the right to present
himself before the king and to again have the possibility to ask for forgiveness,this then regards an act of lobbying, i.e. a subtle arrangement made by the bishopof Tours. Moreover, when he writes “Sichar was about twenty years of age when hedied. In life he was a light fellow, wine-bibber and man-slayer, who did violence tomany in his drunkness”,[38] it is very likely that these were the exact words he used
to convince the king.
But there is yet another element worth discussing, which is just as importantfor our intention. This is the post-mortem story of Sichar, or more precisely thatof the deceased’s wife. Her name was Tranquille, the bearer of Sichar’s children,
and was the owner of properties in Touraine and Poitou. She had lived with her
children on her property in Poitou.[39] According to Gregory, after the death ofher husband, she returned to her parents’ home in the Troyes region to remarry,leaving behind her children and assets.[40] Now, what became of the abandoned
children? Were they considered orphans to be raised by monastic order? This
assumption is unlikely. The children of the deceased leader of a warrior clan were
not to be treated like ordinary children of laypeople who saw hopelessness intheir future. It is possible that supporters of the Sichar clan took charge of raisingthem in a villa previously owned by their leader. After the fall of Sichairian rule,
many of these supporters had to move their operations to this region of Poitou,
whose precise location unfortunately escapes us. I suppose Audinus’ son, whose
father belonged to Sichar’s clan, was also among the supporters, who had joined
Sichar during his nocturnal intrusion into the house of Chramnesind’s father andparticipated in the mass killing.[41] It is necessary to take into account the Sichairian clan’s move to the Poitou location and, it is in this context that one should
perhaps understand the slightly suspicious behavior of Sichar’s widow.
To end this part of the account on Sichar’s death and its ensuing unfolding, aseries of judicial and administrative proceedings should be noted concerning thereturn of Chramnesind’s assets, which the Merovingian state had seized on theorder of Brunehaut. I would like to immediately point out how the state system
worked at the time, and why it was normal to seize the property of Chramnesind.
The judicial system considered him a murderer and as such seized his property.
Consequently, a reversal of state opinion, namely the return of seized property,
turns out to be an unexpected, irregular intervention upon the decision of thestate facility, and this is what Gregory of Tours managed to achieve for the benefitof Childebert II.
It is interesting to note that this State does have a seemingly well-establishedprocedure. First of all, Chramnesind met Flavian domesticus at the royal court
who was in charge of the management of the royal treasury, in which the seizedproperty was legally incorporated.[42] Flavian returned the assets under a legal
title, which had to be a kind of rescriptum, as in the imperial era.[43] Chramnesindthen sought the guidance of a certain Aginus, perhaps a duke who ruled the district of Touraine, in order to request the return of his property’s full ownership.[44]This is the final chapter in the conflict resolution process, where the twoclans of Tours fought each other in a bloody and cruel manner, and which Greg-

10

Spicilegium 2 (2018)[38] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. p. 388.

[39] “His discentibus, Sicharius iter, ut
ad regem ambularet, praeparat, et ob hoc
Pectavum ad uxorem cernendam proficiscitur.”, Greg. Turo. Historiarum. lib. VII, c.47,
MG. SRM. t. 1, pars 1, p. 367.
[40] Cf. Grégoire de Tours, Histoire desFrancs, trans., par R. Latouche, nouvelle édition, Les Belles Lettres, (Paris,1999), (vol.2)
p. 205 and n. 33. In this note, Latouche relys
on solely August Longnon’s identification ofvicus Mauriopes.

[41] Gregory of Tours, The History of theFranks, op. cit. p.322.

[42] About the function adminstrative thata domesticus took charge of, see A. Carlot,
Étude sur le domesticus franc, (Liège, 1903).
[43] Cf. P. Classen, Kaiserreskript und König-[44] Greg. Turo. Historiarum, lib. IX, c.19,
op. cit. p. 388.
[45] Ibid.

ory often describes in a manner that makes us shiver.
Yet there is still another item to discuss, undoubtedly the most important
issue for our intended purpose: epistolam eius elicuit, ut a nullo contingeretur.[45]The security charter that guaranted him protection against any possible attack.
Revenge on Gregory himself?

[46] E. James, “beati pacifici”: bishops and the
Law in Sixth-Century Gaul, ed. J. Bossy, Disputes and Settlements. Law and Human Relations in the West, (Cambridge, 1983), p. 25.

11

Should our assumption be confirmed, that Gregory took more or less subtle action in person to recover the peace in Tours, by convincing among others, Austrasian royalty and by negotiating with public order officials to provide Chramnesind a security charter emanating from royal authority, instead of disputes,
should exempt him from all claims, it is clear that hostility or hate was felt by the
supporters of the Sichar clan against the very person who had worked to settle theconflicts, namely against Gregory who had taken over the role of the good shepherd of the beati pacifici in Tours.[46] In the political culture of the sixth century
Franco-Roman warriors in Gaul, the right of revenge belonged to a code of honor that must be followed to save face, and therefore one’s honor. Preventing theexercise of such a right would have provoked a fierce frustration in the victims’clan, which would have quickly transformed into hatred towards anyone who had
attempted to obtain the royal pardon for Chramnesind and thus granting him
personal security.
All that we have described above happened a year before the arrival of theroyal delegation in charge of the tax investigation in Tours in 589. As we mentioned above, this feud was at the source of this unexpected visit of a group of
tax officials from the Austrasian kingdom in Tours: the handover of a former tax
register of Tours, which made possible immediate tax collection, or at the very
least the revision of the former register in order to quickly carry out tax collection thereafter. The one who handed over this former tax inventory of Tours toa leader of the delegation at Poitiers was the son of a certain Audinus, who was
one of Sichar’s friends. In my opinion, this presumption corresponds perfectly tothe circumstances following the settlement of the conflicts between Sichar andAustregisil-Chramnesind.
The arrival of the royal delegates was, so to speak, the result of the combination of two sets of circumstances: the first was the objective of the delegationof tax auditors and the second was the sequence of struggles between the two
Tours clans. The merging point therefore is the son of Audinus, where both thetax structure and the political culture of revenge met and rooted in this region at
the end of the sixth century. The crucial question is therefore, why did Audinus’
anonymous son, having stolen the former tax inventory of Tours, give it to themayor of the palace of the Queen of Austrasia? Whatever the reason was reason
and to what extent the inventory’s handover was made, thus granting the state
power to collect taxes could have been a revenge against Bishop Gregory. Amongthe possibilities, the risk of the bishop is losing the right to tax exemption. It wasa final and effective objective, which could have had serious consequences on thefinances of the church of Tours. The latter had enjoyed tax exemption for quite along time, which enabled the church to hold all income received by way of publictaxation. This was not a case of increasing public taxation as a result of a simple
census. It could be demanded that arrears be returned to the Royal Tax Authorityof Austrasia for previous years.
When Gregory of Tours had realized that it was he, himself who had been

Spicilegium 2 (2018)

[47] “Non est mirum enim, si pro inimicitiis horum civium in cuiuscumque domo reservatus..”, Greg. Turo. Historiarum. lib IX,
c. 30, op. cit. p. 449. I would stress here therightfulness of the identification that I have
tried, concerning the son of a certain Audinus and a son of the person who attacked theresidence belonging to the clan of Chramnesind at Tours. M. Heinzelmann developedin his remarkable study cited above (see n.
22) his own interpretation about the arrivalof the Austrasian delegation of Florentianus
at Tours for the sake the fiscal inquiry. He
doesn’t take account however of the historical background in Tours of which the major
political scenery had been dominated by the
Sicharien affair from a few years back, andhe identifies only marginal activities within
the magistrate entity of Tours. It seems to me
that an application of the word “civium” corresponds completely with the semantic point ofview to an expression for which Gregory himself used in livre VII, chapitre 47, in order toaccount for a series of bloody confrontations
between the two hostile clans; “ Gravia tunc
inter Toronicos cives bella civilia surexerunt”.

the target of revenge, and had understood the subtlety and perversity of Audinus
son’s plan, he must have been terrified. The words he uttered to Florentianus andhis officials, pro inimicitiis horum civium[47] (“because of the hostilities of these inhabitants of Tours”), were the very words of someone who understood the underlying motivation of the craftsman who devised this disaster. That’s why he triedso hard to convince the tax officials, who came from afar, to give up tax collectionin Tours. The stake of this bitter effort was, truly, to reinforce the prestige andthe popularity of the Bishop of Tours, which had to act as a defender of interestsand benefactor to the loyal Tours inhabitants. The bishop was therefore in a very
difficult situation even before Childebert had ordered Florentianus to give up tax
collection in the city of Tours. It is more than likely that the death following a malignant fever of which the son of Audinus was a victim, was fiction, and this may
be consistent with the fact that Gregory refrained from mentioning the name ofthe son of Audinus. His dislike against Audinus’ son is representing his fear to thedanger that this person had subjected him.
Conclusion
We have attempted to identify what Gregory was hastened to account in details
in his Books of Histories and to reveal the reasons he kept in silence. I believe that
this silence covered two aspects that, though at the beginning were mutually exclusive, yet interrelated due to a desire for revenge: the first was Gregory’s subtle
intervention to interrupt the vicious cycle of revenge, and the second was the tax
system that the people of Merovingian kingdoms had to endure. It is suitable toadd here an additional analysis to better define this last aspect. What Gregory did
not allude in his speeches addressed to the delegation was the complex relationship between tax exemption and tax collection by the Church of Tours, by way ofthe charitable alms. Even though both aspects were in fact like two sides of thesame coin, and integral to one another, Gregory presented these in his speech
as two distinct entities, without hinting at any real relation between them. Tax
exemption had not been manifested at a people level that would otherwise grant
them the complete and total freedom from the tax burden. Common laymen perhaps were requested to pay a moderate portion – probably a tenth of their income
and/or resources to the Church. As the head of the Church, Gregory refrained
from talking about this matter all together. This payment of a pseudo tax to the
Church should not be considered as a corollary to a tax system but as a voluntary
gift contributed under the impetus of the charitable spirit. The son of Audinus
knew how to benefit from the Church’s state of puzzlement.
As we suggested above, the “silence in words” framework takes root at thecrossroad between Sichar’s violent affair and that of the arrival of the delegationof tax assessment in Tours. When looking behind the lens of this fictional text,
questions emerge when reading the Books of Histories. On the one hand there is aperspective that shifts from that of Gregory, and on the other hand we are therefore able to somehow free ourselves from the curse casted on Gregory.
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Japan

12

Spicilegium 2 (2018)