E-text prepared by Melissa McDaniel
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
([http://www.pgdp.net])
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
([http://www.archive.org])

Transcriber's Note:

Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation in the original document have been preserved.

A SOURCE BOOK OF
MEDIÆVAL HISTORY
DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF EUROPEAN LIFE AND
INSTITUTIONS FROM THE GERMAN INVASIONS
TO THE RENAISSANCE

EDITED BY
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, A.M.
ASSISTANT IN HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
AND INSTRUCTOR IN SIMMONS COLLEGE

NEW YORK · : · CINCINNATI · : · CHICAGO

AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY

Copyright, 1907, by
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG

Entered at Stationers' Hall, London
W. P. 4

PREFACE

This book has been prepared in consequence of a conviction, derived from some years of teaching experience, (1) that sources, of proper kind and in carefully regulated amount, can profitably be made use of by teachers and students of history in elementary college classes, in academies and preparatory schools, and in the more advanced years of the average high school, and (2) that for mediæval history there exists no published collection which is clearly adapted to practical conditions of work in such classes and schools.

It has seemed to me that a source book designed to meet the requirements of teachers and classes in the better grade of secondary schools, and perhaps in the freshman year of college work, ought to comprise certain distinctive features, first, with respect to the character of the selections presented, and, secondly, in regard to general arrangement and accompanying explanatory matter. In the choice of extracts I have sought to be guided by the following considerations: (1) that in all cases the materials presented should be of real value, either for the historical information contained in them or for the more or less indirect light they throw upon mediæval life or conditions; (2) that, for the sake of younger students, a relatively large proportion of narrative (annals, chronicles, and biography) be introduced and the purely documentary material be slightly subordinated; (3) that, despite this principle, documents of vital importance, such as Magna Charta and Unam Sanctam, which cannot be ignored in even the most hasty or elementary study, be presented with some fulness; and (4) that, in general, the rule should be to give longer passages from fewer sources, rather than more fragmentary ones from a wider range.

With respect to the manner of presenting the selections, I have sought: (1) to offer careful translations—some made afresh from the printed originals, others adapted from good translations already available—but with as much simplification and modernization of language as close adherence to the sense will permit. Literal, or nearly literal, translations are obviously desirable for maturer students, but, because of the involved character of mediæval writings, are rarely readable, and are as a rule positively repellent to the young mind; (2) to provide each selection, or group of selections, with an introductory explanation, containing the historical setting of the extract, with perhaps some comment on its general significance, and also a brief sketch of the writer, particularly when he is an authority of exceptional importance, as Einhard, Joinville, or Froissart; and (3) to supply, in foot-notes, somewhat detailed aid to the understanding of obscure allusions, omitted passages, and especially place names and technical terms.

For permission to reprint various translations, occasionally verbatim but usually in adapted form, I am under obligation to the following: Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin and Co., publishers of Miss Henry's translation of Dante's De Monarchia; Messrs. Henry Holt and Co., publishers of Lee's Source Book of English History; Messrs. Ginn and Co., publishers of Robinson's Readings in European History; Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, publishers of Thatcher and McNeal's Source Book for Mediæval History; Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons, publishers of Robinson and Rolfe's Petrarch; and Professor W. E. Lingelbach, of the University of Pennsylvania, representing the University of Pennsylvania Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History.

In the preparation of the book I have received invaluable assistance from numerous persons, among whom the following, at least, should be named: Professor Samuel B. Harding, of the University of Indiana, who read the entire work in manuscript and has followed its progress from the first with discerning criticism; Professor Charles H. Haskins, of Harvard University, who has read most of the proof-sheets, and whose scholarship and intimate acquaintance with the problems of history teaching have contributed a larger proportion of whatever merits the book possesses than I dare attempt to reckon up; and Professors Charles Gross and Ephraim Emerton, likewise of Harvard, whose instruction and counsel have helped me over many hard places.

The final word must be reserved for my wife, who, as careful amanuensis, has shared the burden of a not altogether easy task.

FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG.

Cambridge, Mass.

INTRODUCTION

THE NATURE AND USE OF HISTORICAL SOURCES

If one proposes to write a history of the times of Abraham Lincoln, how shall one begin, and how proceed? Obviously, the first thing needed is information, and as much of it as can be had. But how shall information, accurate and trustworthy, be obtained? Of course there are plenty of books on Lincoln, and histories enough covering the period of his career to fill shelf upon shelf. It would be quite possible to spread some dozens of these before one's self and, drawing simply from them, work out a history that would read well and perhaps have a wide sale. And such a book might conceivably be worth while. But if you were reading it, and were a bit disposed to query into the accuracy of the statements made, you would probably find yourself wondering before long just where the writer got his authority for this or that assertion; and if, in foot-note or appendix, he should seem to satisfy your curiosity by citing some other biography or history, you would be quite justified in feeling that, after all, your inquiry remained unanswered,—for whence did this second writer get his authority? If The question of authority in a book of history you were thus persistent you would probably get hold of the volume referred to and verify, as we say, the statements of fact or opinion attributed to it. When you came upon them you might find it there stated that the point in question is clearly established from certain of Lincoln's own letters or speeches, which are thereupon cited, and perhaps quoted in part. At last you would be satisfied that the thing must very probably be true, for there you would have the words of Lincoln himself upon it; or, on the other hand, you might discover that your first writer had merely adopted an opinion of somebody else which did not have behind it the warrant of any first-hand authority. In either case you might well wonder why, instead of using and referring only to books of other later authors like himself, he did not go directly to Lincoln's own works, get his facts from them, and give authority for his statements at first hand. And if you pushed the matter farther it would very soon occur to you that there are some books on Lincoln and his period which are not carefully written, and therefore not trustworthy, and that your author may very well have used some of these, falling blindly into their errors and at times wholly escaping the correct interpretation of things which could be had, in incontrovertible form, from Lincoln's own pen, or from the testimony of his contemporaries. In other words, you would begin to distrust him because he had failed to go to the "sources" for his materials, or at least for a verification of them.

How, then, shall one proceed in the writing of history in order to make sure of the indispensable quality of accuracy? Clearly, the first thing to be borne in mind is the necessity of getting information through channels which are as direct and immediate as possible. Just as in ascertaining the facts regarding an event of to-day it would be desirable to get the testimony of an eye-witness rather than an account after it had passed from one person to another, suffering more or less distortion at every step, so, in seeking a trustworthy description of the The superiority of direct sources of knowledge battle of Salamis or of the personal habits of Charlemagne, the proper course would be to lay hold first of all of whatever evidence concerning these things has come down from Xerxes's or Charlemagne's day to our own, and to put larger trust in this than in more recent accounts which have been played upon by the imagination of their authors and perhaps rendered wholly misleading by errors consciously or unconsciously injected into them. The writer of history must completely divest himself of the notion that a thing is true simply because he finds it in print. He may, and should, read and consider well what others like himself have written upon his subject, but he should be wary of accepting what he finds in such books without himself going to the materials to which these writers have resorted and ascertaining whether they have been used with patience and discrimination. If his subject is Lincoln, he should, for example, make sure above everything else, of reading exhaustively the letters, speeches, and state papers which have been preserved, in print or in manuscript, from Lincoln's pen. Similarly, he should examine with care all letters and communications of every kind transmitted to Lincoln. Then he should familiarize himself with the writings of the leading men of Lincoln's day, whether in the form of letters, diaries, newspaper and magazine articles, or books. The files, indeed, of all the principal periodicals of the time should be gone through in quest of information or suggestions not to be found in other places. And, of course, the vast mass of public and official records would be invaluable—the journals of the two houses of Congress, the dispatches, orders, and accounts of the great executive departments, the arguments before the courts, with the resulting decisions, and the all but numberless other papers which throw light upon the practical conditions and achievements of the governing powers, national, state, and local. However much one may be able to acquire from the reading of later biographies and histories, he ought not to set about the writing of a new book of the sort unless he is willing to toil patiently through all these first-hand, contemporary materials and get some warrant from them, as being nearest the events themselves, for everything of importance that he proposes to say. This rule is equally applicable and urgent whatever the subject in hand—whether the age of Pericles, the Roman Empire, the Norman conquest of England, the French Revolution, or the administrations of George Washington—though, obviously, the character and amount of the contemporary materials of which one can avail himself varies enormously from people to people and from period to period.

History is unlike many other subjects of study in that our knowledge of it, at best, must come to us almost wholly through indirect means. That is to say, all our information regarding the past, and most of it regarding our own day, has to be obtained, in one form or another, through other people, or the remains that they have left behind them. No one of us can know much about even so recent an event as the Indirect character of all historical knowledge Spanish-American War, except by reading newspapers, magazines and books, talking with men who had part in it, or listening to public addresses concerning it—all indirect means. And, of course, when we go back of the memory of men now living, say to the American Revolution, nobody can lay claim to an iota of knowledge which he has not acquired through indirect channels. In physics or chemistry, if a student desires, he can reproduce in the laboratory practically any phenomenon which he finds described in his books; he need not accept the mere word of his text or of his teacher, but can actually behold the thing with his own eyes. Such experimentation, however, has no place in the study of history, for by no sort of art can a Roman legion or a German comitatus or the battle of Hastings be reproduced before mortal eye.

For our knowledge of history we are therefore obliged to rely absolutely upon human testimony, in one form or another, the value of such testimony depending principally upon the directness with which it comes to us from the men and the times under consideration. If it reaches us with reasonable directness, and represents a well authenticated means of studying the period in question from the writings or other An "historical source" defined traces left by that period, it is properly to be included in the great body of materials which we have come to call historical sources. An historical source may be defined as any product of human activity or existence that can be used as direct evidence in the study of man's past life and institutions. A moment's thought will suggest that there are "sources" of numerous and widely differing kinds. Roughly speaking, at least, they fall into two great groups: (1) those in writing and (2) those in some form other than writing. The first group is by far the larger and more important. Foremost in it stand annals, chronicles, and histories, written from time to time all along the line of human history, on the cuneiform tablets of the Assyrians or the parchment rolls of the mediæval monks, in the polished Latin of a Livy or the sprightly French of a Froissart. Works of pure literature also—epics, lyrics, dramas, essays—because of the light that they often throw upon the times in which they were written, possess a large value of the same general character. Of nearly equal importance is the great class of materials which may be called documentary—laws, charters, formulæ, accounts, treaties, and official Written sources orders or instructions. These last are obviously of largest value in the study of social customs, land tenures, systems of government, the workings of courts, ecclesiastical organizations, and political agencies—in other words, of institutions—just as chronicles and histories are of greatest service in unraveling the narrative side of human affairs.

Of sources which are not in the form of writing, the most important are: (1) implements of warfare, agriculture, household economy, and the chase, large quantities of which have been brought to light in various parts of the world, and which bear witness to the manner of life prevailing among the peoples who produced and used them; (2) coins, hoarded up in treasuries or buried in tombs or ruins of one sort or another, Sources other than in writing frequently preserving likenesses of important sovereigns, with dates and other materials of use especially in fixing chronology; (3) works of art, surviving intact or with losses or changes inflicted by the ravages of weather and human abuse—the tombs of the Egyptians, the sculpture of the Greeks, the architecture of the Middle Ages, or the paintings of the Renaissance; (4) other constructions of a more practical character, particularly dwelling-houses, roads, bridges, aqueducts, walls, gates, fortresses, and ships,—some well preserved and surviving as they were first fashioned, others in ruins, and still others built over and more or less obscured by modern improvement or adaptation.

These are some of the things to which the writer of history must go for his facts and for his inspiration, and it is to these that the student, whose business is to learn and not to write, ought occasionally to resort to enliven and supplement what he finds in the books. As there are many kinds of sources, so there are many ways in which such materials may be utilized. If, for example, you are studying the life of the Greeks and in that connection pay a visit to a museum of fine arts and scrutinize Greek statuary, Greek vases, and Greek coins, you are very clearly using sources. If your subject is the church life of the later Middle Ages and you journey to Rheims or Amiens or Paris to contemplate the splendid cathedrals in these cities, with their spires Various ways of using sources and arches and ornamentation, you are, in every proper sense, using sources. You are doing the same thing if you make an observation trip to the Egyptian pyramids, or to the excavated Roman forum, or if you traverse the line of old Watling Street—nay, if you but visit Faneuil Hall, or tramp over the battlefield of Gettysburg. Many of these more purely "material" sources can be made use of only after long and sometimes arduous journeys, or through the valuable, but somewhat less satisfactory, medium of pictures and descriptions. Happily, however, the art of printing and the practice of accumulating enormous libraries have made possible the indefinite duplication of written sources, and consequently the use of them at almost any time and in almost any place. There is but one Sphinx, one Parthenon, one Sistine Chapel; there are not many Roman roads, feudal castles, or Gothic cathedrals; but scarcely a library in any civilized country is without a considerable number of the monumental documents of human history—the funeral oration of Pericles, the laws of Tiberius Gracchus, Magna Charta, the theses of Luther, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States—not to mention the all but limitless masses of histories, biographies, poems, letters, essays, memoirs, legal codes, and official records of every variety which are available for any one who seriously desires to make use of them.

But why should the younger student trouble himself, or be troubled, with any of these things? Might he not get all the history he can be expected to know from books written by scholars who have given their lives to exploring, organizing, and sifting just such sources? There can be no question that schools and colleges to-day have the use of better text-books in history than have ever before been available, and that truer notions of the subject in its various relations can be had from even the most narrow devotion to these texts than could be had from the study of their predecessors a generation ago. If the object of studying history were solely to acquire facts, it would, generally speaking, be a waste of time for high school or younger college students to wander far from text-books. But, assuming that history is studied not alone for the mastery of facts but also for the broadening of culture, and for certain kinds of mental training, the properly regulated use of sources by the student himself is to be justified on at least three grounds: (1) Sources The value of sources to the student help to an understanding of the point of view of the men, and the spirit of the age under consideration. The ability to dissociate one's self from his own surroundings and habits of thinking and to put himself in the company of Cæsar, of Frederick Barbarossa, or of Innocent III., as the occasion may require, is the hardest, but perhaps the most valuable, thing that the student of history can hope to get. (2) Sources add appreciably to the vividness and reality of history. However well-written the modern description of Charlemagne, for example, the student ought to find a somewhat different flavor in the account by the great Emperor's own friend and secretary, Einhard; and, similarly, Matthew Paris's picture of the raving and fuming of Frederick II. at his excommunication by Pope Gregory ought to bring the reader into a somewhat more intimate appreciation of the character of the proud German-Sicilian emperor. (3) The use of sources, in connection with the reading of secondary works, may be expected to train the student, to some extent at least, in methods of testing the accuracy of modern writers, especially when the subject in hand is one that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. In the sources the makers of history, or those who stood close to them, are allowed to speak for themselves, or for their times, and the study of such materials not only helps plant in the student's mind the conception of fairness and impartiality in judging historical characters, but also cultivates the habit of tracing things back to their origins and verifying what others have asserted about them. So far as practicable the student of history, from the age of fourteen and onwards, should be encouraged to develop the critical or judicial temperament along with the purely acquisitive.

In preparing a source book, such as the present one, the purpose is to further the study of the most profitable sources by removing some of the greater difficulties, particularly those of accessibility and language. Clearly impracticable as anything like historical "research" undoubtedly is for younger students, it is none the less believed that there are abundant first-hand materials in the range of history which such students will not only find profitable but actually enjoy, and that any Simplicity of many mediæval sources acquaintance with these things that may be acquired in earlier studies will be of inestimable advantage subsequently. It is furthermore believed, contrary to the assertions that one sometimes hears, that the history of the Middle Ages lends itself to this sort of treatment with scarcely, if any, less facility than that of other periods. Certainly Gregory's Clovis, Asser's Alfred, Einhard's Charlemagne, and Joinville's St. Louis are living personalities, no less vividly portrayed than the heroes of a boy's storybook. Tacitus's description of the early Germans, Ammianus's account of the crossing of the Danube by the Visigoths and his pictures of the Huns, Bede's narrative of the Saxon invasion of Britain, the affectionate letter Stephen of Blois to his wife and children, the portrayal of the sweet-spirited St. Francis by the Three Companions, and Froissart's free and easy sketch of the battle of Crécy are all interesting, easily comprehended, and even adapted to whet the appetite for a larger acquaintance with these various people and events. Even solid documents, like the Salic law, the Benedictine Rule, the Peace of Constance, and the Golden Bull, if not in themselves exactly attractive, may be made to have a certain interest for the younger student when he realizes that to know mediæval history at all he is under the imperative necessity of getting much of the framework of things either from such materials or from text-books which essentially reproduce them. It is hoped that at least a reasonable proportion of the selections herewith presented may serve in some measure to overcome for the student the remote and intangible character which the Middle Ages have much too commonly, though perhaps not unnaturally, been felt to possess.

CONTENTS

A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIÆVAL
HISTORY

CHAPTER I.
THE EARLY GERMANS

1. A Sketch by Cæsar

One of the most important steps in the expansion of the Roman Republic was the conquest of Gaul by Julius Cæsar just before the middle of the first century B.C. Through this conquest Rome entered deliberately upon the policy of extending her dominion northward from the Mediterranean and the Alps into the regions of western and central Europe known to us to-day as France and Germany. By their wars in this direction the Romans were brought into contact with peoples concerning whose manner of life they had hitherto known very little. There were two great groups of these peoples—the Gauls and the Germans—each divided and subdivided into numerous tribes and clans. In general it may be said that the Gauls occupied what we now call France and the Germans what we know as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, and Austria. The Rhine marked a pretty clear boundary between them.

During the years 58-50 B.C., Julius Cæsar, who had risen to the proconsulship through a long series of offices and honors at Rome, served the state as leader of five distinct military expeditions in this country of the northern barbarians. The primary object of these campaigns was to establish order among the turbulent tribes of Gauls and to prepare the way for the extension of Roman rule over them. This great task was performed very successfully, but in accomplishing it Cæsar found it necessary to go somewhat farther than had at first been intended. In the years 55 and 54 B.C., he made two expeditions to Britain to punish the natives for giving aid to their Celtic kinsfolk in Gaul, and in 55 and 53 he crossed the Rhine to compel the Germans to remain on their own side of the river and to cease troubling the Gauls by raids and invasions, as they had recently been doing. When (about 51 B.C.) he came to write his Commentaries on the Gallic War, it is very natural that he should have taken care to give a brief sketch of the leading peoples whom he had been fighting, that is, the Gauls, the Britons, and the Germans. There are two places in the Commentaries where the Germans are described at some length. At the beginning of Book IV. there is an account of the particular tribe known as the Suevi, and in the middle of Book VI. there is a longer sketch of the Germans in general. This latter is the passage translated below. Of course we are not to suppose that Cæsar's knowledge of the Germans was in any sense thorough. At no time did he get far into their country, and the people whose manners and customs he had an opportunity to observe were only those who were pressing down upon, and occasionally across, the Rhine boundary—a mere fringe of the great race stretching back to the Baltic and, at that time, far eastward into modern Russia. We may be sure that many of the more remote German tribes lived after a fashion quite different from that which Cæsar and his legions had an opportunity to observe on the Rhine-Danube frontier. Still, Cæsar's account, vague and brief as it is, has an importance that can hardly be exaggerated. These early Germans had no written literature and but for the descriptions of them left by a few Roman writers, such as Cæsar, we should know almost nothing about them. If we bear in mind that the account in the Commentaries was based upon very keen, though limited, observation, we can get out of it a good deal of interesting information concerning the early ancestors of the great Teutonic peoples of the world to-day.

Source—Julius Cæsar, De Bello Gallico ["The Gallic War">[, Bk. VI., Chaps. 21-23.

21. The customs of the Germans differ widely from those of the Gauls;[1] for neither have they Druids to preside over religious services,[2] nor do they give much attention to sacrifices. They count in the number of their gods those only whom they can see, and by whose favors they are clearly aided; that is to say, the Sun, Vulcan,[3] and the Moon. Their religion Of other deities they have never even heard. Their whole life is spent in hunting and in war. From childhood they are trained in labor and hardship....

22. They are not devoted to agriculture, and the greater portion of their food consists of milk, cheese, and flesh. No one Their system of land tenure owns a particular piece of land, with fixed limits, but each year the magistrates and the chiefs assign to the clans and the bands of kinsmen who have assembled together as much land as they think proper, and in whatever place they desire, and the next year compel them to move to some other place. They give many reasons for this custom—that the people may not lose their zeal for war through habits established by prolonged attention to the cultivation of the soil; that they may not be eager to acquire large possessions, and that the stronger may not drive the weaker from their property; that they may not build too carefully, in order to avoid cold and heat; that the love of money may not spring up, from which arise quarrels and dissensions; and, finally, that the common people may live in contentment, since each person sees that his wealth is kept equal to that of the most powerful.

23. It is a matter of the greatest glory to the tribes to lay waste, as widely as possible, the lands bordering their territory, thus making them uninhabitable.[4] They regard it as the best proof of their valor that their neighbors are forced to withdraw from those lands and hardly any one dares set foot there; at the same time they think that they will thus be more secure, since the fear of a sudden invasion is removed. When a tribe is either repelling an invasion or attacking an outside people, magistrates Leaders and officers in war and peace are chosen to lead in the war, and these are given the power of life and death. In times of peace there is no general magistrate, but the chiefs of the districts and cantons render justice among their own people and settle disputes.[5] Robbery, if committed beyond the borders of the tribe, is not regarded as disgraceful, and they say that it is practised for the sake of training the youth and preventing idleness. When any one of the chiefs has declared in an assembly that he is going to be the leader of an expedition, and that those who wish to follow him should give in their names, they who approve of the undertaking, and of the man, stand up and promise their assistance, and are applauded by the people. Such of these as do not then follow him are looked upon as deserters and traitors, and from that day no one has any faith in them.

To mistreat a guest they consider to be a crime. They protect German hospitality from injury those who have come among them for any purpose whatever, and regard them as sacred. To them the houses of all are open and food is freely supplied.

2. A Description by Tacitus

Tacitus (54-119),[6] who is sometimes credited with being the greatest of Roman historians, published his treatise on the Origin, Location, Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany in the year 98. This was about a century and a half after Cæsar wrote his Commentaries. During this long interval we have almost no information as to how the Germans were living or what they were doing. There is much uncertainty as to the means by which Tacitus got his knowledge of them. We may be reasonably sure that he did not travel extensively through the country north of the Rhine; there is, in fact, not a shred of evidence that he ever visited it at all. He tells us that he made use of Cæsar's account, but this was very meager and could not have been of much service. We are left to surmise that he drew most of his information from books then existing but since lost, such as the writings of Posidonius of Rhodes (136-51 B.C.) and Pliny the Elder (23-79). These sources were doubtless supplemented by the stories of officials and traders who had been among the Germans and were afterwards interviewed by the historian. Tacitus's essay, therefore, while written with a desire to tell the truth, was apparently not based on first-hand information. The author nowhere says that he had seen this or that feature of German life. We may suppose that what he really did was to gather up all the stories and reports regarding the German barbarians which were already known to Roman traders, travelers, and soldiers, sift the true from the false as well as he could, and write out in first class Latin the little book which we know as the Germania. The theory that the work was intended as a satire, or sermon in morals, for the benefit of a corrupt Roman people has been quite generally abandoned, and this for the very good reason that there is nothing in either the treatise's contents or style to warrant such a belief. Tacitus wrote the book because of his general interest in historical and geographical subjects, and also, perhaps, because it afforded him an excellent opportunity to display a literary skill in which he took no small degree of pride. That it was published separately instead of in one of his larger histories may have been due to public interest in the subject during Trajan's wars in the Rhine country in the years 98 and 99. The first twenty-seven chapters, from which the selections below are taken, treat of the Germans in general—their origin, religion, family life, occupations, military tactics, amusements, land system, government, and social classes; the last nineteen deal with individual tribes and are not so accurate or so valuable. It will be found interesting to compare what Tacitus says with what Cæsar says when both touch upon the same topic. In doing so it should be borne in mind that there was a difference in time of a century and a half between the two writers, and also that while Tacitus probably did not write from experience among the Germans, as Cæsar did, he nevertheless had given the subject a larger amount of deliberate study.

Source—C. Cornelius Tacitus, De Origine, Situ, Moribus, ac Populis Germanorum [known commonly as the "Germania">[, Chaps. 4-24, passim. Adapted from translation by Alfred J. Church and William J. Brodribb (London, 1868), pp. 1-16. Text in numerous editions, as that of William F. Allen (Boston, 1882) and that of Henry Furneau (Oxford, 1894).

4. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all trace of intermarriage with Physical characteristics foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence it is that the same physical features are to be observed throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, reddish hair, and huge bodies fit only for sudden exertion. They are not very able to endure labor that is exhausting. Heat and thirst they cannot withstand at all, though to cold and hunger their climate and soil have hardened them.

6. Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons.[7] Only a few make use of swords or long lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a framea), with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets,[8] and just one or two here and there a metal or leather Their weapons and mode of fighting helmet.[9] Their horses are neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that none may be left behind another. On the whole, one would say that the Germans' chief strength is in their infantry. It fights along with the cavalry, and admirably adapted to the movements of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked from the entire youth of their country and placed in front of the battle line.[10] The number of these is fixed, being a hundred from each pagus,[11] and from this they take their name among their countrymen, so that what was at the outset a mere number has now become a title of honor. Their line of battle is drawn up in the shape of a wedge. To yield ground, provided they return to the attack, is regarded as prudence rather than cowardice. The bodies of their slain they carry off, even when the battle has been indecisive. To abandon one's shield is the basest of crimes. A man thus disgraced is not allowed to be present at the religious ceremonies, or to enter the council. Many, indeed, after making a cowardly escape from battle put an end to their infamy by hanging themselves.[12]

7. They choose their kings[13] by reason of their birth, but their generals on the ground of merit. The kings do not enjoy unlimited or despotic power, and even the generals command more by example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they take a prominent part, if they fight in the front, they lead because they are admired. But to rebuke, to imprison, even to flog, is allowed to the priests alone, and this not as a punishment, or at the general's bidding, but by the command of the god whom they believe to inspire the warrior. They also carry with them The Germans in battle into battle certain figures and images taken from their sacred groves.[14] The thing that most strengthens their courage is the fact that their troops are not made up of bodies of men chosen by mere chance, but are arranged by families and kindreds. Close by them, too, are those dearest to them, so that in the midst of the fight they can hear the shrieks of women and the cries of children. These loved ones are to every man the most valued witnesses of his valor, and at the same time his most generous applauders. The soldier brings his wounds to mother or wife, who shrinks not from counting them, or even demanding to see them, and who provides food for the warriors and gives them encouragement.

11. About matters of small importance the chiefs alone take counsel, but the larger questions are considered by the entire tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. Except in the case of a sudden emergency, the people hold their assemblies on certain fixed days, either at the new or the full moon; for these they consider the most suitable times for the transaction Their popular assemblies of business. Instead of counting by days, as we do, they count by nights, and in this way designate both their ordinary and their legal engagements. They regard the night as bringing on the day. Their freedom has one disadvantage, in that they do not all come together at the same time, or as they are commanded, but two or three days are wasted in the delay of assembling. When the people present think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests who, on these occasions, are charged with the duty of keeping order. The king or the leader speaks first, and then others in order, as age, or rank, or reputation in war, or eloquence, give them right. The speakers are heard more because of their ability to persuade than because of their power to command. If the speeches are displeasing to the people, they reject them with murmurs; if they are pleasing, they applaud by clashing their weapons together, which is the kind of applause most highly esteemed.[15]

13. They transact no public or private business without being armed, but it is not allowable for any one to bear arms until he has satisfied the tribe that he is fit to do so. Then, in the presence of the assembly, one of the chiefs, or the young man's father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the toga is with the Romans, the first honor with which a youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as merely a member of a household, but afterwards as a member of the state. Very noble birth, or important service rendered by the father, secures for a youth the rank of chief, and such lads attach themselves to men of mature strength and of fully tested valor. It is no The chiefs and their companions shame to be numbered among a chief's companions.[16] The companions have different ranks in the band, according to the will of the chief; and there is great rivalry among the companions for first place in the chief's favor, as there is among the chiefs for the possession of the largest and bravest throng of followers. It is an honor, as well as a source of strength, to be thus always surrounded by a large body of picked youths, who uphold the rank of the chief in peace and defend him in war. The fame of such a chief and his band is not confined to their own tribe, but is spread among foreign peoples; they are sought out and honored with gifts in order to secure their alliance, for the reputation of such a band may decide a whole war.

14. In battle it is considered shameful for the chief to allow any of his followers to excel him in valor, and for the followers not to equal their chief in deeds of bravery. To survive the chief and return from the field is a disgrace and a reproach for life. To defend and protect him, and to add to his renown by courageous fighting is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory; the companions must fight for the chief. If their native state sinks into the sloth of peace and quiet, many noble youths The German love of war voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both because inaction is disliked by their race and because it is in war that they win renown most readily; besides, a chief can maintain a band only by war, for the men expect to receive their war-horse and their arms from their leader. Feasts and entertainments, though not elegant, are plentifully provided and constitute their only pay. The means of such liberality are best obtained from the booty of war. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plow the earth and to wait for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the glory of wounds. Indeed, they actually think it tame and stupid to acquire by the sweat of toil what they may win by their blood.[17]

15. When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land to the women, the old men, and the weaker Life in times of peace members of the family, while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so averse to peace.[18] It is the custom of the tribes to make their chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the means of support.[19] The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals, but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor, trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to accept money also.

16. It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected close together.[20] They live scattered about, wherever a spring, or a meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters Lack of cities and towns of fire, or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is so clear and bright that it resembles painting, or a colored design....

23. A liquor for drinking is made out of barley, or other grain, and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers Their food and drink along the river-bank[21] also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are supplied with as much as they desire to drink, they will be overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.

24. At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and German amusements lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive profit or pay, for, however reckless their pastime, its reward is only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistency in a bad practice, though they themselves call it honor. Slaves thus acquired the owners trade off as speedily as possible to rid themselves of the scandal of such a victory.

CHAPTER II.
THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION

3. The Visigoths Cross the Danube (376)

The earliest invasion of the Roman Empire which resulted in the permanent settlement of a large and united body of Germans on Roman soil was that of the Visigoths in the year 376. This invasion was very far, however, from marking the first important contact of the German and Roman peoples. As early as the end of the second century B.C. the incursions of the Cimbri and Teutones (113-101) into southern Gaul and northern Italy had given Rome a suggestion of the danger which threatened from the northern barbarians. Half a century later, the Gallic campaigns of Cæsar brought the two peoples into conflict for the first time in the region of the later Rhine boundary, and had the very important effect of preventing the impending Germanization of Gaul and substituting the extension of Roman power and civilization in that quarter. Roman imperial plans on the north then developed along ambitious lines until the year 9 A.D., when the legions of the Emperor Augustus, led by Varus, were defeated, and in large part annihilated, in the great battle of the Teutoberg Forest and the balance was turned forever against the Romanization of the Germanic countries. Thereafter for a long time a state of equilibrium was preserved along the Rhine-Danube frontier, though after the Marcomannic wars in the latter half of the second century the scale began to incline more and more against the Romans, who were gradually forced into the attitude of defense against a growing disposition of the restless Germans to push the boundary farther south.

During the more than three and a half centuries intervening between the battle of the Teutoberg and the crossing of the Danube by the Visigoths, the intermingling of the two peoples steadily increased. On the one hand were numerous Roman travelers and traders who visited the Germans living along the frontier and learned what sort of people they were. The soldiers of the legions stationed on the Rhine and Danube also added materially to Roman knowledge in this direction. But much more important was the influx of Germans into the Empire to serve as soldiers or to settle on lands allotted to them by the government. Owing to a general decline of population, and especially to the lack of a sturdy middle class, Rome found it necessary to fill up her army with foreigners and to reward them with lands lying mainly near the frontiers, but often in the very heart of the Empire. The over-population of Germany furnished a large class of excellent soldiers who were ready enough to accept the pay of the Roman emperor for service in the legions, even if rendered, as it often was, against their kinsmen who were menacing the weakened frontier. From this source the Empire had long been receiving a large infusion of German blood before any considerable tribe came within its bounds to settle in a body. Indeed, if there had occurred no sudden and startling overflows of population from the Germanic countries, such as the Visigothic invasion, it is quite possible that the Roman Empire might yet have fallen completely into the hands of the Germans by the quiet and gradual processes just indicated. As it was, the pressure from advancing Asiatic peoples on the east was too great to be withstood, and there resulted, between the fourth and sixth centuries, a series of notable invasions which left almost the entire Western Empire parceled out among new Germanic kingdoms established by force on the ruins of the once invincible Roman power. The breaking of the frontier by the West Goths (to whom the Emperor Aurelian, in 270, had abandoned the rich province of Dacia), during the reign of Gratian in the West and of Valens in the East, was the first conspicuous step in this great transforming movement.

The ferocious people to whose incursions Ammianus refers as the cause of the Visigothic invasion were the Huns [see [p. 42]], who had but lately made their first appearance in Europe. Already by 376 the Ostrogothic kingdom of Hermaneric, to the north of the Black Sea, had fallen before their onslaught, and the wave of conquest was spreading rapidly westward toward Dacia and the neighboring lands inhabited by the Visigoths. The latter people were even less able to make effectual resistance than their eastern brethren had been. Part of them had become Christians and were recognizing Fridigern as their leader, while the remaining pagan element acknowledged the sway of Athanaric. On the arrival of the Huns, Athanaric led his portion of the people into the Carpathian Mountains and began to prepare for resistance, while the Christians, led by Fridigern and Alaf (or Alavivus), gathered on the Danube and begged permission to take refuge across the river in Roman territory. Athanaric and his division of the Visigoths, having become Christians, entered the Empire a few years later and settled in Moesia.

Ammianus Marcellinus, author of the account of the Visigothic invasion given below, was a native of Antioch, a soldier of Greek ancestry and apparently of noble birth, and a member of the Eastern emperor's bodyguard. Beyond these facts, gleaned from his Roman History, we have almost no knowledge of the man. The date of his birth is unknown, likewise that of his death, though from his writings it appears that he lived well toward the close of the fourth century. His History began with the accession of Nerva, 96 A.D., approximately where the accounts by Tacitus and Suetonius end, and continued to the death of his master Valens in the battle of Adrianople in 378. It was divided into thirty-one books; but of these thirteen have been lost, and some of those which survive are imperfect. Although the narrative is broken into rather provokingly here and there by digressions on earthquakes and eclipses and speculations on such utterly foreign topics as the theory of the destruction of lions by mosquitoes, it nevertheless constitutes an invaluable source of information on the men and events of the era which it covers. Its value is greatest, naturally, on the period of the Visigothic invasion, for in dealing with these years the author could describe events about which he had direct and personal knowledge. Ammianus is to be thought of as the last of the old Roman school of historians.

Source—Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri qui Supersunt, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 3-4. Translated by Charles D. Yonge under the title of Roman History during the Reigns of the Emperors Constantius, Julian, Jovianus, Valentinian, and Valens (London, 1862), pp. 584-586. Text in edition of Victor Gardthausen (Leipzig, 1875), Vol. II., pp. 239-240.

In the meantime a report spread extensively through the other nations of the Goths [i.e., the Visigoths], that a race of men, hitherto unknown, had suddenly descended like a whirlwind from the lofty mountains, as if they had risen from some secret recess of the earth, and were ravaging and destroying everything that came in their way. Then the greater part of the population (which, because of their lack of necessities, had deserted Athanaric), resolved to flee and to seek a home remote from all knowledge of the barbarians; and after a long deliberation as to where to fix their abode, they resolved that a retreat into Thrace Visigoths ask permission to settle within the Empire was the most suitable, for these two reasons: first of all, because it is a district most abundant in grass; and in the second place, because, by the great breadth of the Danube, it is wholly separated from the barbarians [i.e., the Goths], who were already exposed to the thunderbolts of foreign warfare. And the whole population of the tribe adopted this resolution unanimously. Accordingly, under the command of their leader Alavivus, they occupied the banks of the Danube; and having sent ambassadors to Valens,[22] they humbly entreated that they might be received by him as his subjects, promising to live peaceably and to furnish a body of auxiliary troops, if any necessity for such a force should arise.

While these events were passing in foreign countries, a terrible rumor arose that the tribes of the north were planning new and Rumors of Gothic movements reach Rome unprecedented attacks upon us,[23] and that over the whole region which extends from the country of the Marcomanni and Quadi to Pontus,[24] a barbarian host composed of various distant nations which had suddenly been driven by force from their own country, was now, with all their families, wandering about in different directions on the banks of the river Danube.

At first this intelligence was treated lightly by our people, because they were not in the habit of hearing of any wars in those remote regions until after they had been terminated either by victory or by treaty. But presently the belief in these occurrences grew stronger, being confirmed, moreover, by the arrival of the foreign ambassadors who, with prayers and earnest entreaties, Their coming represented as a blessing to the Empire begged that the people thus driven from their homes and now encamped on the other side of the river might be kindly received by us. The affair seemed a cause of joy rather than of fear, according to the skilful flatterers who were always extolling and exaggerating the good fortune of the Emperor; congratulating him that an embassy had come from the farthest corners of the earth unexpectedly, offering him a large body of recruits, and that, by combining the strength of his own nation with these foreign forces, he would have an army absolutely invincible; observing farther that, by the payment for military reinforcements which came in every year from the provinces, a vast treasure of gold might be accumulated in his coffers.

Full of this hope, he sent several officers to bring this ferocious people and their wagons into our territory. And such great The crossing of the Danube pains were taken to gratify this nation, which was destined to overthrow the empire of Rome, that not one was left behind, not even of those who were stricken with mortal disease. Moreover, having obtained permission of the Emperor to cross the Danube and to cultivate some districts in Thrace, they crossed the stream day and night, without ceasing, embarking in troops on board ships and rafts, and canoes made of the hollow trunks of trees. In this enterprise, since the Danube is the most difficult of all rivers to navigate, and was at that time swollen with continual rains, a great many were drowned, who, because they were too numerous for the vessels, tried to swim across, and in spite of all their exertions were swept away by the stream.

In this way, through the turbulent zeal of violent people, the ruin of the Roman Empire was brought on. This, at all events, is neither obscure nor uncertain, that the unhappy officers who Number of the invaders were intrusted with the charge of conducting the multitude of the barbarians across the river, though they repeatedly endeavored to calculate their numbers, at last abandoned the attempt as useless; and the man who would wish to ascertain the number might as well attempt to count the waves in the African sea, or the grains of sand tossed about by the zephyr.[25]

4. The Battle of Adrianople (378)

Before crossing the Danube the Visigoths had been required by the Romans to give up their arms, and also a number of their children to be held as hostages. In return it was understood that the Romans would equip them afresh with arms sufficient for their defense and with food supplies to maintain them until they should become settled in their new homes. So far as our information goes, it appears that the Goths fulfilled their part of the contract, or at least were willing to do so. But the Roman officers in Thrace saw an opportunity to enrich themselves by selling food to the famished barbarians at extortionate prices, and a few months of such practices sufficed to arouse all the rage and resentment of which the untamed Teuton was capable. In the summer of 378 the Goths broke out in open revolt and began to avenge themselves by laying waste the Roman lands along the lower Danube frontier. The Eastern emperor, Valens, hastened to the scene of insurrection, but only to lose the great battle of Adrianople, August 9, 378, and to meet his own death. "The battle of Adrianople," says Professor Emerton, "was one of the decisive battles of the world. It taught the Germans that they could beat the legions in open fight and that henceforth it was for them to name the price of peace. It broke once for all the Rhine-Danube frontier." Many times thereafter German armies, and whole tribes, were to play the rôle of allies of Rome; but neither German nor Roman could be blinded to the fact that the decadent empire of the south lay at the mercy of the stalwart sons of the northern wilderness.

Source—Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri qui Supersunt, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 12-14. Translated by Charles D. Yonge [see [p. 34]], pp. 608-615 passim. Text in edition of Victor Gardthausen (Leipzig, 1875), Vol. II., pp. 261-269.

He [Valens] was at the head of a numerous force, neither unwarlike nor contemptible, and had united with them many The Goths approach the Roman army veteran bands, among whom were several officers of high rank—especially Trajan, who a little while before had been commander of the forces. And as, by means of spies and observation, it was ascertained that the enemy was intending to blockade with strong divisions the different roads by which the necessary supplies must come, he sent a sufficient force to prevent this, dispatching a body of the archers of the infantry and a squadron of cavalry with all speed to occupy the narrow passes in the neighborhood. Three days afterwards, when the barbarians, who were advancing slowly because they feared an attack in the unfavorable ground which they were traversing, arrived within fifteen miles from the station of Nice[26] (which was the aim of their march), the Emperor, with wanton impetuosity, resolved on attacking them instantly, because those who had been sent forward to reconnoitre (what led to such a mistake is unknown) affirmed that the entire body of the Goths did not exceed ten thousand men....[27]

When the day broke which the annals mark as the fifth of the Ides of August [Aug. 9] the Roman standards were advanced with haste. The baggage had been placed close to the walls of Adrianople, under a sufficient guard of soldiers of the legions. The treasures and the chief insignia of the Emperor's rank were within the walls, with the prefect and the principal members of The battle begins the council.[28] Then, having traversed the broken ground which divided the two armies, as the burning day was progressing towards noon, at last, after marching eight miles, our men came in sight of the wagons of the enemy, which had been reported by the scouts to be all arranged in a circle. According to their custom, the barbarian host raised a fierce and hideous yell, while the Roman generals marshalled their line of battle. The right wing of the cavalry was placed in front; the chief portion of the infantry was kept in reserve....[29]

And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce conflict, and Bellona,[30] blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging more fiercely than usual, to inflict disaster on the Romans, our men began to retreat; but presently, aroused by the reproaches of their officers, they made a fresh stand, and the battle increased like a conflagration, terrifying our soldiers, numbers of whom were pierced by strokes of the javelins hurled at them, and by arrows.

Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks of ships and, thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro like the waves of the sea. Our left wing had advanced actually up to the wagons, with the intent to push on still farther if properly supported; but they were deserted by the rest of the cavalry, and so pressed upon by the superior numbers of The fury of the conflict the enemy that they were overwhelmed and beaten down like the ruin of a vast rampart. Presently our infantry also was left unsupported, while the various companies became so huddled together that a soldier could hardly draw his sword, or withdraw his hand after he had once stretched it out. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries; and in consequence the darts, which were bearing death on every side, reached their mark and fell with deadly effect, because no one could see them beforehand so as to guard against them. The barbarians, rushing on with their enormous host, beat down our horses and men and left no spot to which our ranks could fall back to operate. They were so closely packed that it was impossible to escape by forcing a way through them, and our men at last began to despise death and again taking to their swords, slew all they encountered, while with mutual blows of battle-axes, helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces.

Then you might see the barbarian, towering in his fierceness, hissing or shouting, fall with his legs pierced through, or his right hand cut off, sword and all, or his side transfixed, and still, in the last gasp of life, casting around him defiant glances. The plain was covered with corpses, showing the mutual ruin of the combatants; while the groans of the dying, or of men fearfully wounded, were intense and caused much dismay on all sides. Amid all this great tumult and confusion our infantry were exhausted by toil and danger, until at last they had neither strength left to fight nor spirits to plan anything. Their spears were broken by the frequent collisions, so that they were forced to content themselves with their drawn swords, which they thrust into the The Romans put to flight dense battalions of the enemy, disregarding their own safety, and seeing that every possibility of escape was cut off from them.... The sun, now high in the heavens (having traversed the sign of Leo and reached the abode of the heavenly Virgo[31]) scorched the Romans, who were emaciated by hunger, worn out with toil, and scarcely able to support even the weight of their armor. At last our columns were entirely beaten back by the overpowering weight of the barbarians, and so they took to disorderly flight, which is the only resource in extremity, each man trying to save himself as best he could....

Scarcely one third of the whole army escaped. Nor, except the battle of Cannæ, is so destructive a slaughter recorded in our annals;[32] though, even in the times of their prosperity, the Romans have more than once been called upon to deplore the uncertainty of war, and have for a time succumbed to evil Fortune.

CHAPTER III.
THE HUNS

5. Descriptions by a Graeco-Roman Poet and a Roman Historian

The Huns, a people of Turanian stock, were closely related to the ancestors of the Magyars, or the modern Hungarians. Their original home was in central Asia, beyond the great wall of China, and they were in every sense a people of the plains rather than of the forest or of the sea. From the region of modern Siberia they swept westward in successive waves, beginning about the middle of the fourth century, traversed the "gateway of the nations" between the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains, and fell with fury upon the German tribes (mainly the Goths) settled in eastern and southern Europe. The descriptions of them given by Claudius Claudianus and Ammianus Marcellinus set forth their characteristics as understood by the Romans a half-century or more before the invasion of the Empire by Attila. There is no reason to suppose that either of these authors had ever seen a Hun, or had his information at first hand. When both wrote the Huns were yet far outside the Empire's bounds. Tales of soldiers and travelers, which doubtless grew as they were told, must have supplied both the poet and the historian with all that they knew regarding the strange Turanian invaders. This being the case, we are not to accept all that they say as the literal truth. Nevertheless the general impressions which one gets from their pictures cannot be far wrong.

Claudius Claudianus, commonly regarded as the last of the Latin classic poets, was a native of Alexandria who settled at Rome about 395. For ten years after that date he occupied a position at the court of the Emperor Honorius somewhat akin to that of poet-laureate. Much of his writing was of a very poor quality, but his descriptions were sometimes striking, as in the stanza given below. On Ammianus Marcellinus see [p. 34].

Sources—(a) Claudius Claudianus, In Rufinum ["Against Rufinus">[, Bk. I., 323-331. Text in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, Vol. X., pp. 30-31. Translated in Thomas Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders (Oxford, 1880), Vol. II., p. 2.

(b) Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri qui Supersunt, Bk. XXXI., Chaps. 2-4 [see [p. 34]]. Translated in Hodgkin, ibid., pp. 34-38.

(a)

There is a race on Scythia's[33] verge extreme

Eastward, beyond the Tanais'[34] chilly stream.

The Northern Bear[35] looks on no uglier crew:

Base is their garb, their bodies foul to view;

Their souls are ne'er subdued to sturdy toil

Or Ceres' arts:[36] their sustenance is spoil.

With horrid wounds they gash their brutal brows,

And o'er their murdered parents bind their vows.

Not e'en the Centaur-offspring of the Cloud[37]

Were horsed more firmly than this savage crowd.

Brisk, lithe, in loose array they first come on,

Fly, turn, attack the foe who deems them gone.

(b)

The nation of the Huns, little known to ancient records, but spreading from the marshes of Azof to the Icy Sea,[38] surpasses all other barbarians in wildness of life. In the first days of infancy, deep incisions are made in the cheeks of their boys, in order that when the time comes for whiskers to grow there, the sprouting hairs may be kept back by the furrowed scars; and hence they grow to maturity and to old age beardless. They all, however, have strong, well-knit limbs and fine necks. Yet they Physical appearance of the Huns are of portentous ugliness and so crook-backed that you would take them for some sort of two-footed beasts, or for the roughly-chipped stakes which are used for the railings of a bridge. And though they do just bear the likeness of men (of a very ugly type), they are so little advanced in civilization that they make no use of fire, nor of any kind of relish, in the preparation of their food, but feed upon the roots which they find in the fields, and the half-raw flesh of any sort of animal. I say half-raw, because they give it a kind of cooking by placing it between their own thighs and the backs of their horses. They never seek the shelter of houses, which they look upon as little better than tombs, and will enter only upon the direst necessity; nor would one be able to find among them even a cottage of wattled rushes; but, wandering at large over mountain and through forest, they are trained to endure from infancy all the extremes of cold, of hunger, and of thirst.

They are clad in linen raiment, or in the skins of field-mice sewed together, and the same suit serves them for use in-doors Their dress and out. However dingy the color of it may become, the tunic which has once been hung around their necks is never laid aside nor changed until through long decay the rags of it will no longer hold together. Their heads are covered with bent caps, their hairy legs with the skins of goats; their shoes, never having been fashioned on a last, are so clumsy that they cannot walk comfortably. On this account they are not well adapted to encounters on foot; but on the other hand they are almost welded to their horses, which are hardy, though of ugly shape, and on which they sometimes ride woman's fashion. On horseback every man of that nation lives night and day; on horseback he buys and sells; on horseback he takes his meat and drink, and when night comes on he leans forward upon the narrow neck of his horse and there falls into a deep sleep, or wanders into the varied fantasies of dreams.

When a discussion arises upon any matter of importance they come on horseback to the place of meeting. No kingly sternness overawes their deliberations, but being, on the whole, well-contented with the disorderly guidance of their chiefs, they do not scruple to interrupt the debates with anything that comes into their heads. When attacked, they will sometimes engage in regular battle. Then, going into the fight in order of columns, Their mode of fighting they fill the air with varied and discordant cries. More often, however, they fight in no regular order of battle, but being extremely swift and sudden in their movements, they disperse, and then rapidly come together again in loose array, spread havoc over vast plains and, flying over the rampart, pillage the camp of their enemy almost before he has become aware of their approach. It must be granted that they are the nimblest of warriors. The missile weapons which they use at a distance are pointed with sharpened bones admirably fastened to the shaft. When in close combat they fight without regard to their own safety, and while the enemy is intent upon parrying the thrusts of their swords they throw a net over him and so entangle his limbs that he loses all power of walking or riding.

Not one among them cultivates the ground, or ever touches a plow-handle. All wander abroad without fixed abodes, without Their nomadic character home, or law, or settled customs, like perpetual fugitives, with their wagons for their only habitations. If you ask them, not one can tell you what is his place of origin. They are ruthless truce-breakers, fickle, always ready to be swayed by the first breath of a new desire, abandoning themselves without restraint to the most ungovernable rage.

Finally, like animals devoid of reason, they are utterly ignorant of what is proper and what is not. They are tricksters with words and full of dark sayings. They are never moved by either religious or superstitious awe. They burn with unquenchable thirst for gold, and they are so changeable and so easily moved to wrath that many times in the day they will quarrel with their comrades on no provocation, and be reconciled, having received no satisfaction.

CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY FRANKS

6. The Deeds of Clovis as Related by Gregory of Tours

The most important historical writer among the early Franks was a bishop whose full name was Georgius Florentius Gregorius, but who has commonly been known ever since his day as Gregory of Tours. The date of his birth is uncertain, but it was probably either 539 or 540. He was not a Frank, but a man of mixed Roman and Gallic descent, his parentage being such as to rank him among the nobility of his native district, Auvergne. At the age of thirty-four he was elected bishop of Tours, and this important office he held until his death in 594. During this long period of service he won distinction as an able church official, as an alert man of affairs, and as a prolific writer on ecclesiastical subjects. Among his writings, some of which have been lost, were a book on the Christian martyrs, biographies of several holy men of the Church, a commentary on the Psalms, and a treatise on the officers of the Church and their duties.

But by far his largest and most important work was his Ecclesiastical History of the Franks, in ten books, written well toward the end of his life. It is indeed to be regarded as one of the most interesting pieces of literature produced in any country during the Middle Ages. For his starting point Gregory went back to the Garden of Eden, and what he gives us in his first book is only an amusing but practically worthless account of the history of the world from Adam to St. Martin of Tours, who died probably in 397. In the second book, however, he comes more within the range of reasonable tradition, if not of actual information, and brings the story down to the death of Clovis in 511. In the succeeding eight books he reaches the year 591, though it is thought by some that the last four were put together after the author's death by some of his associates. However that may be, we may rest assured that the history grows in accuracy as it approaches the period in which it was written. Naturally it is at its best in the later books, where events are described that happened within the writer's lifetime, and with many of which he had a close connection. Gregory was a man of unusual activity and of wide acquaintance among the influential people of his day. He served as a counselor of several Frankish kings and was a prominent figure at their courts. The shrine of St. Martin of Tours[39] was visited by pilgrims from all parts of the Christian world and by conversation with them Gregory had an excellent opportunity to keep informed as to what was going on among the Franks, and among more distant peoples as well. He was thus fortunately situated for one who proposed to write the history of his times. As a bishop of the orthodox Church he had small regard for Arians and other heretics, and so was in some ways less broad-minded than we could wish; and of course he shared the superstition and ignorance of his age, as will appear in some of the selections below. Still, without his extensive history we should know far less than we now do concerning the Frankish people before the seventh century. He mixes legend with fact in a most confusing manner, but with no intention whatever to deceive. The men of the earlier Middle Ages knew no other way of writing history and their readers were not critical as we are to-day. The passages quoted below from Gregory's history give some interesting information concerning the Frankish conquerors of Gaul, and at the same time show something of the spirit of Gregory himself and of the people of his times.

Particularly interesting is the account of the conversion of Clovis and of the Franks to Christianity. When the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards, and Burgundians crossed the Roman frontiers and settled within the bounds of the old Empire they were all Christians in name, however much their conduct might be at variance with their profession. The Franks, on the other hand, established themselves in northern Gaul, as did the Saxons in Britain, while they were yet pagans, worshipping Woden and Thor and the other strange deities of the Germans. It was about the middle of the reign of King Clovis, or, more definitely, in the year 496, that the change came. In his Ecclesiastical History Gregory tells us how up to this time all the influence of the Christian queen, Clotilde, had been exerted in vain to bring her husband to the point of renouncing his old gods. In his wars and conquests the king had been very successful and apparently he was pretty well satisfied with the favors these old gods had showered upon him and was unwilling to turn his back upon such generous patrons. But there came a time, in 496, in the course of the war with the Alemanni, when the tide of fortune seemed to be turning against the Frankish king. In the great battle of Strassburg the Franks were on the point of being beaten by their foe, and Clovis in desperation made a vow, as the story goes, that if Clotilde's God would grant him a victory he would immediately become a Christian. Whatever may have been the reason, the victory was won and the king, with characteristic German fidelity to his word, proceeded to fulfill his pledge. Amid great ceremony he was baptized, and with him three thousand of his soldiers the same day. The great majority of Franks lost little time in following the royal example.

Two important facts should be emphasized in connection with this famous incident. The first is the peculiar character of the so-called "conversion" of Clovis and his Franks. We to-day look upon religious conversion as an inner experience of the individual, apt to be brought about by personal contact between a Christian and the person who is converted. It was in no such sense as this, however, that the Franks—or any of the early Germans, for that matter—were made Christian. They looked upon Christianity as a mere portion of Roman civilization to be adopted or let alone as seemed best; but if it were adopted, it must be by the whole tribe or nation, not by individuals here and there. In general, the German peoples took up Christianity, not because they became convinced that their old religions were false, but simply because they were led to believe that the Christian faith was in some ways better than their own and so might profitably be taken advantage of by them. Clovis believed he had won the battle of Strassburg with the aid of the Christian God when Woden and Thor were about to fail him; therefore he reasoned that it would be a good thing in the future to make sure that the God of Clotilde should always be on his side, and obviously the way to do this was to become himself a Christian. He did not wholly abandon the old gods, but merely considered that he had found a new one of superior power. Hence he enjoined on all his people that they become Christians; and for the most part they did so, though of course we are not to suppose that there was any very noticeable change in their actual conduct and mode of life, at least for several generations.

The second important point to observe is that, whereas all of the other Germanic peoples on the continent had become Christians of the Arian type, the Franks accepted Christianity in its orthodox form such as was adhered to by the papacy. This was sheer accident. The Franks took the orthodox rather than the heretical religion simply because it was the kind that was carried to them by the missionaries, not at all because they were able, or had the desire, to weigh the two creeds and choose the one they liked the better. But though they became orthodox Christians by accident, the fact that they became such is of the utmost importance in mediæval history, for by being what the papacy regarded as true Christians rather than heretics they began from the start to be looked to by the popes for support. Their kings in time became the greatest secular champions of papal interests, though relations were sometimes far from harmonious. This virtual alliance of the popes and the Frankish kings is a subject which will repay careful study.

Source—Gregorius Episcopus Turonensis, Historia Ecclesiastica Francorum [Gregory of Tours, "Ecclesiastical History of the Franks">[, Bk. II., Chaps. 27-43 passim. Text in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum, Vol. I., Part 1, pp. 88-89, 90-95, 98-100, 158-159.

27. After all these things Childeric[40] died and his son Clovis ruled in his stead. In the fifth year of the new reign Syagrius, son of Ægidius, was governing as king of the Romans in the town of Soissons, where his father had held sway before him.[41] Clovis now advanced against him with his kinsman Ragnachar, who also held a kingdom, and gave him an opportunity to select a field of battle. Syagrius did not hesitate, for he was not at all afraid to risk an encounter. In the conflict which followed, however, the Roman soon saw that his army was doomed to destruction; so, turning and fleeing from the field, he made all The battle of Soissons (486) haste to take refuge with King Alaric at Toulouse.[42] Clovis then sent word to Alaric that he must hand over the defeated king at once if he did not wish to bring on war against himself. Fearing the anger of the Franks, therefore, as the Goths continually do, Alaric bound Syagrius with chains and delivered him to the messengers of King Clovis. As soon as the latter had the prisoner in his possession he put him under safe guard and, after seizing his kingdom, had him secretly slain.[43]

At this time the army of Clovis plundered many churches, for the king was still sunk in the errors of idolatry. Upon one occasion the soldiers carried away from a church, along with other ornaments of the sacred place, a remarkably large and beautiful vase. The bishop of that church sent messengers to the king to The story of the broken vase ask that, even if none of the other holy vessels might be restored, this precious vase at least might be sent back. To the messengers Clovis could only reply: "Come with us to Soissons, for there all the booty is to be divided. If when we cast lots the vase shall fall to me, I will return it as the bishop desires."

When they had reached Soissons and all the booty had been brought together in the midst of the army the king called attention to the vase and said, "I ask you, most valiant warriors, to allow me to have the vase in addition to my rightful share." Then even those of his men who were most self-willed answered: "O glorious king, all things before us are thine, and we ourselves are subject to thy control. Do, therefore, what pleases thee best, for no one is able to resist thee." But when they had thus spoken, one of the warriors, an impetuous, jealous, and vain man, raised his battle-ax aloft and broke the vase in pieces, crying as he did so, "Thou shalt receive no part of this booty unless it fall to you by a fair lot." And at such a rash act they were all astounded.

The king pretended not to be angry and seemed to take no notice of the incident, and when it happened that the broken vase fell to him by lot he gave the fragments to the bishop's messengers; nevertheless he cherished a secret indignation in his heart. A year later he summoned all his soldiers to come fully armed to the Campus Martius, so that he might make an Clovis's revenge inspection of his troops.[44] After he had reviewed the whole army he finally came across the very man who had broken the vase at Soissons. "No one," cried out the king to him, "carries his arms so awkwardly as thou; for neither thy spear nor thy sword nor thy ax is ready for use," and he struck the ax out of the soldier's hands so that it fell to the ground. Then when the man bent forward to pick it up the king raised his own ax and struck him on the head, saying, "Thus thou didst to the vase at Soissons." Having slain him, he dismissed the others, filled with great fear....[45]

30. The queen did not cease urging the king to acknowledge the true God and forsake idols, but all her efforts failed until at length a war broke out with the Alemanni.[46] Then of necessity he was compelled to confess what hitherto he had wilfully denied. It happened that the two armies were in battle and there was great slaughter.[47] The army of Clovis seemed about to be cut in pieces. Then the king raised his hands fervently toward the heavens and, breaking into tears, cried: "Jesus Christ, who Clotilde declares to be the son of the living God, who it is said givest help to the oppressed and victory to those who put their trust in thee, I invoke thy marvellous help. If thou wilt give me victory over my enemies and I prove that power which thy followers say they have proved concerning thee, I will believe in thee and will be baptized in thy name; for I have called upon my own gods and it is clear that they have neglected to give me aid. Therefore I am convinced that they have no power, for they do not help those Clovis decides to become a Christian (496) who serve them. I now call upon thee, and I wish to believe in thee, especially that I may escape from my enemies." When he had offered this prayer the Alemanni turned their backs and began to flee. And when they learned that their king had been slain, they submitted at once to Clovis, saying, "Let no more of our people perish, for we now belong to you." When he had stopped the battle and praised his soldiers for their good work, Clovis returned in peace to his kingdom and told the queen how he had won the victory by calling on the name of Christ. These events took place in the fifteenth year of his reign.[48]

31. Then the queen sent secretly to the blessed Remigius, bishop of Rheims, and asked him to bring to the king the gospel of salvation. The bishop came to the court where, little by little, he led Clovis to believe in the true God, maker of heaven and earth, and to forsake the idols which could help neither him nor any one else. "Willingly will I hear thee, O holy father," declared the king at last, "but the people who are under my authority are not ready to give up their gods. I will go and consult them about the religion concerning which you speak." When he had come among them, and before he had spoken a word, all the people, through the influence of the divine power, cried out with one voice: "O righteous king, we cast off our mortal gods and we are ready to serve the God who Remigius tells us is immortal."

When this was reported to the bishop he was beside himself with joy, and he at once ordered the baptismal font to be prepared. The streets were shaded with embroidered hangings; the churches were adorned with white tapestries, exhaling sweet odors; perfumed tapers gleamed; and all the temple of the The baptism of Clovis and his warriors baptistry was filled with a heavenly odor, so that the people might well have believed that God in His graciousness showered upon them the perfumes of Paradise. Then Clovis, having confessed that the God of the Trinity was all-powerful, was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and was anointed with the holy oil with the sign of the cross. More than three thousand of his soldiers were baptized with him....

35. Now when Alaric, king of the Goths, saw that Clovis was conquering many nations, he sent messengers to him, saying, "If it please my brother, let us, with the favor of God, enter into an alliance." Clovis at once declared his willingness to do as Alaric suggested and the two kings met on an island in the Loire, near the town of Amboise in the vicinity of Tours.[49] There they talked, ate, and drank together, and after making mutual promises of friendship they departed in peace.

37. But Clovis said to his soldiers: "It is with regret that I see the Arian heretics in possession of any part of Gaul. Let us, with the help of God, march against them and, after having conquered them, bring their country under our own control." This proposal was received with favor by all the warriors and the army started on the campaign, going towards Poitiers, where Clovis resolves to take the Visigoths' lands in Gaul Alaric was then staying. As a portion of the troops passed through the territory about Tours, Clovis, out of respect for the holy St. Martin, forbade his soldiers to take anything from the country except grass for the horses. One soldier, having come across some hay which belonged to a poor man said, "Has, then, the king given us permission to take only grass? O well! hay is grass. To take it would not be to violate the command." And by force he took the hay away from the poor man. When, however, the matter was brought to the king's attention he struck the offender with his sword and killed him, saying, "How, indeed, may we hope for victory if we give offense to St. Martin?" This was enough thereafter to prevent the army from plundering in that country.

When Clovis arrived with his forces at the banks of the Vienne he was at a loss to know where to cross, because the heavy rains Miraculous incidents of the campaign had swollen the stream. During the night he prayed that the Lord would reveal to him a passage. The following morning, under the guidance of God, a doe of wondrous size entered the river in plain sight of the army and crossed by a ford, thus pointing out the way for the soldiers to get over. When they were in the neighborhood of Poitiers the king saw at some distance from his tent a ball of fire, which proceeded from the steeple of the church of St. Hilary[50] and seemed to him to advance in his direction, as if to show that by the aid of the light of the holy St. Hilary he would triumph the more easily over the heretics against whom the pious priest had himself often fought for the faith. Clovis then forbade his army to molest any one or to pillage any property in that part of the country.

Clovis at length engaged in battle with Alaric, king of the Goths, in the plain of Vouillé at the tenth mile-stone from Poitiers.[51] The Goths fought with javelins, but the Franks charged upon them with lances. Then the Goths took to flight, as is their custom,[52] and the victory, with the aid of God, fell to Clovis. He had put the Goths to flight and killed their king, The Visigoths defeated by Clovis (507) Alaric, when all at once two soldiers bore down upon him and struck him with lances on both sides at once; but, owing to the strength of his armor and the swiftness of his horse, he escaped death. After the battle Amalaric, son of Alaric, took refuge in Spain and ruled wisely over the kingdom of his father.[53] Alaric had reigned twenty-two years. Clovis, after spending the winter at Bordeaux and carrying from Toulouse all the treasure of the king, advanced on Angoulême. There the Lord showed him such favor that at his very approach the walls of the city fell down of their own accord.[54] After driving out the Goths he brought the place under his own authority. Thus, crowned with victory, he returned to Tours and bestowed a great number of presents upon the holy church of the blessed Martin.[55]

40. Now while Clovis was living at Paris he sent secretly to the son of Sigibert,[56] saying: "Behold now your father is old and lame. If he should die his kingdom would come to you and my friendship with it." So the son of Sigibert, impelled by his ambition, planned to slay his father. And when Sigibert set out from Cologne and crossed the Rhine to go through the Buchonian forest,[57] his son had him slain by assassins while he was sleeping in his tent, in order that he might gain the kingdom for himself. But by the judgment of God he fell into the pit which he had digged for his father. He sent messengers to Clovis to announce the death of his father and to say: "My father is dead and I have his treasures, and likewise the kingdom. Now send trusted men to me, that I may give them for you whatever you would like out of his treasury." Clovis replied: "I thank you for your kindness and will ask you merely to show my messengers all your treasures, after which you may keep them yourself." And when the messengers of Clovis came, the son of Sigibert showed them the treasures which his father had collected. And while they were looking at various things, he said: "My father used to keep his gold coins in this little chest." And Other means by which Clovis extended his power they said, "Put your hand down to the bottom, that you may show us everything." But when he stooped to do this, one of the messengers struck him on the head with his battle-ax, and thus he met the fate which he had visited upon his father.

Now when Clovis heard that both Sigibert and his son were dead, he came to that place and called the people together and said to them: "Hear what has happened. While I was sailing on the Scheldt River, Cloderic, son of Sigibert, my relative, attacked his father, pretending that I had wished him to slay him. And so when his father fled through the Buchonian forest, the assassins of Cloderic set upon him and slew him. But while Cloderic was opening his father's treasure chest, some man unknown to me struck him down. I am in no way guilty of these things, for I could not shed the blood of my relatives, which is very wicked. But since these things have happened, if it seems best to you, I advise you to unite with me and come under my protection." And those who heard him applauded his speech, and, raising him on a shield, acknowledged him as their king. Thus Clovis gained the kingdom of Sigibert and his treasures, and won over his subjects to his own rule. For God daily confounded his enemies and increased his kingdom, because he walked uprightly before Him and did that which was pleasing in His sight.

42. Then Clovis made war on his relative Ragnachar.[58] And when the latter saw that his army was defeated, he attempted to flee; but his own men seized him and his brother Richar and brought them bound before Clovis. Then Clovis said: "Why The removal of remaining rivals have you disgraced our family by allowing yourself to be taken prisoner? It would have been better for you had you been slain." And, raising his battle-ax, he slew him. Then, turning to Richar, he said, "If you had aided your brother he would not have been taken;" and he slew him with the ax also. Thus by their death Clovis took their kingdom and treasures. And many other kings and relatives of his, who he feared might take his kingdom from him, were slain, and his dominion was extended over all Gaul.

43. And after these things he died at Paris and was buried in the basilica of the holy saints which he and his queen, Clotilde, had built. He passed away in the fifth year The death of Clovis (511) after the battle of Vouillé, and all the days of his reign were thirty years.

7. The Law of the Salian Franks

When the Visigoths, Lombards, and other Germanic peoples settled within the bounds of the Roman Empire they had no such thing as written law. They had laws, and a goodly number of them, but these laws were handed down from generation to generation orally, having never been enacted by a legislative body or decreed by a monarch in the way that laws are generally made among the civilized peoples of to-day. In other words, early Germanic law consisted simply of an accumulation of the immemorial custom of the tribe. When, for example, a certain penalty had been paid on several occasions by persons who had committed a particular crime, men came naturally to regard that penalty as the one regularly to be paid by any one proved guilty of the same offense; so that what was at first only habit gradually became hardened into law—unwritten indeed, but none the less binding. The law thus made up, moreover, was personal rather than territorial like that of the Romans and like ours to-day. That is, the same laws did not apply to all the people throughout any particular country or region. If a man were born a Visigoth he would be subject to Visigothic law throughout life, no matter where he might go to live. So the Burgundian would always have the right to be judged by Burgundian law, and the Lombard by the Lombard law. Obviously, in regions where several peoples dwelt side by side, as in large portions of Gaul, Spain, and northern Italy, there was no small amount of confusion and the courts had to be conducted in a good many different ways.

After the Germans had been for some time in contact with the Romans they began to be considerably influenced by the customs and ways of doing things which they found among the more civilized people. They tried to master the Latin language, though, on the whole, they succeeded only so well as to create the new "Romance" tongues which we know as French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. They adopted the Roman religion, i.e., Christianity. And, among the most important things of all, they took up the Roman idea of having their law written out rather than in the uncertain shape of mere tradition. In this work of putting the old customary law in written form the way was led by the Salian branch of the Franks. Just when the Salic code was drawn up is not known, but the work was certainly done at some time during the reign of Clovis, probably about the year 496. The portions of this code which are given below will serve to show the general character of all the early Germanic systems of law—Visigothic, Lombard, Burgundian, and Frisian, as well as Frankish; for among them all there was much uniformity in principles, though considerable variation in matters of detail. Like the rest, the Salic law was fragmentary. The codes were not intended to embrace the entire law of the tribe, but simply to bring together in convenient form those portions which were most difficult to remember and which were most useful for ready reference. In the Salic code, for instance, we find a large amount of criminal law and of the law of procedure, but only a few touches of the law of property, or indeed of civil law of any sort. There is practically nothing in the way of public or administrative law. Many things are not mentioned which we should expect to find treated and, on the other hand, some things are there which we should not look for ordinarily in a code of law. The greater portion is taken up with an enumeration of penalties for various crimes and wrongful acts. These are often detailed so minutely as to be rather amusing from our modern point of view. Yet every one of the sixty-five chapters of the code has its significance and from the whole law can be gleaned an immense amount of information concerning the manner of life which prevailed in early Frankish Gaul. For the Merovingian period in general the Salic law is our most valuable documentary source of knowledge, just as for the same epoch the Ecclesiastical History of Gregory of Tours is our most important narrative source.

Source—Text in Heinrich Geffcken, Lex Salica ["The Salic Law">[, Leipzig, 1898; also Heinrich Gottfried Gengler, Germanische Rechtsdenkmäler ["Monuments of German Law">[, Erlangen, 1875, pp. 267-303. Adapted from translation in Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London, 1896), pp. 176-189.

I.

1. If any one be summoned before the mallus[59] by the king's law, and do not come, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.[60]

2. But he who summons another, and does not come himself, if a lawful impediment have not delayed him, shall be Summonses to the meetings of the local courts sentenced to 15 solidi, to be paid to him whom he summoned.

3. And he who summons another shall go with witnesses to the home of that man, and, if he be not at home, shall enjoin the wife, or any one of the family, to make known to him that he has been summoned to court.

4. But if he be occupied in the king's service he cannot summon him.

5. And if he shall be inside the hundred attending to his own affairs, he can summon him in the manner just explained.

XI.

1. If any freeman steal, outside of a house, something worth 2 denarii, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.

2. But if he steal, outside of a house, something worth 40 Theft by a slave denarii, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides the amount and the fines for delay, to 1,400 denarii, which make 35 solidi.

3. If a freeman break into a house and steal something worth 2 denarii, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 15 solidi.

4. But if he shall have stolen something worth more than 5 denarii, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides the value of the object and the fines for delay, to 1,400 denarii, which make 35 solidi.

5. But if he shall have broken, or tampered with, the lock, and thus have entered the house and stolen anything from it, he shall be sentenced, besides the value of the object and the fines for delay, to 1,800 denarii, which make 45 solidi.

6. And if he shall have taken nothing, or have escaped by flight, he shall, for the housebreaking alone, be sentenced to 1,200 denarii, which make 30 solidi.

XII.

1. If a slave steal, outside of a house, something worth 2 Theft by a freeman denarii, besides paying the value of the object and the fines for delay, he shall be stretched out and receive 120 blows.

2. But if he steal something worth 40 denarii, he shall pay 6 solidi. The lord of the slave who committed the theft shall restore to the plaintiff the value of the object and the fines for delay.

XIV.

1. If any one shall have assaulted and robbed a freeman, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2,500 denarii, which Robbery with assault make 63 solidi.

2. If a Roman shall have robbed a Salian Frank, the above law shall be observed.

3. But if a Frank shall have robbed a Roman, he shall be sentenced to 35 solidi.

XV.

1. If any one shall set fire to a house in which people were sleeping, as many freemen as were in it can make complaint The crime of incendiarism before the mallus; and if any one shall have been burned in it, the incendiary shall be sentenced to 2,500 denarii, which make 63 solidi.[61]

XVII.

1. If any one shall have sought to kill another person, and the blow shall have missed, he on whom it was proved shall be sentenced to 2,500 denarii, which make 63 solidi.

2. If any person shall have sought to shoot another with a Various deeds of violence poisoned arrow, and the arrow has glanced aside, and it shall be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2,500 denarii, which make 63 solidi.

5. If any one shall have struck a man so that blood falls to the floor, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.

6. But if a freeman strike a freeman with his fist so that blood does not flow, he shall be sentenced for each blow—up to 3 blows—to 120 denarii, which make 3 solidi.[62]

XIX.

1. If any one shall have given herbs to another, so that he die, he shall be sentenced to 200 solidi, or shall surely be given Use of poison or witchcraft over to fire.

2. If any person shall have bewitched another, and he who was thus treated shall escape, the author of the crime, having been proved guilty of it, shall be sentenced to 2,500 denarii, which make 63 solidi.

XXX.

6. If any man shall have brought it up against another that Punishment for slander he has thrown away his shield, and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 120 denarii, which make 3 solidi.[63]

7. If any man shall have called another "gossip" or "perjurer," and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.

XXXIV.

1. If any man shall have cut 3 staves by which a fence is bound or held together, or shall have stolen or cut the heads of 3 stakes, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.

2. If any one shall have drawn a harrow through another's field of grain after the seed has sprouted, or shall have gone The offense of trespass through it with a wagon where there was no road, he shall be sentenced to 120 denarii, which make 3 solidi.

3. If any one shall have gone, where there is no road or path, through another's field after the grain has grown tall, he shall be sentenced to 600 denarii, which make 15 solidi.

XLI.

1. If any one shall have killed a free Frank, or a barbarian living under the Salic law, and it shall have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 8,000 denarii.

2. But if he shall have thrown him into a well or into the Punishments for homicide water, or shall have covered him with branches or anything else, to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 24,000 denarii, which make 600 solidi.

3. If any one shall have slain a man who is in the service of the king, he shall be sentenced to 24,000 denarii, which make 600 solidi.[64]

4. But if he shall have put him in the water, or in a well, and covered him with anything to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 72,000 denarii, which make 1,000 solidi.

5. If any one shall have slain a Roman who eats in the king's palace, and it shall have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 12,000 denarii, which make 300 solidi.[65]

6. But if the Roman shall not have been a landed proprietor and table companion of the king, he who killed him shall be sentenced to 4,000 denarii, which make 100 solidi.

7. If he shall have killed a Roman who was obliged to pay tribute, he shall be sentenced to 63 solidi.

9. If any one shall have thrown a freeman into a well, and he has escaped alive, he [the criminal] shall be sentenced to 4,000 denarii, which make 100 solidi.

XLV.

1. If any one desires to migrate to another village, and if one or more who live in that village do not wish to receive him—even Right of migration if there be only one who objects—he shall not have the right to move there.

3. But if any one shall have moved there, and within 12 months no one has given him warning, he shall remain as secure as the other neighbors.

L.

1. If any freeman or leet[66] shall have made to another a promise to pay, then he to whom the promise was made shall, within 40 Enforcement of debt days, or within such time as was agreed upon when he made the promise, go to the house of that man with witnesses, or with appraisers. And if he [the debtor] be unwilling to make the promised payment, he shall be sentenced to 15 solidi above the debt which he had promised.

LIX.

1. If any man die and leave no sons, the father and mother shall inherit, if they survive.

Rights of inheritance 2. If the father and mother do not survive, and he leave brothers or sisters, they shall inherit.

3. But if there are none, the sisters of the father shall inherit.

4. But if there are no sisters of the father, the sisters of the mother shall claim the inheritance.

5. If there are none of these, the nearest relatives on the father's side shall succeed to the inheritance.

6. Of Salic land no portion of the inheritance shall go to a woman; but the whole inheritance of the land shall belong to the male sex.[67]

LXII.

1. If any one's father shall have been slain, the sons shall have half the compounding money [wergeld]; and the other half, the Payment of wergeld nearest relatives, as well on the mother's as on the father's side, shall divide among themselves.[68]

2. But if there are no relatives, paternal or maternal, that portion shall go to the fisc.[69]

CHAPTER V.
THE ANGLES AND SAXONS IN BRITAIN

8. The Saxon Invasion (cir. 449)

The Venerable Bede, the author of the passage given below, was born about 673 in Northumberland and spent most of his life in the Benedictine abbey of Jarrow on the Tyne, where he died in 735. He was a man of broad learning and untiring industry, famous in all parts of Christendom by reason of the numerous scholarly books that he wrote. The chief of these was his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, covering the period from the first invasion of Britain by Cæsar (B.C. 55) to the year 731. In this work Bede dealt with many matters lying properly outside the sphere of church history, so that it is exceedingly valuable for the light which it throws on both the military and political affairs of the early Anglo-Saxons in Britain. As an historian Bede was fair-minded and as accurate as his means of information permitted.

The Angle and Saxon seafarers from the region we now know as Denmark and Hanover had infested the shores of Britain for two centuries or more before the coming of Hengist and Horsa which Bede here describes. The withdrawal of the Roman garrisons about the year 410 left the Britons at the mercy of the wilder Picts and Scots of the north and west, and as a last resort King Vortigern decided to call in the Saxons to aid in his campaign of defense. Such, at least, is the story related by Gildas, a Romanized British chronicler who wrote about the year 560, and this was the view adopted by Bede. Recent writers, as Mr. James H. Ramsay in his Foundations of England, are inclined to cast serious doubts upon the story because it seems hardly probable that any king would have taken so foolish a step as that attributed to Vortigern.[70] At any rate, whether by invitation or for pure love of seafaring adventure, certain it is that the Saxons and Angles made their appearance at the little island of Thanet, on the coast of Kent, and found the country so much to their liking that they chose to remain rather than return to the over-populated shores of the Baltic. There are many reasons for believing that people of Germanic stock had been settled more or less permanently in Britain long before the traditional invasion of Hengist and Horsa. Yet we are justified in thinking of this interesting expedition as, for all practical purposes, the beginning of the long and stubborn struggle of Germans to possess the fruitful British isle. While Visigoths and Ostrogoths, Vandals and Lombards were breaking across the Rhine-Danube frontier and finding new homes in the territories of the Roman Empire, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from the farther north were led by their seafaring instincts to make their great movement, not by land, but by water, and into a country which the Romans had a good while before been obliged to abandon. There they were free to develop their own peculiar Germanic life and institutions, for the most part without undergoing the changes which settlement among the Romans produced in the case of the tribes whose migrations were towards the Mediterranean.

Source—Bæda, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum [Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of the English People">[, Bk. I., Chaps. 14-15. Translated by J. A. Giles (London, 1847), pp. 23-25.

They consulted what was to be done,[71] and where they should seek assistance to prevent or repel the cruel and frequent incursions The Britons decide to call in the Saxons of the northern nations. And they all agreed with their king, Vortigern, to call over to their aid, from the parts beyond the sea, the Saxon nation; which, as the outcome still more plainly showed, appears to have been done by the inspiration of our Lord Himself, that evil might fall upon them for their wicked deeds.

In the year of our Lord 449,[72] Martian, being made emperor with Valentinian, the forty-sixth from Augustus, ruled the Empire seven years. Then the nation of the Angles, or Saxons, being invited by the aforesaid king, arrived in Britain with three long ships, and had a place assigned them to reside in by the same king, in the eastern part of the island,[73] that they might thus appear to be fighting for their country, while their real intentions were to enslave it. Accordingly they engaged with the enemy, who were come from the north to give battle, and obtained the victory; which, being known at home in their own country, as also the fertility of the islands and the cowardice of the Britons, a larger fleet was quickly sent over, bringing a still greater number of men, who, being added to the former, made The Saxons settle in the island up an invincible army. The newcomers received from the Britons a place to dwell, upon condition that they should wage war against their enemies for the peace and security of the country, while the Britons agreed to furnish them with pay.

Those who came over were of the three most powerful nations of Germany—Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the people of Kent and of the Isle of Wight, and those also in the province of the West Saxons who are to this day called Jutes, seated opposite to the Isle of Wight. From the Saxons, that is, the country which is now called Old Saxony, came the East Saxons, the South Saxons, and the West Saxons. From the Angles, that is, the country which is called Anglia, and which is said, from that time, to remain desert to this day, between the provinces of the Jutes and the Saxons, are descended the East Angles, the Midland Angles, Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians, that is, of those nations that dwell on the north side of the River Humber, and the other nations of the English.

The first two commanders are said to have been Hengist and Horsa. Horsa, being afterwards slain in battle by the Britons,[74] Hengist and Horsa was buried in the eastern part of Kent, where a monument bearing his name is still in existence. They were the sons of Victgilsus, whose father was Vecta, son of Woden; from whose stock the royal races of many provinces trace their descent. In a short time swarms of the aforesaid nations came over into the island, and they began to increase so much that they became a terror to the natives themselves who had invited them. Then, having on a sudden entered into a league with the Picts, whom they had by this time repelled by The Saxons turn against the Britons the force of their arms, they began to turn their weapons against their confederates. At first they obliged them to furnish a greater quantity of provisions; and, seeking an occasion to quarrel, protested that unless more plentiful supplies were brought them they would break the confederacy and ravage all the island; nor were they backward in putting their threats in execution.

They plundered all the neighboring cities and country, spread the conflagration from the eastern to the western sea without any opposition, and covered almost every part of the island. Public as well as private structures were overturned; Their devastation of the country the priests were everywhere slain before the altars; the prelates and the people, without any respect of persons, were destroyed with fire and sword; nor were there any to bury those who had been thus cruelly slaughtered. Some of the miserable remainder, being taken in the mountains, were butchered in heaps. Others, driven by hunger, came forth and submitted themselves to the enemy for food, being destined to undergo perpetual servitude, if they were not killed upon the spot. Some, with sorrowful hearts, fled beyond the seas. Others, continuing in their own country, led a miserable life among the woods, rocks, and mountains, with scarcely enough food to support life, and expecting every moment to be their last.[75]

9. The Mission of Augustine (597)

How or when the Christian religion was first introduced into Britain cannot now be ascertained. As early as the beginning of the third century the African church father Tertullian referred to the Britons as a Christian people, and in 314 the British church was recognized by the Council of Arles as an integral part of the church universal. Throughout the period of Roman control in the island Christianity continued to be the dominant religion. When, however, in the fifth century and after, the Saxons and Angles invaded the country and the native population was largely killed off or driven westward (though not so completely as some books tell us), Christianity came to be pretty much confined to the Celtic peoples of Ireland and Wales. The invaders were still pagans worshiping the old Teutonic deities Woden, Thor, Freya, and the rest, and though an attempt at their conversion was made by a succession of Irish monks, their pride as conquerors seems to have kept them from being greatly influenced. At any rate, the conversion of the Angles and Saxons was a task which called for a special evangelistic movement from no less a source than the head of the Church. This movement was set in operation by Pope Gregory I. (Gregory the Great) near the close of the sixth century. It is reasonable to suppose that the impulse came originally from Bertha, the Frankish queen of King Ethelbert of Kent, who was an ardent Christian and very desirous of bringing about the conversion of her adopted people. In 596 Augustine (not to be confused with the celebrated bishop of Hippo in the fifth century) was sent by Pope Gregory at the head of a band of monks to proclaim the religion of the cross to King Ethelbert, and afterwards to all the Angles and Saxons and Jutes in the island. On Whitsunday, June 2, 597, Ethelbert renounced his old gods and was baptized into the Christian communion. The majority of his people soon followed his example and four years later Augustine was appointed "Bishop of the English." After this encouraging beginning the Christianizing of the East, West, and South Saxons went steadily forward.

Source—Bæda, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Bk. I., Chaps. 23, 25-26. Adapted from translation by J. A. Giles (London, 1847), pp. 34-40 passim.

In the year of our Lord 582, Maurice, the fifty-fourth from Augustus, ascended the throne,[76] and reigned twenty-one years. In the tenth year of his reign, Gregory, a man renowned for learning and piety, was elected to the apostolical see of Rome, and presided over it thirteen years, six months and ten days.[77] He, Pope Gregory I. sends missionaries to Britain being moved by divine inspiration, in the fourteenth year of the same emperor, and about the one hundred and fiftieth after the coming of the English into Britain, sent the servant of God, Augustine,[78] and with him several other monks who feared the Lord, to preach the word of God to the English nation. They, in obedience to the Pope's commands, having undertaken that work, were on their journey seized with a sudden fear and began to think of returning home, rather than of proceeding to a barbarous, fierce, and unbelieving nation, to whose very language they They become frightened at the outlook were strangers; and this they unanimously agreed was the safest course.[79] In short, they sent back Augustine, who had been appointed to be consecrated bishop in case they were received by the English, that he might, by humble entreaty, obtain consent of the holy Gregory, that they should not be compelled to undertake so dangerous, toilsome, and uncertain a journey. The Pope, in reply, sent them an encouraging letter, persuading them to proceed in the work of the divine word, and rely on the assistance of the Almighty. The substance of this letter was as follows:

"Gregory, the servant of the servants of God, to the servants of our Lord. Forasmuch as it had been better not to begin a good work than to think of abandoning that Gregory's letter of encouragement which has been begun, it behooves you, my beloved sons, to fulfill the good work which, by the help of our Lord, you have undertaken. Let not, therefore, the toil of the journey nor the tongues of evil-speaking men deter you. With all possible earnestness and zeal perform that which, by God's direction, you have undertaken; being assured that much labor is followed by an eternal reward. When Augustine, your chief, returns, whom we also constitute your abbot,[80] humbly obey him in all things; knowing that whatsoever you shall do by his direction will, in all respects, be helpful to your souls. Almighty God protect you with his grace, and grant that I, in the heavenly country, may see the fruits of your labor; inasmuch as, though I cannot labor with you, I shall partake in the joy of the reward, because I am willing to labor. God keep you in safety, my most beloved sons. Dated the 23rd of July, in the fourteenth year of the reign of our pious and most august lord, Mauritius Tiberius, the thirteenth year after the consulship of our said lord."

Augustine, thus strengthened by the confirmation of the blessed Father Gregory, returned to the work of the word of God, with the servants of Christ, and arrived in Britain. The powerful Ethelbert was at that time king of Kent. He had extended his dominions as far as the great River Humber, by which the Southern Saxons are divided from the Northern.[81] On the east of Kent is the large isle of Thanet containing according to Augustine and his companions arrive in Kent the English reckoning 600 families, divided from the other land by the River Wantsum, which is about three furlongs over and fordable only in two places, for both ends of it run into the sea.[82] In this island landed the servant of our Lord, Augustine, and his companions, being, as is reported, nearly forty men. By order of the blessed Pope Gregory, they had taken interpreters of the nation of the Franks,[83] and sending to Ethelbert, signified that they were come from Rome and brought a joyful message, which most undoubtedly assured to all that took advantage of it everlasting joys in heaven and a kingdom that would never end, with the living and true God. The king, having heard this, ordered that they stay in that island where they had landed, and that they be furnished with all necessaries, until he should consider what to do with them. For he had before heard of the Christian religion, having a Christian wife of the royal family of the Franks, called Bertha;[84] whom he had received from her parents upon condition that she should be permitted to practice her religion with the Bishop Luidhard, who was sent with her to preserve her faith.[85]

Some days after, the king came to the island, and sitting in the open air, ordered Augustine and his companions to be brought into his presence. For he had taken precaution that they should not come to him in any house, lest, according to an ancient superstition, if they practised any magical arts, they might impose upon him, and so get the better of him. But they came furnished with divine, not with magic virtue, bearing a silver cross for their banner, and the image of our Lord and Savior painted on a board; and singing the litany, they offered up their prayers to the Lord for the eternal salvation both of themselves and of Augustine preaches to King Ethelbert those to whom they were come. When Augustine had sat down, according to the king's commands, and preached to him and his attendants there present the word of life, the king answered thus: "Your words and promises are very fair, but as they are new to us, and of uncertain import, I cannot approve of them so far as to forsake that which I have so long followed with the whole English nation. But because you are come from afar into my kingdom, and, as I conceive, are desirous to impart to us those things which you believe to be true and most beneficial, we will not molest you, but give you favorable entertainment and take care to supply you with necessary sustenance; nor do we forbid you to preach and win as many as you can to your religion." Accordingly he permitted them to reside in the city of Canterbury, which was the metropolis of all his dominions, and, according to his promise, besides allowing them sustenance, did not refuse them liberty to preach. It is reported that, as they drew near to the city, after their manner, with the holy cross and the image of our sovereign Lord and King, Jesus Christ, they sang this litany together: "We beseech thee, O Lord, in all Thy mercy, that Thy anger and wrath be turned away from this city, and from Thy holy house, because we have sinned. Hallelujah."

As soon as they entered the dwelling-place assigned them, they began to imitate the course of life practised in the primitive Church; applying themselves to frequent prayer, watching, and fasting; preaching the word of life to as many as they could; despising all worldly things as not belonging to them; receiving only their necessary food from those they taught; living The life of the missionaries at Canterbury themselves in all respects in conformity with what they prescribed for others, and being always disposed to suffer any adversity, and even to die for that truth which they preached. In short, several believed and were baptized, admiring the simplicity of their innocent life, and the sweetness of their heavenly doctrine. There was, on the east side of the city, a church dedicated to the honor of St. Martin, built whilst the Romans were still in the island, wherein the queen, who, as has been said before, was a Christian, used to pray.[86] In this they first began to meet, to sing, to pray, to say mass, to preach, and to baptize, until the king, being converted to the faith, allowed them to preach openly, and build or repair churches in all places.

When he, among the rest, induced by the unspotted life of these holy men, and their pleasing promises, which by many Ethelbert converted miracles they proved to be most certain, believed and was baptized, greater numbers began daily to flock together to hear the word, and forsaking their heathen rites, to associate themselves, by believing, to the unity of the church of Christ. Their conversion the king encouraged in so far that he compelled none to embrace Christianity, but only showed more affection to the believers, as to his fellow-citizens in the heavenly kingdom. For he had learned from his instructors and guides to salvation that the service of Christ ought to be voluntary, not by compulsion. Nor was it long before he gave his teachers a settled residence in his metropolis of Canterbury, with such possessions of different kinds as were necessary for their subsistence.[87]

CHAPTER VI.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

10. Pope Leo's Sermon on the Petrine Supremacy

In tracing the history of the great ecclesiastical institution known as the papacy, the first figure that stands out with considerable clearness is that of Leo I., or Leo the Great, who was elected bishop of Rome in the year 440. Leo is perhaps the first man who, all things considered, can be called "pope" in the modern sense of the term, although certain of his predecessors in the bishop's seat at the imperial capital had long claimed and exercised a peculiar measure of authority over their fellow bishops throughout the Empire. Almost from the earliest days of Christianity the word papa (pope) seems to have been in common use as an affectionate mode of addressing any bishop, but after the fourth century it came to be applied in a peculiar manner to the bishop of Rome, and in time this was the only usage, so far as western Europe was concerned, which survived. The causes of the special development of the Roman bishopric into the powerful papal office were numerous. Rome's importance as a city, and particularly as the political head of the Mediterranean world, made it natural that her bishop should have something of a special dignity and influence. Throughout western Europe the Roman church was regarded as a model and its bishop was frequently called upon for counsel and advice. Then, when the seat of the imperial government was removed to the East by Constantine, the Roman bishop naturally took up much of the leadership in the West which had been exercised by the emperor, and this added not a little in the way of prestige. On the whole the Roman bishops were moderate, liberal, and sensible in their attitude toward church questions, thereby commending themselves to the practical peoples of the West in a way that other bishops did not always do. The growth of temporal possessions, especially in the way of land, also made the Roman bishops more independent and able to hold their own. And the activity of such men as Leo the Great in warding off the attacks of the German barbarians, and in providing popular leadership in the absence of such leadership on the part of the imperial authorities, was a not unimportant item.

After all, however, these are matters which have always been regarded by the popes themselves as circumstances of a more or less transitory and accidental character. It is not upon any or all of them that the papacy from first to last has sought to base its high claims to authority. The fundamental explanation, from the papal standpoint, for the peculiar development of the papal power in the person of the bishops of Rome is contained in the so-called theory of the "Petrine Supremacy," which will be found set forth in Pope Leo's sermon reproduced in part below. The essential points in this theory are: (1) that to the apostle Peter, Christ committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the supremacy over all other apostles on earth; (2) that Peter, in the course of time, became the first bishop of Rome; and (3) that the superior authority given to Peter was transmitted to all his successors in the Roman bishopric. It was fundamentally on these grounds that the pope, to quote an able Catholic historian, was believed to be "the visible representative of ecclesiastical unity, the supreme teacher and custodian of the faith, the supreme legislator, the guardian and interpreter of the canons, the legitimate superior of all bishops, the final judge of councils—an office which he possessed in his own right, and which he actually exercised by presiding over all ecumenical synods, through his legates, and by confirming the acts of the councils as the Supreme Head of the Universal Catholic Church."[88] Modern Protestants discard certain of the tenets which go to make up the Petrine theory, but it is essential that the student of history bear in mind that the people of the Middle Ages never doubted its complete and literal authenticity, nor questioned that the authority of the papal office rested at bottom upon something far more fundamental than a mere fortunate combination of historical circumstances. Whatever one's personal opinions on the issues involved, the point to be insisted upon is that in studying mediæval church life and organization the universal acceptance of these beliefs and conclusions be never lost to view.

Leo was pope from 440 to 461 and it has been well maintained that he was the first occupant of the office to comprehend the wide possibilities of the papal dignity in the future. In his sermons and letters he vigorously asserted the sovereign authority of his position, and in his influence on the events of his time, as for example the Council of Chalcedon in 451, he sought with no little success to bring men to a general acknowledgment of this authority.

Source—Text in Jacques Paul Migne, Patroligiæ Cursus Completus ["Complete Collection of Patristic Literature">[, First Series, Vol. LIV., cols. 144-148. Translated in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York, 1895), Second Series, Vol. XII., pp. 117-118.

Although, therefore, dearly beloved, we be found both weak and slothful in fulfilling the duties of our office, because, whatever devoted and vigorous action we desire to undertake, we are hindered in by the frailty of our nature, yet having the unceasing propitiation of the Almighty and perpetual Priest [Christ], who being like us and yet equal with the Father, brought down His Godhead even to things human, and raised His Manhood even to things Divine, we worthily and piously rejoice over His dispensation, whereby, though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock. And from His overruling The apostle Peter still with his Church and eternal protection we have received the support of the Apostle's aid also, which assuredly does not cease from its operation; and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole superstructure of the Church is reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual; and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter.

For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson,[89] the Lord had asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be amid the various opinions that were held, and the blessed Peter had replied, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Christ's commission to Peter the Lord said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Matt. xvi. 16-19.]

The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in Peter properly rules the Church through his successors at Rome heaven—from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is intrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see....[90]

And so, dearly beloved, with becoming obedience we celebrate to-day's festival[91] by such methods, that in my humble person he may be recognized and honored, in whom abides the care of all the shepherds, together with the charge of the sheep commended to him, and whose dignity is not belittled even in so unworthy an Leo claims to be only Peter's representative heir. And hence the presence of my venerable brothers and fellow-priests, so much desired and valued by me, will be the more sacred and precious, if they will transfer the chief honor of this service in which they have deigned to take part to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also the primate of all bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are. Because it is his warning that we give, and nothing else but his teaching that we preach, beseeching you to "gird up the loins of your mind," and lead a chaste and sober life in the fear of God, and not to let your mind forget his supremacy and consent to the lusts of the flesh.

Short and fleeting are the joys of this world's pleasures which endeavor to turn aside from the path of life those who are called to eternity. The faithful and religious spirit, therefore, must desire the things which are heavenly and, being eager for the An exhortation to Christian constancy divine promises, lift itself to the love of the incorruptible Good and the hope of the true Light. But be assured, dearly-beloved, that your labor, whereby you resist vices and fight against carnal desires, is pleasing and precious in God's sight, and in God's mercy will profit not only yourselves but me also, because the zealous pastor makes his boast of the progress of the Lord's flock. "For ye are my crown and joy," as the Apostle says, if your faith, which from the beginning of the Gospel has been preached in all The peculiar privilege of the church at Rome the world, has continued in love and holiness. For though the whole Church, which is in all the world, ought to abound in all virtues, yet you especially, above all people, it becomes to excel in deeds of piety, because, founded as you are on the very citadel of the Apostolic Rock, not only has our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed you in common with all men, but the blessed Apostle Peter has instructed you far beyond all men.

11. The Rule of St. Benedict

A very important feature of the church life of the early Middle Ages was the tendency of devout men to withdraw from the active affairs of the world and give themselves up to careers of self-sacrificing piety. Sometimes such men went out to live alone in forests or other obscure places and for this reason were called anchorites or hermits; but more often they settled in groups and formed what came to be known as monasteries. The idea that seclusion is helpful to the religious life was not peculiar to Christianity, for from very early times Brahmins and Buddhists and other peoples of the Orient had cherished the same view; and in many cases they do so still. Monasticism among Christians began naturally in the East and at first took the form almost wholly of hermitage, just as it had done among the adherents of other Oriental religions, though by the fourth century the Christian monks of Syria and Egypt and Asia Minor had come in many cases to dwell in established communities. In general the Eastern monks were prone to extremes in the way of penance and self-torture which the more practical peoples of the West were not greatly disposed to imitate. Monasticism spread into the West, but not until comparatively late—beginning in the second half of the fourth century—and the character which it there assumed was quite unlike that prevailing in the East. The Eastern ideal was the life of meditation with as little activity as possible, except perhaps such as was necessary in order to impose hardships upon one's self. The Western ideal, on the other hand, while involving a good deal of meditation and prayer, put much emphasis on labor and did not call for so complete an abstention of the monk from the pursuits and pleasures of other men.

In the later fifth century, and earlier sixth, several monasteries of whose history we know little were established in southern Gaul, especially in the pleasant valley of the Rhone. Earliest of all, apparently, and destined to become the most influential was the abbey of St. Martin at Tours, founded soon after St. Martin was made bishop of Tours in 372. But the development of Western monasticism is associated most of all with the work of St. Benedict of Nursia, who died in 543. Benedict was the founder of several monasteries in the vicinity of Rome, the most important being that of Monte Cassino, on the road from Rome to Naples, which exists to this day. One should guard, however, against the mistake of looking upon St. Benedict as the introducer of monasticism in the West, of even as the founder of a new monastic order in the strict sense of the word. The great service which he rendered to European monasticism consisted in his working out for his monasteries in Italy an elaborate system of government which was found so successful in practice that, in the form of the Benedictine Rule (regula), it came to be the constitution under which for many centuries practically all the monks of Western countries lived. That it was so widely adopted was due mainly to its definite, practical, common-sense character. Its chief injunctions upon the monks were poverty, chastity, obedience, piety, and labor. All these were to be attained by methods which, although they may seem strange to us to-day, were at least natural and wholesome when judged by the ideas and standards prevailing in early mediæval times. Granted the ascetic principle upon which the monastic system rested, the Rule of St. Benedict must be regarded as eminently moderate and sensible. It sprang from an acute perception of human nature and human needs no less than from a lofty ideal of religious perfection. The following extracts will serve to show its character.

Source—Text in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, First Series, Vol. LXVI., cols. 245-932 passim. Adapted from translation in Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London, 1896), pp. 274-314.

Prologue.... We are about to found, therefore, a school for the Lord's service, in the organization of which we trust that we shall ordain nothing severe and nothing burdensome. But even if, the demands of justice dictating it, something a trifle irksome shall be the result, for the purpose of amending vices or preserving charity, thou shalt not therefore, struck by fear, flee the way of salvation, which cannot be entered upon except through a narrow entrance.

2. What the abbot should be like. An abbot who is worthy to preside over a monastery ought always to remember what he is called, and carry out with his deeds the name of a Superior. For he is believed to be Christ's representative, since he is called by His name, the apostle saying: "Ye have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we call Abba, Father" [Romans viii. 15]. And so the abbot should not (grant that he may not) teach, or decree, or order, anything apart from the precept of the Lord; but his order or teaching should be characterized by the marks of divine justice in the minds of his disciples. Let the abbot Responsibility of the abbot for the character and deeds of the monks always be mindful that, at the terrible judgment of God, both things will be weighed in the balance, his teaching and the obedience of his disciples. And let the abbot know that whatever of uselessness the father of the family finds among the sheep is laid to the fault of the shepherd. Only in a case where the whole diligence of their pastor shall have been bestowed on an unruly and disobedient flock, and his whole care given to their wrongful actions, shall that pastor, absolved in the judgment of the Lord, be free to say to the Lord with the prophet: "I have not hid Thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared Thy faithfulness and Thy salvation, but they, despising, have scorned me" [Psalms xl. 10]. And then let the punishment for the disobedient sheep under his care be that death itself shall prevail against He must teach by example as well as by precept them. Therefore, when any one receives the name of abbot, he ought to rule over his disciples with a double teaching; that is, let him show forth all good and holy things by deeds more than by words. So that to ready disciples he may set forth the commands of God in words; but to the hard-hearted and the more simple-minded, he may show forth the divine precepts by his deeds.

He shall make no distinction of persons in the monastery. One shall not be more cherished than another, unless it be the one whom he finds excelling in good works or in obedience. A free-born man shall not be preferred to one coming from servitude, unless there be some other reasonable cause. But if, by the demand of justice, it seems good to the abbot, he shall do this, no matter what the rank shall be. But otherwise they shall keep their own places. For whether we be bond or free, we are all His duty to encourage, to admonish, and to punish one in Christ; and, under one God, we perform an equal service of subjection. For God is no respecter of persons. Only in this way is a distinction made by Him concerning us, if we are found humble and surpassing others in good works. Therefore let him [the abbot] have equal charity for all. Let the same discipline be administered in all cases according to merit.... He should, that is, rebuke more severely the unruly and the turbulent. The obedient, moreover, and the gentle and the patient, he should exhort, that they may progress to higher things. But the negligent and scorners, we warn him to admonish and reprove. Nor let him conceal the sins of the erring; but, in order that he may prevail, let him pluck them out by the roots as soon as they begin to spring up.

And let him know what a difficult and arduous thing he has undertaken—to rule the souls and uplift the morals of many. And in one case indeed with blandishments, in another with rebukes, in another with persuasion—according to the quality or intelligence of each one—he shall so conform and adapt himself to all that not only shall he not allow injury to come to the flock committed to him, but he shall rejoice in the increase of a good flock. Above all things, let him not, deceiving himself or undervaluing the safety of the souls committed to him, give more heed to temporary and earthly and passing things; but let him always reflect that he has undertaken to rule souls for which he is to render account.

3. About calling in the brethren to take counsel. Whenever anything of importance is to be done in the monastery, the abbot shall call together the whole congregation,[92] and shall himself explain the matter in question. And, having heard the advice of the brethren, he shall think it over by himself, and shall do The monks to be consulted by the abbot what he considers most advantageous. And for this reason, moreover, we have said that all ought to be called to take counsel, because often it is to a younger person that God reveals what is best. The brethren, moreover, with all subjection of humility, ought so to give their advice that they do not presume boldly to defend what seems good to them; but it should rather depend on the judgment of the abbot, so that, whatever he decides to be best, they should all agree to it. But even as it behooves the disciples to obey the master, so it is fitting that he should arrange all matters with care and justice. In all things, indeed, let The Rule to be followed by every one as a guide every one follow the Rule as his guide; and let no one rashly deviate from it. Let no one in the monastery follow the inclination of his own heart. And let no one boldly presume to dispute with his abbot, within or without the monastery. But, if he should so presume, let him be subject to the discipline of the Rule.

33. Whether the monks should have anything of their own. More than anything else is this special vice to be cut off root and No property to be owned by the monks individually branch from the monastery, that one should presume to give or receive anything without the order of the abbot, or should have anything of his own. He should have absolutely not anything, neither a book, nor tablets, nor a pen—nothing at all. For indeed it is not allowed to the monks to have their own bodies or wills in their own power. But all things necessary they must expect from the Father of the monastery; nor is it allowable to have anything which the abbot has not given or permitted. All things shall be held in common; as it is written, "Let not any man presume to call anything his own." But if any one shall have been discovered delighting in this most evil vice, being warned once and again, if he do not amend, let him be subjected to punishment.[93]

48. Concerning the daily manual labor. Idleness is the enemy of the soul.[94] And therefore, at fixed times, the brothers ought to be occupied in manual labor; and again, at fixed times, in sacred reading.[95] Therefore we believe that both seasons ought to be arranged after this manner,—so that, from Easter until the Calends of October,[96] going out early, from the first until the fourth hour they shall do what labor may be necessary. From Daily schedule for the summer season the fourth hour until about the sixth, they shall be free for reading. After the meal of the sixth hour, rising from the table, they shall rest in their beds with all silence; or, perchance, he that wishes to read may read to himself in such a way as not to disturb another. And the nona [the second meal] shall be gone through with more moderately about the middle of the eighth hour; and again they shall work at what is to be done until Vespers.[97] But, if the emergency or poverty of the place demands that they be occupied in picking fruits, they shall not be grieved; for they are truly monks if they live by the labors of their hands, as did also our fathers and the apostles. Let all things be done with moderation, however, on account of the faint-hearted.

In days of Lent they shall all receive separate books from the library, which they shall read entirely through in order. These books are to be given out on the first day of Lent. Above all there shall be appointed without fail one or two elders, who shall Reading during Lent go round the monastery at the hours in which the brothers are engaged in reading, and see to it that no troublesome brother be found who is given to idleness and trifling, and is not intent on his reading, being not only of no use to himself, but also stirring up others. If such a one (may it not happen) be found, he shall be reproved once and a second time. If he do not amend, he shall be subject under the Rule to such punishment that the others may have fear. Nor shall brother join brother at unsuitable hours. Moreover, on Sunday all shall engage in reading, excepting those who are assigned to various duties. But if any one be so negligent and lazy that he will not or can not read, some task shall be imposed upon him which he can do, so that he be not idle. On feeble or delicate brothers such a task or art is to be imposed, that they shall neither be idle nor so oppressed by the violence of labor as to be driven to take flight. Their weakness is to be taken into consideration by the abbot.

53. Concerning the reception of guests. All guests who come shall be received as though they were Christ. For He Himself Hospitality enjoined said, "I was a stranger and ye took me in" [Matt. xxv. 35]. And to all fitting honor shall be shown; but, most of all, to servants of the faith and to pilgrims. When, therefore, a guest is announced, the prior or the brothers shall run to meet him, with every token of love. And first they shall pray together, and thus they shall be joined together in peace.

54. Whether a monk should be allowed to receive letters or anything. By no means shall it be allowed to a monk—either from his relatives, or from any man, or from one of his fellows—to receive or to give, without order of the abbot, letters, presents, or any gift, however small. But even if, by his relatives, anything has been sent to him, he shall not presume to receive it, unless it has first been shown to the abbot. But if the latter order Power of abbot to dispose of articles sent to the monks it to be received, it shall be in the power of the abbot to give it to whomsoever he wishes. And the brother to whom it happened to have been sent shall not be displeased; that an opportunity be not given to the devil. Whoever, moreover, presumes to do otherwise shall be subject to the discipline of the Rule.

12. Gregory the Great on the Life of the Pastor

Gregory the Great, whose papacy extended from 590 to 604, was a Roman of noble and wealthy family, and in many ways the ablest man who had yet risen to the papal office. The date of his birth is not recorded, but it was probably about 540, some ten years after St. Benedict of Nursia had established his monastery at Monte Cassino. He was therefore a contemporary of the historian Gregory of Tours [see [p. 47]]. The education which he received was that which was usual with young Romans of his rank in life, and it is said that in grammar, rhetoric, logic, and law he became well versed, though without any claim to unusual scholarship. He entered public life and in 570 was made prætor of the city of Rome. All the time, however, he was struggling with the strange attractiveness which the life of the monk had for him, and in the end, upon the death of his father, he decided to forego the career to which his wealth and rank entitled him and to seek the development of his higher nature in seclusion. With the money obtained from the sale of his great estates he established six monasteries in Sicily and that of St. Andrew at Rome. In Gregory's case, however, retirement to monastic life did not mean oblivion, for soon he was selected by Pope Pelagius II., as resident minister (apocrisiarius) at Constantinople and in this important position he was maintained for five or six years. After returning to Rome he became abbot of St. Andrews, and in 590, as the records say, he was "demanded" as pope.

Gregory was a man of very unusual ability and the force of his strong personality made his reign one of the great formative epochs in papal history. Besides his activity in relation to the affairs of the world in general, he has the distinction of being a literary pope. His letters and treatises were numerous and possessed a quality of thought and style which was exceedingly rare in his day. The most famous of his writings, and justly so, is the Liber Regulæ Pastoralis, known commonly to English readers as the "Pastoral Care," or the "Pastoral Rule." This book was written soon after its author became pope (590) and was addressed to John, bishop of Ravenna, in reply to inquiries received from him respecting the duties and obligations of the clergy. Though thus put into form for a special purpose, there can be no doubt that it was the product of long thought, and in fact in his Magna Moralia, or "Commentary on the Book of Job," written during his residence at Constantinople, Gregory declared his purpose some day to write just such a book. Everywhere throughout Europe the work was received with the favor it deserved, and in Spain, Gaul, and Italy its influence upon the life and manners of the clergy was beyond estimate. Even in Britain, after King Alfred's paraphrase of it in the Saxon tongue had been made, three hundred years later [see [p. 193]], it was a real power for good. The permanent value of Gregory's instructions regarding the life of the clergy arose not only from the lofty spirit in which they were conceived and the clear-cut manner in which they were expressed, but from their breadth and adaptation to all times and places. There are few books which the modern pastor can read with greater profit. The work is in four parts: (1) on the selection of men for the work of the Church; (2) on the sort of life the pastor ought to live; (3) on the best methods of dealing with the various types of people which every pastor will be likely to encounter; and (4) on the necessity that the pastor guard himself against egotism and personal ambition. The passages below are taken from the second and third parts.

Source—Gregorius Magnus, Liber Regulæ Pastoralis [Gregory the Great, "The Book of the Pastoral Rule">[. Text in Jacques Paul Migne, Patroligiæ Cursus Completus, First Series, Vol. LXXVII., cols. 12-127 passim. Adapted from translation in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York, 1895), Second Series, Vol. XII., pp. 9-71 passim.

The conduct of a prelate[98] ought so far to be superior to the conduct of the people as the life of a shepherd is accustomed to exalt him above the flock. For one whose position is such that the people are called his flock ought anxiously to consider how great a necessity is laid upon him to maintain uprightness. It The qualities which ought to be united in the pastor is necessary, then, that in thought he should be pure, in action firm; discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech; a near neighbor to every one in sympathy, exalted above all in contemplation; a familiar friend of good livers through humility, unbending against the vices of evil-doers through zeal for righteousness; not relaxing in his care for what is inward by reason of being occupied in outward things, nor neglecting to provide for outward things in his anxiety for what is inward.

The ruler should always be pure in thought, inasmuch as no impurity ought to pollute him who has undertaken the office Purity of heart essential of wiping away the stains of pollution in the hearts of others also; for the hand that would cleanse from dirt must needs be clean, lest, being itself sordid with clinging mire, it soil all the more whatever it touches.

The ruler should always be a leader in action, that by his living he may point out the way of life to those who are put under him, He must teach by example and that the flock, which follows the voice and manners of the shepherd, may learn how to walk rather through example than through words. For he who is required by the necessity of his position to speak the highest things is compelled by the same necessity to do the highest things. For that voice more readily penetrates the hearer's heart, which the speaker's life commends, since what he commands by speaking he helps the doing by showing.

The ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech; lest he either utter what ought to be suppressed or suppress what he ought to utter. For, as incautious speaking leads into error, so indiscreet silence leaves in error those who might have been instructed.

The ruler ought also to understand how commonly vices pass themselves off as virtues. For often niggardliness excuses itself under the name of frugality, and on the other hand extravagance conceals itself under the name of liberality. Often inordinate carelessness is believed to be loving-kindness, and unbridled wrath is accounted the virtue of spiritual zeal. Often hasty action is taken for promptness, and tardiness for the deliberation He must be able to distinguish virtues and vices of seriousness. Whence it is necessary for the ruler of souls to distinguish with vigilant care between virtues and vices, lest stinginess get possession of his heart while he exults in seeming frugality in expenditure; or, while anything is recklessly wasted, he glory in being, as it were, compassionately liberal; or, in overlooking what he ought to have smitten, he draw on those that are under him to eternal punishment; or, in mercilessly smiting an offense, he himself offend more grievously; or, by rashly anticipating, mar what might have been done properly and gravely; or, by putting off the merit of a good action, change it to something worse.

Since, then, we have shown what manner of man the pastor ought to be, let us now set forth after what manner he should No one kind of teaching adapted to all men teach. For, as long before us Gregory Nazianzen,[99] of reverend memory, has taught, one and the same exhortation does not suit all, inasmuch as all are not bound together by similarity of character. For the things that profit some often hurt others; seeing that also, for the most part, herbs which nourish some animals are fatal to others; and the gentle hissing that quiets horses incites whelps; and the medicine which abates one disease aggravates another; and the food which invigorates the life of the strong kills little children. Therefore, according to the quality of the hearers ought the discourse of teachers to be fashioned, so as to suit all and each for their several needs, and yet never deviate from the art of common edification. For what are the intent minds of hearers but, so to speak, a kind of harp, which the skilful player, in order to produce a tune possessing harmony, strikes in various ways? And for this reason the strings render back a melodious sound, because they are struck indeed with one quill, but not with one kind of stroke. Whence every teacher also, that he may edify all in the one virtue of charity, ought to touch the hearts of his hearers out of one doctrine, but not with one and the same exhortation.

Differently to be admonished are these that follow:

Men and women.

The poor and the rich.

The joyful and the sad.

Prelates and subordinates.

Servants and masters.

The wise of this world and the dull. Various classes of hearers to be distinguished

The impudent and the bashful.

The forward and the faint-hearted.

The impatient and the patient.

The kindly disposed and the envious.

The simple and the insincere.

The whole and the sick.

Those who fear scourges, and therefore live innocently; and those who have grown so hard in iniquity as not to be corrected even by scourges.

The too silent, and those who spend time in much speaking.

The slothful and the hasty.

The meek and the passionate.

The humble and the haughty.

The obstinate and the fickle.

The gluttonous and the abstinent.

Those who mercifully give of their own, and those who would fain seize what belongs to others.

Those who neither seize the things of others nor are bountiful with their own; and those who both give away the things they have, and yet cease not to seize the things of others.

Those who are at variance, and those who are at peace.

Lovers of strife and peacemakers.

Those who understand not aright the words of sacred law; and those who understand them indeed aright, but speak them without humility.

Those who, though able to preach worthily, are afraid through excessive humility; and those whom imperfection or age debars from preaching, and yet rashness impels to it.

(Admonition 7)[100]. Differently to be admonished are the wise of this world and the dull. For the wise are to be admonished that they leave off knowing what they know[101]; the dull also are to be admonished that they seek to know what they know not. In the former this thing first, that they think themselves wise, is to be overcome; in the latter, whatsoever is already known of How the wise and the dull are to be admonished heavenly wisdom is to be built up; since, being in no wise proud, they have, as it were, prepared their hearts for supporting a building. With those we should labor that they become more wisely foolish[102], leave foolish wisdom, and learn the wise foolishness of God: to these we should preach that from what is accounted foolishness they should pass, as from a nearer neighborhood, to true wisdom.

But in the midst of these things we are brought back by the earnest desire of charity to what we have already said above; that every preacher should give forth a sound more by his deeds than by his words, and rather by good living imprint footsteps for men to follow than by speaking show them the way to walk in. For that cock, too, whom the Lord in his manner of speech takes to represent a good preacher, when he is now preparing to crow, first shakes his wings, and by smiting himself makes himself more awake; since it is surely necessary that those who give utterance to words of holy preaching should first be well awake Emphasis on the importance of setting a right example in earnestness of good living, lest they arouse others with their voice while themselves torpid in performance; that they should first shake themselves up by lofty deeds, and then make others solicitous for good living; that they should first smite themselves with the wings of their thoughts; that whatsoever in themselves is unprofitably torpid they should discover by anxious investigation, and correct by strict self-discipline, and then at length set in order the life of others by speaking; that they should take heed to punish their own faults by bewailings, and then denounce what calls for punishment in others; and that, before they give voice to words of exhortation, they should proclaim in their deeds all that they are about to speak.

CHAPTER VII.
THE RISE OF MOHAMMEDANISM

13. Selections from the Koran

The Koran comprises all of the recorded speeches and sayings of the prophet Mohammed and it has for nearly fifteen centuries been the absolute law and gospel of the Mohammedan religion. The teachings and revelations which are contained in it are believed by Mohammedans to have proceeded directly from God. They were delivered orally by Mohammed from time to time in the presence of his followers and until after the prophet's death in 632 no attempt was made to put them in organized written form. Many of the disciples, however, remembered the words their master had uttered, at least until they could inscribe them on palm leaves, bits of wood, bleached bones, or other such articles as happened to be at hand. In the reign of Abu-Bekr (632-634), Mohammed's successor, it became apparent that unless some measure was adopted to bring these scattered sayings together they were in a fair way to be lost for all time to come. Hence the caliph intrusted to a certain young man by the name of Zaid the task of collecting and putting in some sort of system all the teachings that had survived, whether in written form or merely in the minds of men. Zaid had served Mohammed in a capacity which we should designate perhaps as that of secretary, and so should have been well qualified for the work. In later years (about 660) the Koran, or "the reading," as the collection began to be called, was again thoroughly revised. Thereafter all older copies were destroyed and no farther changes in any respect were ever made.

The Koran is made up of one hundred and fourteen chapters, called surahs, arranged loosely in the order of their length, beginning with the longest. This arrangement does not correspond either to the dates at which the various passages were uttered by the prophet or to any sequence of thought and meaning, so that when one takes up the book to read it as it is ordinarily printed it seems about as confused as anything can well be. Scholars, however, have recently discovered the chronological order of the various parts and this knowledge has already come to be of no little assistance in the work of interpretation. Like all sacred books, the Koran abounds in repetitions; yet, taken all in all, it contains not more than two-thirds as many verses as the New Testament, and, as one writer has rather curiously observed, it is not more than one-third as lengthy as the ordinary Sunday edition of the New York Herald. The teachings which are most emphasized are (1) the unity and greatness of God, (2) the sin of worshipping idols, (3) the certainty of the resurrection of the body and the last judgment, (4) the necessity of a belief in the Scriptures as revelations from God communicated through angels to the line of prophets, (5) the luxuries of heaven and the torments of hell, (6) the doctrine of predestination, (7) the authoritativeness of Mohammed's teachings, and (8) the four cardinal obligations of worship (including purification and prayer), fasting, pilgrimages, and alms-giving. Intermingled with these are numerous popular legends and sayings of the Arabs before Mohammed's day, stories from the Old and New Testaments derived from Jewish and Christian settlers in Arabia, and certain definite and practical rules of everyday conduct. The book is not only thus haphazard in subject-matter but it is also very irregular in interest and elegance. Portions of it abound in splendid imagery and lofty conceptions, and represent the literary quality of the Arabian language at its best, though of course this quality is very largely lost in translation. The later surahs—those which appear first in the printed copy—are largely argumentative and legislative in character and naturally fall into a more prosaic and monotonous strain. From an almost inexhaustible maze of precepts, exhortations, and revelations, the following widely separated passages have been selected in the hope that they will serve to show something of the character of the Koran itself, as well as the nature of some of the more important Mohammedan beliefs and ideals. It will be found profitable to make a comparison of Christian beliefs on the same points as drawn from the New Testament.

Source—Text in Edward William Lane, Selections from the Kur-án, edited by Stanley Lane-Poole (London, 1879), passim.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

The opening
prayer[103]

Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds,

The Compassionate, the Merciful,

The King of the day of judgment.