Christian Stadermann's revised doctoral thesis has become an impressive book comprising 600 pages (including the apparatus). The study meticulously analyses fifth- to eighth-century historiographical writers (inter alios Gregory of Tours, the chronicle of Fredegar, the Liber Historiae Francorum, Marius of Avenches) as well as hagiographical sources, some of them not very well known. On the whole S. can show the constant use of a certain set of anecdotes, motifs and stories from late fourth-, fifth- and sixth-century texts for a period of nearly four hundred years. Later Frankish authors constantly changed intentions and aims synthesising a specific view of the past. They tended to focus on the Gothic presence in southern Gaul till the early sixth century, the military conflicts as well as the religious disarray between Gothic Arians and Frankish Catholics (148–224, 384–409, 449–63).
In the summer of 507 the Visigothic king Alaric met the Frank Clovis in the Battle of Vouillé near modern Poitiers. The Goths experienced a crushing defeat and Alaric died on the field. According to Gregory of Tours Clovis himself had killed his rival. As a consequence, the Goths lost both Aquitanian provinces and their capital Toulouse to the expanding Frankish power. Until the Visigoths’ conversion to Catholicism during King Reccared's reign and the Third Council of Toledo (a.d. 589), religious differences dominated the interest of later Frankish authors. Their critique centred on the — in their view — heretic homoian (Arian) Christology of the Gothic clergy. Of course, the Franks had to appear as the righteous believers and those were eventually victorious.
Ch. 1 (13–48) outlines S.’s methodological approach. He discusses various concepts of ethnic identity in the early Middle Ages and furthermore draws a mental map to organise his work along three basic lines: ‘perception and identity (Wahrnehmung und Identität), individual as collective memory (individuelles und kollektives Gedächtnis), interpretation and narration (Deutung und Narrative)’. S. outlines historiography as ‘a social practice defining norms as well as developing patterns of social action (eine soziale Praktik, die normsetzend und handlungskonstituierend wirken kann)’ (47).
Ch. 2 (49–96) deals with late fourth- and fifth-century authors. This implies a deep insight into western Roman imageries of the Goths embedded in texts by Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Orosius, Sidonius Apollinaris and Paulinus of Pella. Writing before the emergence of the Merovingian dynasty, these authors are of basic importance for S.’s study in so far as later writers extensively used and reused them. Apart from the obvious prominence of Augustine and Orosius, Sidonius’ letters to King Euric are a good example. Gregory of Tours built parts of his anti-Gothic religious polemic on Sidonius’ letters (117–18, 124).
Ch. 3 (97–316) is the longest and strongest of this study. It covers the sixth century, mainly Gregory of Tours, the most important historian, as well as Venantius Fortunatus and the chronicle of Marius of Avenches. Finally, S. analyses a set of hagiographical texts. Interestingly enough, Merovingian writers adapted fifth-century texts and changed their focus. While fifth-century authors were concerned with the transformation of the late Roman world and their new barbarian masters (be they Goths or Franks), Merovingian literature expanded the Graeco-Roman cultural denomination ‘Barbarian’ to give it a religious category. Some generations after the conversion of Clovis, conditions had greatly changed. Nevertheless, the Gothic presence in Gaul was in retrospect assembled as a threat for Frankish expansion as well as the righteous belief. Eventually Arianism disappeared, but continued to mark a religious distinction between Goths, Romans and Franks in historical reminiscence (282–94). The Spaniards (Hispani) appear as a gens barbarica, the Gothic king as a rex barbarus or Arrianus as well as a persecutor catholicorum (258–72). Ch. 3, parts 4 and 5 ‘Raum und Identität: Hispanus id est Gothus’ (225–46) and ‘Kultur und Identität: gens barbarica’ (247–53) trace these shifts, and appear to be the strongest part of the book. Patterns and views developed by sixth-century Merovingian authors dominated the Frankish view on the Goths for centuries.
The seventh century is a complicated matter to deal with; nevertheless S. manages to develop an overview and offers deep insights in ch. 4 (317–433). The texts of the century are Fredegar's chronicle, an appendix to Marius of Avenches, Jonas of Bobbio, Audoin of Rouen as well as several anonymous Lives of Saints. The tempora Gothorum, the age of Gothic presence in Southern Gaul, had become a historical category filled with stereotypes, even though historical anecdotes were present and intensely remembered and discussed. Religious differences of the past appear to have been less important. At the same time Frankish authors had established the concept of a morbus Gothorum to denounce the constant quarrel destabilising the Visigothic kingdom. The chapter ends with a remarkable excursus on the Frankish view of Gothic queens (418–32).
Throughout the eighth century the Goths became less present in Frankish literature (ch. 5: 433–76). From the late seventh century onwards, important new monasteries centred in the north of Gaul start to dominate literary production. The Goths, the South and Spain were simply far away. The Arab conquests of 711 had remarkably little impact on Frankish historiography. The Liber historiae Francorum, the Historia vel gesta Francorum and four Lives of Saints (amongst them the Passio Sigismundi regis) derive from the early Carolingian world. S. can now use the outlines developed earlier in his book and demonstrate established views on the Goths, in most cases relying on earlier authors, especially Gregory of Tours. For the Carolingians, Gothic Arianism remained a well-known but distant echo of times past.
A final Appendix (495–636) discusses the Lives of Saints and the passiones at a very high methodological and critical level. This part of the book is well-designed to introduce interested readers who may not be well acquainted with hagiography to the basic problems. However, this impressive study has its drawbacks, in particular in the range of modern works cited: French, Italian and Spanish scholarship is not present at the necessary level. Maybe this is due to the enormous quantity of published material. But all in all, S.’s study has opened new perspectives, and will be important for many years to come.
