Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Evolution of Medieval Mentalities: A Cognitive-Structural Approach

1978; Oxford University Press; Volume: 83; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/1861839

1937-5239

Charles M. Radding,

Medieval Philosophy and Theology

IN BOOK II of the History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours recounted how Clovis annexed the kingdom belonging to his kinsman, Sigibert the Lame. Clovis began by promising his support to Sigibert's son Chloderic, if Chloderic would kill his father. After assassins murdered Sigibert while he slept, Chloderic informed Clovis of the deed and invited him to dispatch men to receive a portion of Sigibert's treasures. Clovis answered with assurances of his good wishes, but the men Clovis sent to Chloderic killed him as he bent over to display the coins in a treasure chest. Clovis then came to the district himself to address the populace. According to Gregory, Clovis in his speech disclaimed any knowledge of the affair. I cannot, he explained, the blood of my own kinsman, which it is shameful to do. Clovis offered to place the lands of the slain kings under his protection. The populace answered Clovis's speech with great applause of both voices and shields, raised him up on a shield, and acclaimed him their king.' The story itself is a bizarre enough tale of perfidy, but Gregory's conclusion is perhaps even stranger since he, Christian though he was, expressed no shock at or disapproval of the treacheries and lies he had just described. Instead, Gregory asserted that Clovis had succeeded because God was laying low his enemies every day under his hand and was increasing his kingdom, because Clovis walked with an upright heart before God, and did what was pleasing in His eyes. To Gregory Clovis's very success may have been proof of his virtue, or Gregory may have believed Clovis was guiltless, since he shed no blood with his own hands but acted through agents. However Gregory's judgment is interpreted, it is evident that to him Clovis's actual motivation or intention had little bearing on the morality of his action. Nor was this the only episode for which Gregory showed little concern for the intentions of the individuals whose actions he narrated. When Gregory described the murder of Chilperic, for example, he recounted in considerable detail where the assassination occurred, at what time of day it happened, Chilperic's posture as he was stabbed, where the knife entered his body, how the blood spurted forth-everything, in fact, except who the assassin was and