² Cf. my Gregory of Tours: Selections from the Minor Works (Philadelphia 1949) 1–10 (introduction), 100–106 (bibliography), reprinted in Monks, Bishops, and Pagans, ed. Peters, E. (Philadelphia 1975). Add to the bibliography there R. Latouche, ‘Quelques réflexions sur la Psychologie de Grégoire de Tours,’ Le Mogen Age 69 (1963) 7–15 and Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Long-haired Kings (London 1962) 49–94, 185–206. All quotations and citations (including the paragraphing) of the Historiae are from the edition of Arndt, W., revised by Krusch, B. and Levison, W., MGH, SRM, 1. fasc. 1–3 (Hannover 1937, 1942, 1951). I now follow Krusch in his praefatio in fascicle 3 in taking Historiae as Gregory's title instead of the traditional Historia Francorum. The text of the Miracula is cited or quoted from Krusch's edition MGH, SRM, 1.2 (Hannover 1885). All references to Krusch are to the notes of this edition, except those to his praefatio. A new translation of the history is being prepared by Lewis Thorpe for Penguin Classics, and I am preparing a translation (with introduction and annotation) of the De vita patrum (book 7 of the Miracula). Cf. also Duchesne, L., Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule (1. 2nd ed., 1907; 2, 1900; 3, 1915) 2.307. Since so many bishops are mentioned below, I have frequently cut in references to Duchesne in my text and notes, using the abbreviation D. for this work.Google Scholar

³ The most useful account of Felix is still that of Sollertius, I.B. (Jean-Baptiste Du Sollers, S.J., 1669–1740), AS 7 Iul. 2.470–477. He has references to Baronius, Bowerus, Cointius inter alios, cited Fortunatus and Gregory in full, and quoted at length from the Breviarium Nannetense for July 7 (my citations of this breviary below are from Sollertius). His account is cited by his name and the pages and subsections. Three good brief accounts with notations of earlier bibliography are H. Leclercq in DACL, s.v. ‘Nantes,’ 12.1 (Paris 1935) 640 f., Villette, P. in Bibliotheca Sanctorum, s.v. ‘Felice,’ 5 (1965) 548; Hourlier, J. in DHGE, s.v., ‘52, Félix,’ 6 (1967) 905 f. Each is cited by the name of the author. Even in these three items there are instances where the distinctions between the ascertainable facts and the legendary accretions are slurred. Cf. also Duchesne, 2.366 f. for Felix’ predecessor Eumerius (no. 15), for Felix (no. 16) and for his cousin and successor Nonnichius (no. 17). According to a report from the Library of Congress a number of earlier items, published locally at Nantes, are not available in the United States. It is very probable that they add nothing to the basic source material, but are concerned mainly with late legendary accretions and with the celebration in later times of the cult of Felix, the patron Saint of Nantes. This view is confirmed by a review by P(oncelet), P(oncelet) in Analecta Bollandiana, 27 (1908) 469 of a more recent book by Abbé Delanoue, A., Saint-Félix de Nantes (Nantes 1907) which I have not seen. The reviewer noted that Abbé Delanoue was the priest of the parish of Saint-Felix, that he devoted pages 9–18 to a panegyric account of Felix, and that the remainder of the volume was devoted to the cult in Nantes. One example of the earlier literature is cited below (note 8).Google Scholar

⁴ The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, 2 vols. (Oxford 1927): repr. 1967. References to the introduction (vol. 1) and to the notes on the translation (vol. 2) will be in places cut in the text below.Google Scholar

⁵ Roman Society in Gaul of the Merovingian Age (London 1926; repr. New York 1966).Google Scholar

⁶ Carmina , 3.4–10 (a long prefatory prose letter to Felix in 4); 5.7. For a pleasing note on Fortunatus including an epitaph in verse cf. Paul the Deacon, Hist. Langobard. 2.13. Full references in Schuster, M. in RE s.v. ‘Venantius 18’ (1955) 677–695. For a charming and somewhat over-generous account of the poet and his poetry cf. Raby, F. J. E., A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages, 1 (2nd ed., Oxford 1957) 127–142. All citations of the carmina are from the edition of Leo, F., MGH, AA, 4.1 (Berlin 1881). The prose works were edited in the second part of that volume by Bruno Krusch (Berlin 1885).Google Scholar

⁷ Gregory was born in Clermont-Ferrand in Auvergne, but the senatorial family there had far-flung connections in Gaul, especially at Tours and Lyon. I plan to discuss the nexus to which this family belonged in another context. Google Scholar

⁸ Ceillier, R., Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiatiques (re v. ed. by Bauzon, Bauzon) 11 (Paris 1862) 313 f.Google Scholar

⁹ For Martin cf. De Buck, V., S.J. in AS Oct. 24 (10.794–818); J. Evenou in Bibl. Sanctorum 8 (1967) 1291–93. The vita antiquissima is quoted in full by De Buck (802–804).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Merlet, R., La chronique de Nantes (Paris 1896) 1–3. The cathedral was looted in the tenth century by a Norman invasion (Merlet, 115).Google Scholar

¹¹ Sirmond, Sirmond, Concilia antiqua Galliae , 1, covering A.D. 314–751 (Paris 1629; repr. Darmstadt 1970) 313–317; de Clercq, C., Concilia Galliae A. 511-A. 695 (CCL 148A. 204–210). De Clercq erroneously cited 576 for the death of Eufronius (210 on line 150). All quotations are from the text of de Clercq.Google Scholar

¹² Sirmond, , 329–349; de Clercq, 175–199. de Clercq incorrectly took sub die XV. kalendas Decembris (194, line 553) as November 18 (175 in the heading). Sirmond has 27 canons, but de Clercq divided no. 11 into two parts. Here and below I follow his numbering. The subscriptio of Eufronius on November 17 was supplied by Sirmond (cf. de Clercq, 194, note on lines 553/554). For the cities of the metropolitans and their suffragans cf. de Clercq, 412–420 and the map opp. 422. The suffragan Sees of Tours are west, northwest and north; those of Rouen (with one exception) are west and southwest. Thus Avranches and Coutance (under Rouen) are close to Dol (under Tours).Google Scholar

¹³ In the epistula ad plebem Sirmond reversed the second and third names. He also excerpted the epistula ad episcopos of Radegunda from Gregory (if. 1.42). Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sirmond, 350–357; de Clercq, 212–217. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Is 5.8. The quotation varies somewhat from the versio Vulgata, as so often in Gregory who was probably quoting from memory. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. my volume, 9 for a discussion of the dates of composition of the various works; also Krusch, praef. XXIf. Google Scholar

¹⁷ The prime mover seems to have been Leudastes who had been dismissed as count of Tours (H. 5.47). Also involved was the sub-deacon Riculf (a relative of the priest?) who under brutal torture testified that the plot was connected with the disloyal son of King Chilperic, Chlodovechus who was to become king while the priest Riculf would be bishop, the lesser Riculf archdeacon and Leudastes duke. Gregory reports this as the truth, but evidence under torture is suspect. Chlodovechus was murdered by the machinations of Queen Fredegund thereafter (if. 5.39). The chronology is here reversed as often in Gregory. For earlier intrigue by the archdeacon Riculf cf. H. 5.14. Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. de Clercq, 220. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Sollertius' suggestion that Riculf may have fled to some other Bishop Felix (477B) has no merit. Nothing further is known of Riculf, but he probably spent the rest of his life as a priest in the See of Nantes under the control of Felix and his successor Nonnichius. Google Scholar

²⁰ I cite here from the text of this vita printed in L. Bordier's, H. translation of Gregory's hagiographic works: 4 (Paris 1864) 212–233.Google Scholar

²¹ It is clear from Gregory's narrative that Cato was a good man and a good priest, far superior to Cautinus (cf. H. 4.7). Gregory accuses Cato of vainglory (H. 4.6: … coturno vanae conflatus gloriae), but when plague devastated Clermont in 571, Cautinus fled and Cato stayed and ministered to his people. Both died (H. 4.31). Gregory's last comment on Cato: Hic autem presbiter multae humanitatis et satis dilectur pauperum fuit; et credo, haec causa ei, si quid superbiae habuit, medicamentum fuit. Google Scholar

²² The normal usage in classical Latin is nepos (‘grandson’) and neptis (‘granddaughter’), but occasionally in post-Augustan Latin ‘nephew’ and ‘niece’. In medieval Latin the latter meaning is normal: W. Levison in the Index of the revised edition of the Historiae (1942) defined ‘nepos, nepus = filius fratris aut sororis (Germ. “neffe”)’ and cited H. 5.30 for ‘nepus = filius fratruelis’ (p. 617). He also defined ‘neptis = filia fratris aut sororis.’ Cf. also Souter, A., A Glossary of Later Latin (Oxford 1949) 264, s. vv. However Gregory was aware of the double meaning of these two words in classical Latin. In many cases we cannot be sure of his meaning, but here nepos means grandson, since he said that his brother Peter was buried (if. 5.5) secus sanctum Gregorium proavum nostrum (proavus must mean great-grandfather).Google Scholar

²³ In 580 Berulf, who was duke in charge of Tours, Poitiers, Angers and Nantes (cf. H. 6.31), and Eunomius who had replaced Leudastes as count of Tours (H. 5.49) sent messengers (H. 5.49) qui mihi consilium ministrarent, ut ad occultum, adsumptis melioribus rebus ecclesiae, Arverno fuga secederem; sed non acquievi. This was shortly before the Council of Berny. Google Scholar

²⁴ Hellmann, S., Historische Zeitschrift 107 (1911) 32. In this article (1–43) he discussed Gregory's bias against his opponents, but carried his thesis to extremes, though Gregory surely does exaggerate, e.g. in his treatment of Leudastes (H. 5.48). He used the comments on Felix as an example (32–34) and started from the standard view with the comment: ‘Auch er ist ein Gegner Gregors.’ ²⁵ Cf. note 22 above.Google Scholar

²⁶ Krusch in his note on GC 77 cited this item in H. 1.44, but applied it incorrectly to Stremonius, the first bishop of Clermont (D. 2.33). Google Scholar

²⁷ Hourlier cited this passage when he suggested that Felix was married before ordination, but seemed to take the anecdote as referring to Felix himself. Google Scholar

²⁸ There will be a fuller discussion in the introduction and notes of my translation of the De vita patrum. For Friardus cf. Evenou, J. in Bibl. Sanctorum 5 (1976) cols. 1272f. Sollertius (AS 1 Aug. 1. 56–59) has only inconclusive arguments on dates and geography and a full quotation of Gregory, VP 10.Google Scholar

²⁹ Gregory has 28 references to the devil in the De vita patrum (under 12 different names): cf. Bartelink, G. J. M., ‘Les denominations du diable chez Grégoire de Tours,’ REL 48 (1970) 411–432 (esp. 412 f.)Google Scholar

³⁰ Except for the problem of the date of the death of Friardus I find the account in the history a clear summary of the diffuse narrative in VP 10. In this I disagree with Hellmann (above note 24) who said in a comment on these two passages (33): ‘Davon finden sich bei Gregor zwei ganz abweichende Varianten.’ Google Scholar

³¹ The Long-haired Kings, 54 f.Google Scholar