PROBLEMS IN MEDIEVAL
HISTORIOGRAPHY: A

SEIECTIVE STUDY

WAYNE WMELL BLEDSOE

THES‘S

0-169

    
    
   

warmest-J “
I?“ 112-: 1'

Mldliga 1 533K?
University

-=_- a, w— 1

WWW WWW n WW WW

312931081

 

 

 

i

   

 

This is to certify that the

 

thesis entitled
Problems in Medieval Historiography:

A Selective Study

presented by

Wayne M. Bledsoe

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_.Ph ° D . degree in __H____Ixi 8 t 0

Q1 fqflwu—

Major professor

November 3, 196r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.—_ ....-—_ it.

ABSTRACT
PROBLEMS IN MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY: A SELECTIVE STUDY

By

Wayne M. Bledsoe

Up to the nineteenth century there prevailed a certain
point of view that colored every word written or spoken about
the early Middle Ages. Essentially, this period was viewed
by the pre-nineteenth century writers as being a "dark age"
stigmatized by the triumph of Christianity and barbarism.
These writers saw coming with the fall of Rome in 476 a dark
shadow that was cast over Western Europe leaving humanity to
wander in ignorance and superstition until the veil of darkness
was finally rent by the Renaissance and Reformation of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

This concept of the early Middle Ages as a "dark age"
received its original impetus from the writers of the Renais-
sance, Reformation, and Enlightenment periods. The spokesmen
of these movements condemned the Middle Ages on the grounds
that during this era men lost the ability to understand the
Greek and Latin classics, corrupted the language, and sacri-
ficed rational thinking for faith in the supernatural. These
writers were content to label the Middle Ages as a "dark age"
and to remove it from the pages of history as being unworthy
of consideration by future generations.

In reaction to these concepts which had been forced up-

on the Middle Ages, there arose in the nineteenth century a

Wayne Mitchell Bledsoe

group of scholars who attempted to present the medieval period
in a greater qualitative light. The leaders of the Romanti—
cist and Nationalist movements saw the Middle Ages not as a
period engulfed by darkness, but as an age possessing a par—
ticular brillance of its own. For the romanticists the Middle
Ages represented a period when men expressed themselves as they
wanted. During this time the passions of men were allowed to
run free. This particular school of thought could see a series
of traits in medieval society that were never felt by the pre—
nineteenth century writers. The nationalist historians like-
wise viewed the Middle Ages as a period of great importance.
Being concerned primarily with the development of the national
state, this school of writers found buried in the Middle Ages
the roots of their homeland. They could see in this period
primitive achievements which were later to evolve into full—
fledged statehood. Thus, these scholars saw existing in the
Middle Ages a series of traits and values which led not to a
condemnation of the period, but praise. This was an age when
the future states of Europe were being formulated and when
man expressed himself in a carefree manner.

This conflict of opinion which has been briefly sketched
here concerning the nature and importance of the Middle Ages
is essentially the basic problem with which this present work
will deal. This problem will be approached by offering a
comparative study of those sources which have been influential
in shaping medieval thought over the past six centuries. In
essence, this work is not intended to present a new or unique

thesis concerning the Middle Ages, but its value and usefulness

Wayne Mitchell Bledsoe

lie within the fact that it brings together and offers a
synthesis of those theses which have been essential in the
development of Medieval history.

While the nineteenth century was responsible for begin—
ning the task of rediscovering the Middle Agfi?’ which the
previous centuries had dismissed as useless, the greatest
achievements in lighting this "dark age" have been made in re-
cent decades. With the increase in number and ability of spe-
cialized scholars studying the various aspects of classical
and medieval civilization, it is no longer possible to support
many of the views tenaciously accepted by pre-nineteenth cen-
tury scholars. For example, it is no longer plausible to
accept the belief that the beginning of the Middle Ages was a
"catastrophic" event heralded by the triumph of Christianity
and barbarism. Along with the study of classical and medieval
institutions, which resulted in the disproval of the catastro-
phic theses, went the invalidation of those beliefs which held
the Middle Ages to be a dark age containing little of value for
the modern world. It is now generally accepted, from the work
of modern medievalists, that this was a vital period best char-
acterized as a period of incubation. It was out of the chaos
following the fall of Rome that there emerged in the Western
portion of the Roman Empire a distinctively different way of
life from which the greater and more enlightened Western Euro—
pean civilization was to emerge. Just as modern research has
pointed out, the true significance of the Middle Ages is not
that it marked the end of classical civilization, but that it

represented the beginning of a new way of life that was later

Wayne Mitchell Bledsoe

to blossom into the Western European civilization. Thus the
major end sought by this work is to prove by a comparative

study of essential medieval theses that the true significance
of the Middle Ages is that it served as the incubation period

for Western European civilization.

PROBLEMS IN MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY: A SELECTIVE STUDY

By

Wayne Mitchell Bledsoe

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of History

1969

PREFACE

One of the greatest problems confronting any historian
is that of persuading his audience to View a particular period
of the past without preconceived notions. This is an old story
in the study of history and one that is as sad as it is old.
Probably no other period in history has been so burdened with
this task as has the Middle Ages. Despite the efforts of medi-
evalists in recent decades to undo the false notions wrought
by earlier scholars wearing glasses of various colors, many
educated persons still persist in accepting ideas and beliefs
of the early Middle Ages that are no longer tenable. For this
reason, one of the major objectives of this work will be to
examine medieval historiography of the past six centuries in
an attempt to identify some of these inaccurate, but enduring
beliefs and in the process demonstrate the efforts of modern
scholars to combat them. Naturally to present a definitive
study of all the sources embodied in this vast span of years
would be an impossible task. Thus, of necessity, the present
work will deal only with those sources which most adequately
represent major schools of thought and which have had a meas—
urable effect upon the shaping of medieval historiography.

While the utilization of such an approach as this has
obvious limitation, e.g., the elimination of important works

which do not conveniently fit into a school of thought, it

ii

likewise has its advantages. The most important advantage to
be gained by this approach is that it permits the author to
demonstrate systematically how the various schools of thought
have addressed themsleves to particular historical issues.

If by limiting this work to a selected number of sources which
have been influential in the development of medieval histori—
ography the reader is made more aware of the nature and magni—
tude of the problems involved in a study of the early Middle
Ages, the purpose of the work will have been served. The great
German historian and philosopher, Ernst Troeltsch, once said
that there are times when it is more important to make a be-
ginning than to produce the finished product. It is in that
belief that the present work has been undertaken.

Many of the historiographical problems relating to
medieval history that have arisen over the centuries have been
created by the conflict of opinions concerning the beginning
of the Middle Ages. Was this a "catastrophic" event heralded
by the onslaught of barbarism and the triumph of Christianity,
or was it an "evolutionary" process covering over two centuries
of decay and devastation within classical civilization? Did
the beginning of the Middle Ages mark the introduction of a
"dark age" that was for centuries to engulf Western Europe, or
was it the genesis of a new civilization that was soon to sur-
pass even the_golden age of Rome? So significant have these
two questions been in the development of medieval historiogra-
phy that a second objective of this work will be to establish
whether or not the beginning of the Middle Ages was a catastrophic

iii

event and if it was the beginning of a "dark age" containing
little of value for the modern mind.

More specifically, our task will involve a consideration
of when and under what circumstances the ancient world came to
an end in Western Europe and the medieval began. As previously
indicated, the method by which this problem will be approached
is not intended to be a chronological history of the early
Middle Ages, but rather a comparative study of those sources
which have been essential in shaping medieval scholarship.

By employing such an approach as this not only will it be
possible to see the development of medieval historiography,
but also to clear away some of the academic debris that is no
longer tenable, but serves only to obscure the study of early
medieval history. This will enable us to accomplish the last
objective of this work, that of establishing the nature and
significance of the epoch—making era, the early Middle Ages.

The process of research and writing always gives rise
to many unrepayable debts. I would especially like to acknowl-
edge my indebtedness and express my gratitude to Professor
Richard E. Sullivan for his professional guidance, personal
interest and constant encouragement which were so essential
in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition to the
assistance which Professor Sullivan rendered during this stage
of my education, the example which he has set through his
superlative scholarship, excellent teaching and his genuine
love for students will continue to serve as a constant source
of inspiration and as a challenge for myself. I am likewise

iv

greatly indebted to Professor Eleanor Huzar for the aid, en-
couragement and instruction which I received from her during
the pursuit of my degree. Also, special recognition must go
to my wife, Marilyn Joyce, whose patience, encouragement and

sacrifice on my behalf will always be unrepayable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ................................................. ii
Chapter

I. DEVELOPMENTS IN MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY ......... 1

II. THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY ................. uu

III. THE ECONOMIC CRISIS (THIRD—SIXTH CENTURIES) ..... 82

IV. SOCIAL TRANSITION (THIRD—SIXTH CENTURIES) ....... 111

V. CULTURAL TRANSITION (THIRD—SIXTH CENTURIES) ..... lul

VI. THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY ......................... 17a

CONCLUSION .............................................. 200

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 213

CHAPTER I
DEVELOPMENTS IN MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY

Most medievalists are now and have been for a long time
aware of the need for historical revision in many areas of
medieval historiography. Although a number of the distorted
views of the Middle Ages which originated prior to the twen-
tieth century have been rectified in the past thirty years,
this claim cannot be made with confidence for the early Middle
Ages. Unfortunately it is still not an exceptional incident
when one finds professors, students, and textbooks extolling
views of the Middle Ages that were first proffered as early
as the fifteenth century. The all too many adherents of these
antiquated ideas are not only certain that the Roman Empire
fell in 476 A. D., but also they are fairly certain they know
why, how and with what results. To these individuals the
tremor which preceeded the quake can be seen in the advance—
ment of Christianity across the Empire as it destroyed many
of the unifying forces of Rome and in the process left the
Empire too divided to offer any meaningful resistance to the
horde of barbarians who later overran the West. The result
of these two events was the beginning of a "dark age" which
prevailed in Western Europe until the fourteenth century when
fortunately a great light came with the Italian Renaissance.

With such views as these continuing to prevail in the

twentieth century, the casual critic may be inclinded to con-
clude that the medievalists are more prone to advocate revi—
sion than to practice it. However, a more careful examination
of the issue would render such a criticism invalid. First

and foremost the observer must bear in mind that medieval
scholarship of the past half century has had the ominous task
of trying to dislodge views of the Middle Ages, some of which
have been prevalent since the fifteenth century.

The concept of a Middle Age first originated with the
humanist writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
In an attempt to achieve literary excellence and master the
requirements of proper rhetorical form, the humanists began
to bridge the gap which separated their own age from that of
antiquity and in the process gave rise to the notion of a
"middle" or "in-between" period.1 To the humanists this
middle period represented a vast chasm in the development of
mankind as the primitive barbarians, who had taken possession
of the Empire, lacked the ability to perpetuate such an ad—
vanced intellectual tradition.2 The results were that they
soon corrupted the language, permitted the Greek and Latin
classics to fall into disuse and sacrificed the gains made by
classical scholarship to the narrow and ascetic values of the

theologians. The ten centuries which separated the golden

 

lWallace K. Ferguson, The Renaissance in Historical
Thought (New York, 19H8) p. 8; Karl F. Strohecker, Germanentum
und Spatantike (Zurich, 1965) p. 277.

 

 

 

 

2Ferguson, p. 8.

age of classicism from their own day was significant to the
humanists only as a "dark age” dividing two vastly superior
ages of culture and intellectual activity.3

Although the Renaissance had established the notion of
a "middle age" and adjoined to it the inaccurate, but enduring
appellation, the "dark age," an even more formidable obstacle
to medieval historiography emerged with the Reformation of the
sixteenth century. As a result of the internal dispute which
had rent the very foundation of Christendom, the various
factions involved in this turmoil turned to the past in search
of evidence which would support the castigations being hurled
at their opponent. Given the nature of the conflict which
raged within the Church during the sixteenth century, it was
only natural that both sides in this dispute would turn to
the Middle Ages to amass evidence to support their predeter—
mined views.” So intense was this religious conflict that
for many years after the Reformation there was little oppor—
tunity for a free and impartial study of the Middle Ages.

The most devastating attack upon the Middle Ages was
produced by the Protestant theologian-historians who were
searching for evidence which would prove that the elaborate
ritual, dogma and exhalted political position of the Roman
Church had been the result of satanic influence. For the

Protestant historians the story of human development was a

 

3Ferguson, p. 8.

uHarry Elmer Barnes, A_History of Historical Writing
(Norman, 1938), p. 122.

 

drama cast on an earthly stage filled with living marionettes
which were manipulated by both God and the devil. Institutions
of which the reformers disapproved, such as the papacy and
monasticism, were thought to be condemned adequately by the
suggestion of their satanic origin.

Although Martin Luther is remembered primarily as a
theologian, no small portion of his work was devoted to a
fiery condemnation of the two institutions, i. e., the papacy
and monasticism, which had been essential in the shaping of
the medieval world. According to Luther, from the seventh
to the fourteenth century the papacy had become a temporal
power in itself as a result of the satanically inspired popes
exercising their authority in a supra—scriptural manner.
Luther presents such events as the coronation of Charlemagne
as a direct attempt on the part of the papacy to gain temporal
power and wealth. In the words of Luther, "...with a mere
name and empty title they [popes] have...dug in their claws
more and more, later strengthening this with the coronation...
so that they, the robbers of authority could take what the
Germans had won by the sword."6 The work of Luther is filled
with attempts to illustrate that the papal office had been
responsible for much of the human suffering and disasters of

the Middle Ages. Evidence of this can be found in such state—

 

5Martin Luther, Luther's Works, ed., James Atkinson
(55 vols.; Philadelphia, 1955-6773 XLI, 372-75.

6

 

Ibid., p. 375.

ments as "...a hundred years ago, that fine king of Hungary
and Poland, Ladislaus, was tragically slain by the Turks
along with so many of his people because he had been led astray

"7 It was Luther's conviction that

by the papal legates....
as a result of the popes' exercising temporal authority, which
was alien to the teachings of the scriptures, there developed
devastating political feuds between various lords and princes
which proved to be detrimental to the entire Western world.
Luther also dwelt at length in his writings on the in-
stitution of monasticism which he likewise believed to have
been the creation of men who were satanically motivated. Con-
cerning this issue Luther asserted, "It [monasticism] is purely
a most pernicious invention of men no different from all the
other inventions of men."8 In an attempt to dispel the rever—
ent attitude in which the monks continued to be viewed by much
of society, Luther developed a five point attack in which he
tried to prove that monasticism was not commanded by God's
word, but was actually contrary to it; that it conflicted with
faith, was a violation of Christian freedom, violated the first
commandment, and was contrary to common sense and reason.9

After developing these five points in a very lengthy polemic,

Luther concluded that "...you understand now with what faith

 

7Ibid., pp. uu, 19u.

81bid., pp. 252-53.

91bid., pp. 2u9-59.

and piety these brothers of 'satan' take their vows...."10

Thus, the two institutions which are critical to any study of
the Middle Ages, Luther dismissed as being the work of the
devil and void of any positive achievements.

The attack which Luther had launched against the papacy
and monasticism was taken up with equal vigor by a number of
his disciples. Among the most sustained attacks of the re—
formers can be found in the works of Philip Melanchthon and
Matthew Flacius Illyricus. In harmony with Luther's view on
Church and State, both Melanchthon and Flacius denounced the
presumptuous practices of the papacy whereby the Church was
increasing its temporal authority at the expense of the State.11
In regards to the papacy, Flacius wrote that, "...the desire
to defend the truth of the Protestant position and overthrow
the papacy" had been the objective of his labors in Church

history.12

To fulfill this end Flacius set out to prove that
during the Middle Ages scriptural truth had been sacrificed to
the wind by ambitious popes who were motivated by a desire
to increase their worldly position. In pursuit of his an-

nounced goal, Flacius, along with a number of his associates,

produced the Magdeburg Centuries, a vast history of the Church

 

 

l01bid., p. 260.

llPhilip Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine, ed., Clyde
Manschreck (Oxford, 1965), pp. 326-27; Flacius, Correspondence
of Matthew Parker, eds., John Bruce and Thomas Perowne
(Cambridge, 1953), pp. lag-no.

12

 

 

 

Flacius, pp. 139-H0.

from the time of Christ to 1300 A. D., which represents one
of the most industrious, as well as one of the most biased,
undertakings of the Reformation period. The primary objective
of this work was to reveal the extent to which "pure doctrine"
had been corrupted since the death of Christ and expose the
role which the papacy had played in this process.13 As a
result of the theological interests and apologetic purpose
that inspired this work, it is obvious that it would result
in a biased analysis of the Middle Ages.

While many additional references could be cited for
the Reformation period, the essential points are obvious. In
an attempt to justify their own actions, the Protestant re-
formers created a picture of Church history in which the devil
was seen as the chief architect. As a result of the nature
of the issues involved, not only were the Middle Ages being
placed in an even more disparaging position than that which
had been imposed upon it by the humanists, but it was being
done in such a way as to impede future study of medieval his-
tory. The heated dispute which raged between the Protestants
and the Catholics produced such emotional overtones that the
repercussions are still with us today. If one were to accept
the account of the Church and its related institutions as prof-
fered by the reformers, the appellation, "the dark age" would

seem appropriate indeed.

 

13Matthew A. Fitzsimon, Alfred G. Pundt, and Charles E.
Nowell, The Development gf_Historiography (Port Washington,
195a), p. 121.

 

 

As would be expected the Catholic scholars were not
slow in responding to their adversaries. The central issue
in all of their arguments was that the Church had always been
the same and its doctrine had not been altered during the
Middle Ages. Although the work of the Church scholars, like
that of the Protestants, was inspired by their theological
interests, the means which the former applied to their ends
were far superior to those of the latter. In their efforts
to answer the charges wrought by the reformers, the Church
Fathers not only assembled a vast assortment of primary source
material, but also, through their industry and labor, promoted
.great advances in the critical handling of medieval documents.
Although a number of examples could be given to illus—
trate the efforts of the Church to counter the attacks of the
reformers, probably the most spectacular accomplishment of
the Church during this period was achieved through the com-

lu The Jesuits

bined efforts of the Jesuits and Benedictines.
played a vital role in the opening of new vistas in the study
of medieval history with their laborious investigations into

15 This project, which was started

the lives of the saints.
by Father Herbert Rosweyde and furthered by Father John
Bollandus, was a notable advance in the handling of medieval

manuscripts. The compilers of the Acta Sanctorum were compelled

 

 

1“The efforts of such men as Fathers John Bollandus,
Mabillion, Luc d'Achery attest to this claim.

15Hippolyte Delehaye, S. J., The Works 9£_the Bollandists,
trans. V. M. Crawford (New York, 19077, pp. 7—56.

 

 

to examine a vast amount of material and in the process dis—
covered that such sources as the Spanish chronicles and the
lives of the Irish saints could not be trusted.16
Still another important figure in the Church's response
to the reformers was Jean Mabillion. One of Mabillion's pri—
mary concerns was that of trying to rectify the image of the

medieval monk which had been so bitterly assailed by such men

as Luther. In his nine volume work entitled The Acts of the

 

Benedictine Saints, Mabillion sought to reveal the virtues

 

of medieval monasticism and the sanctity of the Benedictine

Order.17 This work, along with his Annals of the Benedictine

 

Order, paid tribute to the highly critical talent that some
men were beginning to apply to the study of the Middle Ages.
Significant through these contributions were, the most famous

of Mabillion's works was his Six Books on Diplomatics which

 

 

appeared in 1681 and was devoted to the formulation of several
scientific principles which could be applied to the study of

ancient documents.18

The author's objective in this work was
to reveal the scientific procedures which he had employed in
studying the seals, language, handwriting, paper and ink, in
his effort to determine the authenticity of a particular

document. Unfortunately, however, the searching study of

medieval history which began with the Jesuits and Benedictines

 

lsIbid.

l7Fitzsimon, Pundt, and Nowell, pp. 129—30.

18Ibid.

10

did not hold sway over the intellectual activity of the eight-
eenth century. The attitude toward the Middle Ages that was
expressed in the forthcoming "Age of Reason" was more in
keeping with those ideas which we have seen set forth by the
humanists and Protestants. It is to the historiography of

the "Age of Reason" that we must now turn our attention.

During the period when the boundaries of the Western
world were being extended as a result of the ventures of such
men as da Gama, Columbus and Magellan, less renowned individ-
uals were devoting themselves to the exploration of the uni-
verse.lg Through the investigations of such men as Copernicus,
Bruno, Galileo and Tycho Brahe, it was discovered that there
was a certain harmony and orderly arrangement in the func-
tioning of the universe and the understanding of this celestial
arrangement was totally within the comprehension of man. Fol-
lowing through with the gains which were being made by science,
Francis Bacon, Rene'Descartes and John Locke assumed the re-
sponsibility for reducing the general implications of these
scientific discoveries into a systematic body of philosophy.20
The net result of the combined efforts of the scientists and
philosophers was the gradual development of rational explana-

tions for events which had formerly been attributed to miracles

and wonders. No longer were the educated content to employ

 

19Ibid., p. 1u7.

201bid., p. 1H8.

ll

supernatural factors to explain history, as the intricacies
of human activity now appeared to be within the limits of
man's reasoning power.

The new scientific discoveries which had been made by
the astronomers and systematized by the philosophers came to
maturity in the eighteenth century movement known as the
"Enlightenment." Captivated by the growth of rationalism the
scholars of this, the "Age of Reason," began to apply the
methods of the scientist to every aspect of human activity.21
With reason being paramount in the eyes of the rationalists,
they would not accept any concept or idea which could not be
supported by the trestle of rational thinking.

For the present work, one of the most important inno-
vations of the rationalist school was the attempt to discredit
superstition and theological theories of historical causation
and to substitute natural causes.22 When the scientific con-
cept of historical investigation was applied to the Middle
Ages, it was only natural that the period which witnessed the
triumph of Christianity and barbarization could not be viewed
by the rationalists in an objective fashion. Evidence of this
fact can be found in the works of Voltaire and Edward Gibbon
as their buoyant faith in science and reason left their inves—

tigations of the Middle Ages dripping with disdain.

 

21
p. 22.

22Edward Fueter, Geschichte der Neueren Historiographie

J. B. Black, The Art gf_History (New York, 1926),

 

(Munchen, 1911), pp. ans—us.

12

Voltaire, the father of the Enlightenment, was commit-
ted to the view that human history had been advanced primarily
by the clash of ideas and civilizations. In his efforts to
support this theory, however, his approach consisted of a
rather subjective grouping of historical events into two cat-
egories: those which had advanced humanity and rendered
greater happiness and those which served only to burden the
memory. According to the father of the Enlightenment, while
it was a laudable task to record the former, it was likewise
reasonable to ignore the latter. If one can conclude that
silence is significant, Voltaire presented a most unique and
profound criticism of the early Middle Ages. Viewing this
period as one which serves only to burden the memory, Voltaire
treated it in a very fragmentary fashion and it was not until
he reached the reign of Charlemagne that his work assumed a
more comprehensive form.23 The reason for Voltaire's virtually
ignoring the early Middle Ages is obvious. Being a product
of the "Age of Reason" and a disciple of intellectual history,
he could view the appearance of the barbarians in the West
only as a catastrophic event. In the eyes of Voltaire, the
onslaught of the barbarians reduced the Western Empire to a

2n

state of profound devastation and gross ignorance. Accord-

ing to this authority, the conquerors turned to theft and

 

23Voltaire, General History, Vol. XXIV of The Works of
Voltaire, ed., E. R. Dumont (58 vols.; New York, 1901). Vol-
taire's attitude concerning the early Middle Ages can even be
seen in his chapter headings as he passes from the fall of

Rome to the age of Charlemagne.
2M

 

 

Ibid., p. 6.

l3

rapine to sustain themselves while about them lay vast re-
gions of fertile soil. The intruders razed many cities while
founding none to replace them.25 In short, Voltaire would
conclude that the barbarians brought ruin and decay to all
that they touched, while contributing nothing to the develop-
ment of humanity.

A similar opinion of the barbarians was echoed in the
work of Edward Gibbon. Using the golden age of Rome as an
absolute standard against which all others were to be judged,
Gibbon saw flowing with the tide of invaders all of the mis-
ery and desolation that was to characterize Europe for the
next thousand years.26 To Gibbon, it was a painful sight to
view the destruction of districts which had once been the
centers of flourishing civilization.27

In addition to their vociferous animosity to the bar-
barians, Voltaire and Gibbon also looked with disdain upon
the triumph of Christianity. According to these two sources,
Christianity was a superstitiousgrowth that developed in a
barbaric community and resulted in a widespread acceptance of
irrational practices and beliefs. Gibbon saw Christianity as

the chief factor which brought chaos to the social, political

and military institutions of the Roman Empire when they most

 

25Ibid., p. 111.

26Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, ed., J. B. Bury (5th ed., 7 vols.; London, 1900-02),
I, 78.

27

 

 

Ibid., p. 55.

14

28 With this destruction

desperately needed orderly operation.
of what Gibbon considered to be the greatest civilization
previously known to mankind, he could not avoid being antag—
onistic toward Christianity.29 Gibbon did, however, recog-
nize the fact that Christianity played an important role in
the history of the West once the secular Empire had fallen.
According to Gibbon, while Christianity was a factor in has-
tening the collapse of the Empire, the Church did cushion the
repercussions as it tended to tame the barbarians and impart
unto them a higher set of values.30

Voltaire's very articulate hostility to religion can
best be explained by his disapproval of what he considered to
be "indiscretions" on the part of the clergy. According to
Voltaire Christianity, which had evolved from very humble ori—
gins, had been maliciously manipulated by an ambitious group
of men who were seeking to further their own ends.31 The re-
sult of such behavious, asserts Voltaire, was that the one
institution which could have been the great binding force in
the world became the instigator of intolerance, hatred and

32

destruction. The newly formulated dogma of the Church was

 

28Ibid., 1, 153.

291bid., III, 32a.

301bid., IV, 79-80, 163.

31Voltaire, XXIV, 85-87.

32Ibid.

15

used by the clergy to control the minds of the ignorant and
to pursue their own ambitions.33 Using an extremely narrow
and biased view of the clergy as a basis for their attack,
the rationalists came to view the Middle Ages as a period
deeply scarred by decay, superstition and ignorance.

In conclusion it follows that the rationalists could
not express themsleves temperately or as disinterested specta-
tors concerning the early Middle Ages and as a result the
edifying attributes of the era were not called to their at—
tention. They failed to see the new principles of life and
energy imparted to the world by the barbarians and particular-
1y by the Church. In virtue of their philosophy they could
not do justice to papal history and the ecclessiastical or—
ganization of Europe which became the nucleus of a new and
more enlightened order. For the man of the "Enlightenment"
the Middle Ages stood as a "trough" in the development of
humanity. It was truly a dark age.3u

Although additional references could be cited to il-
ustrate the predominant position which the rationalists held
in Western Europe during the eighteenth century, it should
also be noted that a reaction against it was already in the

35

making. The efforts of these men to enshrine reason as the

 

33Ibid., p. 95.

3”Other works could be listed here to illustrate the
new "Enlightenment," such as those of David Hume and David
Robertson, but the tenor of their work is the same as Voltaire
and Gibbon.

35Fitzsimon, Pundt and Nowell, p. 163.

16

"prime Enchantress" was not acceptable to eighteenth century
scholarship as a whole. Many scholars of the Enlightenment
period came to question the over—evaluation of the rational
side of man as well as the cool and detached objectivity which
characterized the work of Voltaire and those who followed his
example. Under these conditions it was only natural that
there would emerge a reaction against some of the premises
and methods employed by the rationalists. Although the vari—
ous stages in this transition were gradual, they were clearly
distinguishable. As Harry Elmer Barnes has stated, "It began
with the conservative rationalism of Montesquieu, passed to
the almost irrational sentimentalism of Rousseau and ended in
the mystic and idealistic vagaries of Romanticism."36

Turning to the work of Montesquieu we find that the
primary importance of his investigations, as far as the pre—
sent study is concerned, is contained within his general at-

37 Unlike Voltaire, Montesquieu

titude toward methodology.
did not dismiss the unique elements of earlier societies
simply because they did not harmonize with the thought and
customs of his own age. On a number of occasions Montesquieu
expressed the notion that, "To apply the ideas of the present

to the distant ages is the most fruitful source of error."38

 

36Barnes, A_History gf_Historical Writing, p. 165.
37

 

Fitzsimon, Pundt and Nowell, pp. 152—53.

38Montesquieu, Esprit de Lois, ed., J. P. Prichard,
(London, 191”), Bk. XXX, Chapter XI.

 

17

Thus, unlike his predecessors who measured the worth of an
age by contemporary standards, Montesquieu expressed that the
value of any idea or institution is not to be judged arbitrar—
ily, but by the manner in which it served a particular so—

ciety.39

The importance of Montesquieu's position on this
point lies within the fact that for the first time it was
possible for scholars to devote attention to the Middle Ages
in terms of its own history and view this era in a more ob-
jective manner.

An even more significant departure from the basic phi-
losophy and methodology of the rationalists than that of
Montesquieu, can be found in the work of Jean—Jacques Rousseau.
It was Rousseau, and those who followed his lead, who actually
paved the way for the transition from "Rationalism" to "Ro—
manticism." The reaction of Rousseau to the rationalists
was based primarily upon his assumption that pure reason in
itself was not sufficient to render an accurate analysis of
human nature and progress. In several of his works Rousseau
maintained that "cold reason" in itself has never realized
any illustrious accomplishments.“0 According to this author-
ity, it is only when reason is supplemented by "feeling" and
"imagination" that an adequate analysis of any situation can

be achieved. As Rousseau has stated it, "In the long run

 

391bid.

1+0Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile 92.§E,l' Education
(Paris, 1939), p. 358.

 

18

Ml In his

reason takes the line that the heart dictates."
works, Rousseau elevated "feeling" to a position superior to

reason. As he expressed it in his Lettres Morales, "For us

 

to exist is to feel; and our sensibility is incontestably
prior to our reason.”2 Thus, for Rousseau, deep thinking
was attainable only by a man of deep feeling.

The significance of Rousseau's attack upon "cold rea-
son" lies in the profound effect which it had upon the realm
of historiography in the early nineteenth century. As a re—
sult of this attack upon the rigid intellectual standards of
the rationalists, there began to emerge in the late eighteenth
century less rigid measures for examining the value and im—
portance of the Middle Ages. Reason was no longer paramount
and the way was open for the rise of Romanticism.

The reaction which had already begun to mount against
the rationalism of Voltaire and his followers was further
stimulated by the French Revolution. The war itself tended
to accentuate the growing skepticism of some intellectuals
in the ability of pure reason to alleviate existing problems
and with this development the advent of the Romanticists was

quickened.”3

 

ulJean-Jacques Rousseau, Generale Correspondence, ed.,
Theophile Dufour (19 vols.; Paris, 1924-3E73 XIX, 92—63.

#2

 

Ibid., III, 350-51.

uaBarnes, p. 178.

19

The fundamental premise upon which the Romanticists
based their historical perspective involved a belief in the
gradual and unconscious evolvement of culture. Within this
school of thought there existed a certain mysticism which
defied any scientific analysis of the process whereby certain
unconscious creative forces worked together to produce what
the Romanticists called the "spirit" of an age or nation.
Those aspects of national development which the Romanticists
could not logically explain were simply attributed to the
"genius" of the people.uu Thus, in their investigations the
Romanticists tended to emphasize national tradition and to
employ rather fluid terminology, e. g., "spirit of a nation"
or "genius of the people" to express their ideas. As the
various adherents to this school of thought began to probe
the mysteries of the past in an effort to discover the origin
of the national state, the Middle Ages became a particularly
fertile area of historical investigation. Although each
state within EurOpe spawned a number of romantic writers, no
better example of nineteenth century historiography can be
found than the work of the noted French historian, Jules

Michelet.45

His voluminous work embodied, "par excellence,"
the romantic and national elements that characterized nine-

teenth century writing.

 

””Ibid.

 

usIn Germany there were such men as Jacob Grimm and
Karl F. Eichron; in France the father of the Romanticists,
Chateaubriand and the most noted of England was Sir Walter
Scott.

20

In contrast to the views which we found expressed in
the work of the Humanists, Protestants, and Rationalists,
Michelet discovered in the Middle Ages not only the origin
of the national state, but also a number of previously neg-
lected factors which inspired him to View both the barbarians
and the Church in a more sympathetic fashion than had his
predecessors.”6 To Michelet, the period of the Germanic mi—
gration should not be described as inaugurating a season of
decline in Western Europe. According to him, the barbarians
had long been harbored in the provinces of Rome and as a re-
sult had made considerable strides toward becoming civilized.l+7
For example, Michelet maintained that the land which the in-
vaders inhabited was not commandeered in a piratical fashion,
but was that which had already been removed from cultivation.
It was not uncommon, asserts this authority, for the invaders
to indemnify the land owners for their lost land.”8

Not only did Michelet's view of the barbarians differ
from those of the rationalists, but he also advocated a more
favorable account of the Church. During the early Middle Ages
when the central authority was wavering in its social and po—

litical responsibility, it was the Church which retrieved the

fallen reins of government and guided society to a firmer

 

”6 . .
Jules Michelet, History of France, trans., G. H.

Smith (2 vols.; New York, 1857 , I, 78.

”71515., 78—80.

l“811515.

 

21

foundation.”9 According to Michelet, while the State was
fluctuating amidst instability it was the Church which trans—
formed the "genius" of the barbarians into a usable civil
instrument and at the same time functioned as guardian of the
West while directing the formation of a more enduring order.50
It was the Church which taught the invaders to accept the

51 To Michelet

responsibility and burdens of civilization.
the early Middle Ages stood as the foundation for a greater,
more progressive and more enlightened order which was to come.
In summary it can be concluded that although the Roman—
ticists frequently saturated their work with sentimentalism,
emotional appeal and placed too much faith in the "genius" of
a nation, their endeavors were not without significance. The
Romanticists merit a significant position in the development
of medieval historiography as a result of their efforts to
challenge the heretofore prevalent notion that the Middle
Ages was a dark age and unworthy of scholarly attention. The
stigma which earlier schools of thought had appended to the
early Middle Ages began to fade as the period was now open
to serious investigation. Another contribution of the Roman—

ticists which was of major importance was their challenge to

the concept of catastrophic causation. With their efforts to

 

”glbid., pp. 59-55.

50Ibid., pp. 99-100.

51Michelet later changed his views on the Church as
he felt it had been partly responsible for the French Revo-
lution.

22

trace the ideas that contributed to the spirit of a nation,
they had inadvertently given rise to the idea of "continuation"
in human development. Last, and equally important, with the
emphasis which the Romanticists placed upon national tradition
they opened the door for the purely nationalist historians
who also appeared in the nineteenth century. It is to the
latter group that attention must now be given.

The national states which had been developing in West-
ern Europe since the later Middle Ages came to maturity in
the nineteenth century and experienced a welling up of patri—
otic pride which needed an avenue of release. The chief means
whereby the newly formed states were able to express this
patriotism was through the publication of countless narratives
devoted to a glorification of their past. Germany, France
and England all witnessed the appearance of a number of schol-
ars who diligently devoted themsleves to the production of
very chauvinistic works. In Germany such works as Friedrich

Wilkins' History gf_the German People and Johannes Mullers'

 

History of the Crusade were representative of this movement

 

as both men labored to emphasize the powers of the German
people and to glorify their medieval heroes.52 Similar works
were produced in France by such men as Claude Fauriel and
Francois Raynouard which endeavored to prove the superiority

of the French.53 In England the historical literature of the

 

52Barnes, p. 210.

531bid., p. 215.

23

nineteenth century was dominated by the Aryan myth which was
designed to stress the superiority of the Anglo—Saxon people.
Evidence of this myth can be found in E. A. Freeman's History

of the Norman Conquest gf_England and John Kemble's, The

 

Saxons in England as both hail the Teutonic race as a superior
breed.5u

Although the nationalists turned to the Middle Ages to
find evidence and examples to support their claims, the con-
tributions of this school have only limited value for medieval
historiography. Being motivated by a desire to trace the
origins of the national state, the nationalist historians con—
centrated their efforts upon the late Middle Ages and seldom
penetrated the period prior to the eleventh century as it was
not relevant to their desires. The result of this practice
was that there remained a considerable portion of the Middle
Ages still untouched.

In his most informative account of the development of
historiography in the nineteenth century, G. P. Gooch has
pointed out that prior to the nineteenth century historical
scholarship labored under three major handicaps: the cata—
strophic theory of historical causation and contempt for the
medieval period; the absence of an adequate collection of
original sources; and the failure to provide for any competent

55

or systematic teaching of history. As was demonstrated in

 

5”Ibid., p. 218.

556. P. Gooch, History and Historians (New York, 1913),
pp. 10—13.

 

20

the above pages, the Romanticists made significant strides
toward correcting the first of these handicaps by introducing
the idea of continuity in historical development and by ele—
vating the medieval period as a most fruitful age for histor-
ical research. It has likewise been demonstrated that the
nationalist historians made notable advances against the
second handicap with their magificant collection of source
material for the history of the modern nations. However, there
was yet a third development during the nineteenth century
which was to influence not only medieval historiography, but
historiography in general. This third factor was the develop-
ment of "critical scholarship" in the field of history.

As was noted earlier, the first important step in the
growth of modern historical investigation came from the Bene-
dictine monks at Saint-Maur. As will be recalled, the most
significant historical advance which emerged from Saint—Maur
came with Jean Mabillion's work on the science of diplomatics,
i. e., the critical method of determining the authenticity of
documents. While the advances which Mabillion had introduced
were important in determining the validity of a source, his
achievements had certain limitations. One very important
omission of the monks was their failure to question the ac-
curacy of the historical content of the texts which they worked
so diligently to authenticate. It was not until the nineteenth
century that there finally arose a group of scholars who de-
voted themsleves to the task of critical historical scholar-

ship in which the actual content of a document was challenged.

25

Although there were a number of scholars who were in—
volved in this advancement, few became as well known or as

often quoted as Leopold von Ranke. To his History 9f_the

 

Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1999-1519, Ranke appended a brief

 

 

treatise entitled, A Critique of Modern Historical Writers

 

which has continually served to influence the historical pro-

fession.56

In this appendix Ranke applied historical criti-
cism to the historians who at the time were considered author—
itative sources and showed their general histories to be un—
true. In the process of his interpretive criticism, Ranke
established the axiom that only original documents and archieves
were the proper source for the reconstruction of history and
that historical scholarship should be the simple truth of
what really happened.57 Although Ranke's ideal of objectivity
has been seriously questioned by the twentieth century his-
torians, this is hardly sufficient ground for minimizing his
place in historiography.58 It was Ranke who set forth the
admirable, if impossible, doctrine that the historian must
View the past independent of present biases and narrate the

events of the past as they actually occurred.59

 

56Leopold von Ranke, Histor of the Latin and Teutonic
Nations, 1999-1519 (London, 1915 .

57

 

 

 

Ibid 0

58Emory Neff, The Poetry of History (New York, 19H7),
pp. 189-91.

59

 

Ibid.

26

In addition to his contribution of the principles for
internal criticism and his insistence upon "total objectivity"
Ranke also made a lasting contribution with his investigations

60

into the continuity of history. As a result of his years

of research and writing, Ranke asserted in his Universal

 

History that it was impossible, "to rest in the history of
single peOples."61 "The races have won in the course of the
ages," said Ranke, "an heirloom in material and social advance,
religion and creation of genius, memories of great events and

great men which 'unify' all mankind."62

According to Ranke
there was a common denominator which moved progressively from
one era to another and the purpose of universal history was
to trace the sequence of events, "which link all nations to-

gether and control their destinies."63

As shall be presently
demonstrated, it was this philosophy, which emphasized the
element of continuity in the development of civilizations,
that was to be a key factor in the shaping of modern histori-
ography. To Ranke, the Middle Ages stood as a link in the
chain of human development and was no less important than
those periods which preceded or followed it. It was this be-

lief in the unity of mankind that inspired Ranke to assert in

his History gr the Popes 9: Rome that no history could be

 

 

60Ibid.

61Ranke, Universal History, trans., G. W. Prothero
(New York, 1885), p. x.

62

 

Ibid., p. xlvi.

63Ibid., p. xi.

27
written except universal history.6u
There was yet one other development which transpired
in the nineteenth century that was to have a bearing upon
medieval historiography. Once again historical research came
to be influenced by the developments that were being experi—
enced in science. Reference at this point is to the advance-
ments that were being made in regard to the theory of evolu-
tion. Although this theory was by no means original in the
nineteenth century, it becomes especially cogent to our task
as it was now being applied to the development of social in-
stitutions. With the appearance in l89u of W. E. H. Lecky's

History gr European Morals we see a conscious effort being

 

made to apply the biological concepts of evolution to the
realm of social change. His writing represents one of the
first efforts of historians to correlate historical develop-
ment with the notions of evolution.65
Lecky's entire thesis is based upon the debatable hy-
pothesis that moral standards are in a constant state of im—
provement.66 From the reign of Constantine when Christianity
was first adopted as the accepted religion of the Empire, it

began to exert a powerful influence on the moral standards of

the peOple and eventually made possible a series of changes

 

6”Ranke, History 9: the Popes of Rome, trans., Sarah
Austin (3 vols.; London, 1890), II, xix-xxi.

 

65Gooch, p. 366.

66James J. Auchmuty, Lecky (London, 1995), p. 50.

28

resulting in the formation of those institutions, such as feu—
dalism, which served as a forerunner of the national state.
Although the Church itself may have become corrupt during
this process, it did not hinder the evolution of moral devel—
opment that was taking place within society.

The first stages of Lecky's thesis see the Church
presented as a very philanthropic institution, imparting to
its subjects a new sense of the value of life and developing

a much needed concept of universal brotherhood.67

According
to Lecky, as long as the moral life of the Empire had been
directed by the teachings of pagan religions there existed
no knowledge of the true value of human life. It was not un-
til the advent of Christianity that man learned it was wrong
to slay willfully his fellowman. This practice was common
in Rome as is attested by the ever popular gladiatorial games.
Christianity strongly attacked this sadistic means of enter—
tainment by dogmatically asserting the sinfullness of destroy-
ing human life for amusement.68
While the earliest stage of Christianity was looked
upon as a benevolent institution, there soon arose a great
ascetic movement which eventually diverted the enthusiasm of

the Church into new channels. Emphasis was no longer placed

upon the virtue of charity, but now passed to the newly accen—

 

67W. E. H. Lecky, History gr European Morals (New
York, 189”), p. 18.

68

 

Ibid., p. 20.

all

 

la

 

.
.-
g

29

tuated chastity. Although this was to curb the outward works
and material accomplishments of the Church, it did not hinder
moral development.

Lecky believed it was possible to criticise many of
the policies of the fifth century Church, such as its inserting
the fear of hell and demons into the mind of Europeans, yet
the elevation of the monk to the position of idol of society
had a profound effect upon the moral progress of Europe.69
As men sought refuge in the monastic havens their attitude
toward such essential issues as labor were greatly altered.
No longer was this looked upon as a task for slaves, but be—
came a virtuous occupation for all men. Also, the monastery
was responsible for inserting into society the virtues of
passive obedience and humility which provided the foundation
for the acceptance of feudalism. It was in this manner that
a particular attitude was gradually acquired whereby society
came to accept autocratic authority. It was this attitude
that was essential in the re—establishing of monarchical in—
stitutions in the later Middle Ages.70

Although the nineteenth century writers were successful
in lighting some of the darkened corners of the Middle Ages,
there still did not exist an adequate evaluation of the period

as a whole. The Romanticists had been too emotional in their

efforts to counter the philosophy of the Enlightenment to

 

591510., pp. 27-93.

701515., p. 271.

30

present an objective study, and the nationalists, while over—
coming this passionate approach and being more scientific,
were primarily concerned with the genesis of the national
state, therefore, leaving much of the Middle Ages still un-
touched. Thus, up to the twentieth century there prevailed
particular influences that colored every work written or
spoken about the Middle Ages.

To alter long established ways of historical thinking
requires both powerful and original minds. Fortunately, the
twentieth century produced many such men. One of the essential
problems that had to be encountered by the twentieth century
scholars was that of the transition from the ancient to the
medieval world. As a result of the advances made in the nine-
teenth century the artificial periodization of an ancient
world, middle age and modern era was no longer adequate in
that it denied the essential continuity of human experience.
Prior to the twentieth century it was generally accepted that
the "Ancient World" and the "Middle Ages" were easily dis-
tinguished the one from the other and that a distinct break
came in H76 A. D. with the appearance of the Germanic kingdoms

71

and the triumph of Christianity. This "catastrophic" inter-

pretation had come to be the textbook point of View and was

 

71Voltaire, Annals Q: the Empire, Vol. XXI of The Works
9f Voltaire, ed., E. R. Dumont (58 vols.; New York, 1901),
pp. 7-8; Gibbon, III, 308, "In these volumes, I have described
the triumph of barbarians and religion."; Michelet, I, 62,
"The national language and religion...slumbered under Roman
culture until the advent of Christianity."

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

generally accepted by most scholars.

The first effort to counter the catastrophic thesis
appears to have come from the pen of Alfred von Gutschmid who
attempted to dispel the need of a specific date to mark the

72

fall of Rome. In his work, Die Grenze zwischen Altertum

 

und Mittelalter, which also appeared in his Kleine Schriften,

 

 

he asserted there was no reason to accept the year M76 as the
end of the Ancient world. The critical period to Gutschmid
did not occur until the end of the sixth century when the
Lombards became masters of Italy and the Church was a power
unto itself. This represented the first substantial break

with the past.73

However, the emphasis which von Gutschmid
attributed to "continuity" as opposed to "disruption" did not
enjoy any lasting success until it was later revived by Alfons
Dopsch and Henri Pirenne.

In the years which elapsed between the writing of von
Gutschmid and that of Pirenne and Dopsch there were signifi—
cant advances made in altering the idea that the fall of Rome
was a catastrophic event. One can find evidence of this de-
velopment in the work of such men as Samuel Dill, Otto Seeck
and Ernst Stein. They attempted to absolve the Germans of

total responsibility for the fall of Rome and show that the

collapse of this august organism was due to a process slowly

 

72Alfred von Gutschmid, Die Grenze zwischen Altertum
und Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 393ff.

73

 

 

Ibid.

 

‘4

0|!

Q-

 

 

 

 

32

prepared and evolved by internal forces.7u Although Seeck
and Stein continued to advance the year ”76 as marking the
end of the Empire, they no longer relied solely upon external
forces to explain the fall. They maintained that such events
as the Germanic invasions had been preceded by an internal
weakening of the Empire. Seeck, for example, advocated a bi—
logical explanation for the decline of Rome as he maintained
Antiquity had lost her sustaining power in the "extermination
of the best" through centuries of foreign and civil wars.75
With this destruction of the best men, which had been going
on since the reign of Augustus, Rome had lost her assimilative
force and as a result the elite was gradually absorbed by the
masses.76

One of the major advances in medieval historiography
came in the second decade of the twentieth century with the
writings of Alfons Dopsch and Henri Pirenne. Breaking with
the traditional interpretation of the transition period,

which was concerned primarily with the political and religious

questions, Henri Pirenne began to ask new questions about the

 

7U'Otto Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiker
Welt (6 vols.; Berlin, 1891—1920), VI, 378-80; Samuel Dill,
Roman Society ip the Last Century Q: the Roman Empire (London,
1905), p. 277; Ernst Stein, Geschichte des spatromischen
Reiches (2 vols.; Wein, 1928), 1, 3-19; J. B. Bury, History
Q: the Later Roman Empire (2 vols.; New York, 1923), I,
308—313.

7SSeeck, VI, 378-80.

 

 

 

 

 

 

76;pig,, 1, Chap. 111; see especially pp. 28u-89.

33

Middle Ages which brought new life to the past and in the
process increased the knowledge and understanding of that era.

Adopting what could fittingly be called a "modified"
catastrophic thesis, Pirenne concluded that the Roman world--
economically, culturally and even politically--continued in
all particulars through the centuries of the Germanic inva-
sions. It was rather the impact of Islam in the seventh and
eighth centuries which, by destroying the unity of the Medi-
terranean, ended the Roman world and led to a significantly
altered civilization in the Carolingian age.77 We can see
the critical era in the Pirenne thesis was no longer the fifth
century Germanic invasions, but the seventh and eighth centu—
ries which witnessed the triumphal entry of the sons of the
Arabian desert into the Empire which brought an end to the
heretofore classical unity.

Although the Pirenne thesis has been seriously chal—
lenged by American scholars, it has been much slower to suc-
cumb in Germany. One of the strongest and most articulate
advocates of the Pirenne thesis is Ernst Kornemann, who main-

tains in his Gestalten und Reiche, that the decline was in

 

process after the death of Justinian, but it was the Arabs
who finally destroyed the Mediterranean unity.78 Heinrich

Dannenbauer is another who credits the Arabs with being

 

77Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne (New York,
1939), p. 293.

78Ernst Kornemann, Gestalten und Reiche (Leipzig, 1993),
pp. 367ff.

 

 

3U

responsible for the final disruption of the Empire. Dannen-
bauer, like Pirenne, did not see the Germans as being imperi-
alistic nor the bearers of political and social ills. Al-
though the Empire did suffer from a corrupt bureaucratic
system which affected the economic and social order, this
was not created by the Germans nor was it the cause for the
disruption of classical unity.7g Only the political unity
was affected by the invaders; the economy, cities, merchants,
law, speech and literature remained essentially the same.80
Dannenbauer also stresses the sea as being the element
which bound the ancient world together. Antiquity did not
think or speak of continents because there were none.81 The
Roman world was a cultural unit bound together by the Medi-
tenxuman and it was in the seventh century with the appear—
ance of the Moslems that this unity was broken. "Nicht die
Germanen der Volkerwanderung haben diese uralte Einheit
zerstort, sondern der Einbruch der Arabs, die Islam, in 7

Jahrhundert."82

The Mediteranean now became a Moslem lake
and along with the conquest went the unity of the classical

world.

 

79Heinrich Dannenbauer, Die Entstehupnguropas vom der
Spatantike zum Mittelalter (2 vols.; Stuttgart, 19587, II,
133.

 

0Dannenbauer, Grundlagpn der mittelalterlichen Welt
(Stuttgart, 1958), p. 16.

811bid., pp. 12-13.

821bid., p. 15.

35

The thesis advocating the continuity of antiquity was
also advanced by the Austrian scholar Alfons Dopsch. In his

classic, Economic and Social Foundations of European Civili-

 

 

zation, which appeared in 1923, Dopsch holds that the famous
"fall" of the Roman Empire in the West was by no means the
catastrophic overthrow of an advanced civilization by primi-
tive barbarians. On the contrary, medieval civilization de—
scended in an orderly evolutionary fashion from that of the
later Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman world was won by the
Germans gradually from within, by a peaceful penetration which
went on for centuries during which they absorbed its culture
and even to a considerable extent, took over its administra—
tion.83 "Rome did not fall in M76; it fell asleep without
any convulsions."8u

The attitude of the Germans to Roman organization, as
conquerors after the fall of Roman rule, was clearly in their
own interest, and they continued to develop their rich inheri-
tance. Thus, Dopsch's emphasis was upon the continuity of this
civilization and not its disruption.

In response to the works of Pirenne and Dopsch, Hermann
Aubin was one of the first to question the emphasis which
they placed upon the continuity of classical society. Aubin

raised serious questions about the degree of romanization

 

83Alfons Dopsch, Economic and Social Foundation pr
European Civilization (New York, 1937), p. 386.

8”

 

 

Ibid.

36

that was experienced by the barbarians and also their ability

85 Aubin maintains

to stabilize the already tottering Empire.
that Dopsch failed to realize that as a result of the Church
the entire structure of Roman culture was already being

86 In place of

changed and to assert otherwise was a mistake.
the Dopsch thesis, Aubin suggests that it would be more
plausible to view the period from the first migrations to the

87 What existed was

seventh century as one of "transition."
neither the classical nor the medieval period. The old es—
tablished order was rapidly waning while the new had not as
yet come of age.

Since the work of Aubin there have been numerous pub-
lications expanding upon the ideas he had voiced. One of the
primary objectives of these recent publications has been to
prove that the explanations proffered by the "catastrophic"
and "continuation" schools are not sufficient to describe the
beginning nor the significance of the Middle Ages. To this
modern group of scholars, which shall be designated as the
"transitional" school, the early Middle Ages was a period
characterized not by a catastrophic break with the past nor

by a continuation of the classical tradition, but rather a

period characterized by a creative reorientation of society.

 

85Hermann Aubin, Vom Altertum zum Mittelalter (Munchen,
1999), p. lff.

86

 

 

Ibid.

 

87Hermann Aubin, "Die Frage nach der Scheide zwischen
Altertum und Mittelalter," Hg, CLXXII (1951), 295.

37

For the "transitional" school the early Middle Ages was a
period which witnessed a gradual reshaping of both the in—
stitutions and attitudes of society with the result being the
emergence of a way of life sufficiently unique in its structure
and ideology to be classified as a Western European civiliza—
tion. The remainder of this chapter, and essentially of the
work as a whole, will devote itself to a consideration of how
the transitional school has attempted to dispel those ideas
voiced by the catastrOphic and continuation schools and at
the same time attempt to analyze the alternatives that the
transitional school has set forth as a more accurate appraisal
of the early Middle Ages.

One of the most significant works of the transitional
school appeared in 1927 with the publication of Ferdinand

Lot's The End pf the Ancient World and the Beginning Q: the

 

Middle Ages. While Pirenne saw no break in the dike of clas-

 

sical civilization until the seventh century and Dopsch not
even then, Lot cites the third century as the critical period
of the Empire. Lot maintains that it was not external forces
which brought Roman civilization to its knees, but rather an
internal disease had undermined it and brought "the dissolu—
tion of all its vital organs."88 While the details of these
maladies will be left for later chapters, it is evident that

Lot would essentially argue that the Germanic invasions did

 

88Ferdinand Lot, The End of the Ancient World and the
Beginning 9: the Middle Ages (Paris, 1927), p. 84.

 

 

 

38

not represent an epoch-making event and that the transition
from ancient to medieval society was in the making long before
the barbarians exposed themsleves as a serious threat. Thus,
Lot sees the crisis of the ancient world coming in the third
century and the five centuries which followed as the transi-
tional stage leading to the Middle Ages.

Still another attempt to bridge the gulf that separates
ancient and medieval worlds has been made by H. St. L. B. Moss

in his book, The Birth Q: the Middle Ages. In many respects

 

 

Moss sees the institutions of the ancient world experiencing
a mortal blow in the third century as a result of the pro-
longed period of anarchy that plagued the ancient world. In
the words of the author himself, "...the breakdown of the
Roman_government, communications and trade,... may be placed
not in the fifth century, but rather during the fifty years
of anarchy, 235-285, which virtually destroyed the intricate

89 The five centuries that followed this

fiber of the Empire."
period of anarchy were viewed by Moss as a period in which
the paralyzed institutions of the Roman world were gradually
being transformed to meet the needs of a society bound

by local horizons as opposed to the cosmopolitan outlook
which existed during the first and second centuries A. D.

While the casual reader may see in such statements as, "...so

far as Western trade and industry are concerned, the late

 

89H. St. L. B. Moss, The Birth pr the Middle Ages
(Oxford, 1935), p. iv.

 

 

39

Roman and early Medieval periods show no definite break,"
ideas akin to those espoused by Pirenne and Dopsch, a closer
examination of Moss's thesis as a whole will reveal the fal—
lacy of such a belief. Although Moss sees the early Middle
Ages as a continuation of those developments which originated
in the third and fourth centuries, it was not a continuation
of the classical order. What the author is trying to suggest
is that those institutions which were to characterize the
Middle Ages, e. g., the power of the magnates, closed house
economy, decline of the middle class, serfdom, manorialism,
feudalism, etc., had their origins in the third and fourth
centuries.90 Such a position is far removed from the claims
of Pirenne and Dopsch, who see the classical order continuing
uninterrupted far into the Middle Ages. Thus, while Moss
stresses continuity in his thesis, it was a continuation of
those ideas and institutions which emerged during the break-
down of the Roman Empire in Western Europe and not a direct
continuation of an unimpaired imperial order itself.91
Another work which supports the transitional thesis
as opposed to the catastrophic or continuation is Kurt Pfister's

Der Untergang der antiken Welt. Pfister's work, which ap-

 

peared in 1991, resembles that of Otto Seeck not only in title,

but in content as well. In harmony with the thoughts expressed

 

90Ibid., pp. 248—49.

91Tpig,, pp. 292-55. Those elements that were contin-
ued were altered even more by the influence of the barbarians,
p. 2H8.

HO

by Seeck, Pfister maintained that the multifarious problems
which eventually destroyed the Roman world were formulated
during the reign of Caesar Augustus.92 The efforts of the
Princeps to alter the constitutional order of the Republic
marked the beginning of the constitutional, financial, legis—
lative, religious and moral decline that was to accelerate
over the next three centuries and culminate in the dismember—

ment of the Western half of the Empire.93

The third century
crisis that Lot and Moss maintain was crucial in the decline
of the Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages, Pfister
believes to have been preceded by three centuries of supra-
constitutional behaviour on the part of the emperors which
ultimately resulted in the disruption of the imperial order
in the late third and early fourth centuries.91+ Although the
work of Pfister represents an advancement of the transitional
thesis, a number of his conclusions will be brought into
question in later chapters. At the present it will suffice
to point out that the work of Pfister is essentially an apol—
ogy for the reign of Diocletian and the various reforms which
emerged from his reign. Pfister's primary objective was to
clear Diocletian of any responsibility for the fall of the

Empire.

 

92Kurt Pfister, Der Untergapg der antiken Welt (Leipzig:
19Ml), p. 15”.

93Ibid., pp. 8-13. He holds the barbarians and Chris-
tianity responsible for playing a major role in the collapse
of the Empire and bases his charge on the fact that they were
the heirs.

9U

 

Ibid.

Ml

Of the more recent scholarship, the works of William
C. Bark and Joseph Vogt serve as adequfle representatives.
While Bark sets no date for the end of the ancient world, he
believes, as do Lot and Moss, that the crucial period was that
of the civil strife of the third century.95 In contrast, how-
ever, to the approach employed by Lot and Moss, who tend to
dwell upon the decline of the ancient world and the signi—
ficance which this event held for the Middle Ages, Bark
takes a more positive approach as he is concerned not only
with the death of an old order, but even more so with the be—
ginning of a new.96 The primary thesis of his work, "...is
that something new, distinct and quite original began in the
Western portion of the Empire and that its elements are dis-

."97 To Bark, the major

tinguishable by the fourth century...
features of the early Middle Ages were characterized by a
merging of various elements, some of which were Roman and
some Germanic, with the result being the creation of a new
society living in a new setting and governed by a new set of
institutions.

Joseph Vogt who is concerned primarily with the cul—

tural aspects of the Shims Roman period, advances a thesis

which is closely related to the continuation school and which

 

95William C. Bark, Origins Q; the Medieval World
(New York, 1958), p. 66.

96

 

Ibid., pp. 57-80.

97Ibid., p. 80.

H2

is also highly debatable. Vogt maintains that it is true thate
the third century quartered a number of civil grievances that
tended to weaken the fabric of the imperial regime, but, as

we shall see in the next chapter, he also believes that Dio—
cletian and Constantine experienced a great deal of success
with their reforms and the faltering Empire was restored to

an even keel.98

The political unity of the Empire was not
seriously altered, says Vogt, until the invasions of the fifth
century when the barbarians appeared on the scene necessitating
changes which the State was unable to enact at the time.99
With respect to the cultural issues, Vogt is in the mainstream
of the continuation school. Concerning this issue, he advances
the debatable conclusion that the classical culture was a
feature of the ancient world which was unique to the senatorial
aristocracy and as long as this body continued to exist in the

West so did the classical culture.100

Vogt goes on to assert
that even the Church Fathers, due to both their genealogical
and cultural ties with the aristocracy, assisted in the pres-
ervation of the classical tradition. Thus, to Vogt, while
the political, economic and social aspects of the ancient

world had experienced an alteration by the sixth century, the

cultural aspects continued to function throughout the Middle

 

 

Ages.

98Joseph Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms (Zurich, 1965),
p. 19%. "The systems established by Diocletian and Constan-
tine long withstood the ravages of the times."

99Ibid., pp. 223-295.

 

100Ibid.

U3

While it is reserved for the remaining chapters of
this work to discuss the details and examine the variations
of these theses, it is evident that neither the catastrophic
interpretation nor the continuation thesis is sufficient to
describe the beginning or the nature of the early Middle Ages.
The catastrophic views fail to consider the creative elements
that were present during this period, e. g., the Church, while
the continuation thesis tends to minimize the internal prob—
lems with which the Empire was confronted while at the same
time exaggerating the talents and ability of the invaders.
As we now proceed with our investigation not only will we be
able to see how the transitional school addresses the problems
created by the catastrOphic and continuation schools, but also

the alternatives which the former has to offer.

CHAPTER II
THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

The political history of Rome from the latter part of
the second century to the first half of the fourth centers
around the gradual, but steady, usurpation of the powers of
the senate by the emperor. The political order which had
emerged from the reign of Augustus was a unique and delicate
combination of absolutism and republicanism.l So ingeniously
had Augustus shrouded his power with republican trappings
that some authorities have been inclined to regard his polit—
ical arrangement as a "dyarchy;" a joint rule in which the
Princeps assumed the responsibility for one segment of the

2

Empire and the senate the responsibility for another. In

spite of the disguise, however, this concept is no longer

 

1The chief primary sources for the Principate of Augus—
tus are: Res Gestae Divi Augustii, ed., J. Gage (2nd ed.;
Paris, 1950); Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans” Robert
Graves (Baltimore, 1957); Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans.,
E. Cary (9 vols.; New York, 1919-27); Velleius Paterculus,
Compendium pr Roman History, Trans., Frederick W. Shipley
(New York, 1929); Tacitus, The Annals pr Imperial Rome, trans.,
Michael Grant (Baltimore, 1956). The fragments of Augustus'
own works are collected in H. Malcovati's Caesaris Augusti
operum fragmenta (1998). The most important documents are
collected by V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illus-
trating the reign pr Augustus and Tiberius (2nd ed.; Oxford,
1955). AdditiOnal comments will be made concerning the use
of these sources in the course of the chapter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2Bury, History pr_the Later Roman Empire, 1, 1—9.

 

 

45

very widely accepted as it is now clear that Augustus had been
quite careful not to divide the actual power. The Princeps

at all times retained within his own control the ultimate sanc—
tion which was the army. On the other hand there was a divi-
sion, but that which was divided was the work. In developing
the administration needed to run the Empire, Augustus was care—
ful to preserve all that was workable from the ruins of the
Republic and this meant first and foremost a utilization of

the Senate. In establishing the Principate, Augustus treated
Rome's most venerable body with respect and shared with it

the various functions of government.

Under Augustus the Senate maintained a position of con—
siderable prestige and influence. The Augustan system dele—
gated to the Senate the administrative responsibility for a
number of provinces and the supervision of the Roman treasury,
grain supply and highways. The judicial responsibilities were
likewise divided as the Senate was one of the two highest
courts from whose verdict there was no appeal. The Senate
also had legislative power as it was one of the two sources
of new law and in the period of the Principate the emperors
usually preferred to issue their own legislation in the form

3

of "senatus consulta." In addition to these powers, Augustus

also permitted the Senate to exercise elective rights as they

 

3Under Augustus "senatus consulta" were not, strictly
speaking, laws.' They were resolutions by the senate tendered
as advice to the magistrates. They were in fact law as the
magistrates never failed to act on them. H. Last, CAH, X,
quff.

”6

were permitted to designate consuls and praetors.” Thus, in
all spheres of government, other than military, the Senate
retained a significant portion of its traditional power.5
The political machinery of Augustus continued to func-
tion for two centuries as the accepted political order. Al-
though the actual power of the Princeps rested with his con-
trol of the army, the subjects did not seem to View it as an
oppressive or despotic rule. In the middle of the second
century the famous Greek orator, Aelius Aristides, delivered
a series of lectures at Rome in which he dwelt at length up-
on the theme that within the boundaries of the Roman world,
society functioned independently of tyrannical or despotic

6 It is apparent in the claim of Aristides that the

V

Princeps had not introduced any noticeable changes in the tra-

rule.

ditional way of life within the Empire, yet by the end of the
third century this claim can no longer be made. The constitu-
tional history of the Principate was highlighted by a steady
usurpation of nearly all the duties of government which Au—
‘gustus had been careful to assign to the Senate. By the end
of the third century the republican disguise which he had used

to temper the appearance of his own authority had fallen away

 

IJ'A. H. M. Jones, "Imperial and Senatorial Jurisdiction
in the Early Principate," Historia, III (1955), MGM-H88.

SDannenbauer, Die Entstehunnguropas vom der Spatantike
zum Mittelalter, I, 3.

6P. Sattler, Augustus und der Senate (Stuttgart, 1960),
p. 217. We can see from this work that Augustus was not
unopposed in his reforms.

 

 

 

97

leaving a monarchical order in its place.

For the present work it is not necessary to trace the
slow, but continual, process whereby the Principate was trans—
formed into a monarchy for in the early third century this
process was still not completed.7 During the reign of Alex—
ander Severus (222-235) the Senate was treated respectfully
and its talents utilized in the service of the Empire.8 Alex—
ander entrusted to it the election of the prefects and sought
the advice of this body on numerous occasions. Although the
emperor was clearly the dominant partner in this quasi—dyarchy,
the concord that existed between the emperor and the Senate
during the reign of Alexander was by no means slight.

It was precisely at the end of Alexander's reign that
there erupted a formidable crisis which nearly brought the
Empire to an early death. With the assassination of Alexander
light is reflected on one of the basic problems of the Empire.
Despite its appearance of brillance, the Empire had no con-
stitution. The control of the Empire rested on brute force
and the guile of the individuals seeking power. Further evi-
dence of this can be found in the fifty years of anarchy

which separated the death of Alexander from the reign of

 

7The process whereby the Senate lost its power and au—
thority can be seen progressing with great speed from the reign
of Septimius Severus to its culmination under Diocletian.
While the reign of such men as Septimius and Gallienus could
be listed as high points in this usurpation, it was not until
the reign of Diocletian that this process was formalized and
experienced its most lasting repercussions.

8Cassius Dio, LXXI, p. 15.

98

Diocletian. Few periods in history can match these five dec—
ades in the number of claimants to the throne and the brevity
of their tenure. During this half century of turmoil there
were twenty legitimate emperors and a host of usurpers who,
from time to time, ruled parts of the Empire. With the ex—
ception of Claudius, who died a natural death, and Valerius,
who was captured by the Persians, all of these men died a
violent death.9 The army, which was available to the highest
bidder, began to make and unmake possessors of the purple at

will.10

The army would elevate a man with little or no abil-
ity to the throne if he happened to be wealthy, e. g., Didius
Julianus.ll From the death of Alexander to the reign of Dio-
cletian, the Empire was controlled by an army which was im-
bued more with a professional "esprit de corps" than with a
devotion to the Empire.

From this material we can see that with the closing of

the second century the little eddies which warned of the

coming ebb were already swelling within the Empire. The winds

 

9The fifty years of anarchy were dark in both senses
of the word. Herodian, who began his work with the reign of
Marcus (229) ended his narrative in 238 with the death of Max—
iminus. For the fifty years of anarchy we have to rely upon
the late fourth century chroniclers such as Aurelius Victor,
Eutropius and Zosimus. There is also the Christian writer,
Cyprian, but he deals primarily with the persecutions. Ernst
Kornemann, Gestalten und Reiche (Leipzig, 1993), p. 375;
Jones, The Late Roman Empire, 1, 29—25.

loDannenbauer, I, 6-7; Vogt, Constantin der Grosse,

pp. 28-30.
Lot, The End 9: the Ancient World and the Beginning

 

 

 

 

 

11
gr the Middle Ages p. 9.

 

 

99

of civil strife that was brewing during the second century
reached a hurricane proportion in the third leaving the Medi—
terranean edifice trembling in chaos. To quell the numerous
internal maladies that plagued the Empire at this time required
leadership possessing the wisdom of a Solomon and the strength
of a Sampson, but the Empire had to settle for the relatively
lesser geniuses, Diocletian and Constantine.

In an effort to restore order to the troubled world of
the third century, Diocletian instituted a number of political
reforms which resulted in a significantly altered imperial
political structure. On the day following his accession to
the thorne (289) Diocletian realized that he would be no more
successful in combating the power of the army and retaining
the reins of government within his own hands than his prede-
cessors had been unless changes were invoked. It was only
too obvious to Diocletian that in the future one person could

12

not direct the affairs of state. The solution to the prob—

1em seemed to lie in the selection of a colleague who was

13 The attention of Diocletian

neither a rival nor an enemy.
was gained by his militaristic friend, Maximian, who, although
unlettered and rude, was content to be the hands for the brain

which was precisely what the emperor was seeking.

 

12Ibid., p. 13.

13Dannenbauer, I, 16; Kornemann, pp. 375-76; Stein,
Geschichte des Spatromischen, I, 96-98; Gibbon, The Decline
ppd Fall Q: the Roman Empire, ed., J. B. Bury, I, 352; Lot,
pp. 13-19; Vogt, Constantine der Grosse, p. 98.

 

 

 

 

50

Even this measure proved to be insufficient. With the
Persians attacking in the East and the Germans in Europe, the
omnipotence of Diocletian and Maximian proved to be insuffi-
cient to sustain the weight of public administration. With
the Empire being threatened on every side by invasion, Dio—
cletian decided the Empire needed on every side the presence
of an army and emperor. Thus, in 293, he went a step further
in his division of administrative duties as he and Maximian
acquired administrative assistants. The two assistants who
were chosen to aide the emperors received the actual sover-
eignty, but with the inferior title of "Caesar" which left
them in subordination to their Augustus.lu The two persons
chosen to fill the offices of the "Caesars" were Galerius and
Constantius. In an effort to strengthen the political bond
between the Caesars and Augusti, each of the latter actually
assumed the character of a father to one of the Caesars.15
The four heads of state then divided amongst themselves the
various districts of the Empire in an effort to restore order.
The territories of Gaul, Spain and Britain were entrusted to
Constantius, while Galerius was to protect the Illyrian pro-
vinces. Italy and Africa were given to Maximian and Diocle-

tian reserved for himself Thrace, Egypt and the wealthy regions

of Asia.

 

l”Lot, p. 19; Jones, I, 91; Gibbon, I, 359; Stein, 1,

98.

15Gibbon, I, 359.

51

Although each member of the Tetrarchy was responsible
for a separate region of the Empire, Diocletian retained a

16 Proof of this

position superior to his three lieutenants.
lies in the titles which the Augusti selected to describe
their positions. Diocletian adopted the cognomen Jovius, the
vice-regent of Jupiter, king of gods and men, while Maximian
was referred to as Herculius, the heroic agent whose respon-
sibility it was to rid the world of evil.17
Another innovation of Diocletian which altered the
political order even further was the introduction of an ela—
borate oriental court ceremony at Rome.18 As a part of this
ceremony Diocletian went so far as to assume the diadem which
had previously been viewed by the Romans as an open sign of
royalty and as a consequence, strongly rejected by the popu—
lace.19 The garb of the emperors was of silk and gold and it
is recorded that even thier shoes were studded with precious
_gems. In addition to these measures, there emerged during

the reign of Diocletian a number of courtly procedures which

made it quite difficult to gain access to the emperor's

 

16Jones, I, 91; Lot, p. 19; Vogt, Constantin der Grosse,

 

p. 103.

17Jones, I, 38; Gibbon, 1, 353-59, Stein, 1, 98.

l8Seeck, pp. 106; Pfister, Der Untergang Antiken Welt,
p. 256; Vogt, pp. 109—105, Vogt argues that Diocletian did
not get this from the Persians, but used it simply to show
his superior position; F. F. Abbott, Roman Political Institu-
tions (Boston, 1911) p. 335; Jones, I, 90; Kornemann, p. 385;
Gibbon, 1, 382—83.

 

 

ngornemann, p. 385; Jones, I, 90; Gibbon, I, 383.

52

presence. The palace came to be guarded by an ever increasing
number of eunuchs whose presence was a sign of increasing
despotism. When a subject was permitted into the presence of
the emperor he was required to prostrate himself and adore

the divinity of his lord and master.20 In both appearance

and structure, Diocletian was drastically changing the poli—
tical order of the Empire.

The actual administration of the Empire was also radi-
cally changed during the reign of Diocletian. The Senate,
which had long been an instrument of power in the Roman world,
was permitted to sink into oblivion.21 Diocletian, in his
efforts to revive tmaEmpire, realized that he must deprive
the Senate of many of its remaining powers because it alone
represented the most powerful element of the old order. It
will be recalled that during the reign of Alexander Severus
the Senate had acted with a considerable amount of authority
and a number of the senators had even begun to entertain
ideas of restoring the Republic. These ambitions which con-
tinued to linger during the reign of Diocletian had to be
extinguished by the emperor. As the sovereign of Italy,
Maximian was entrusted with removing the troublesome members.

In pursuit of his goal, Maximian devised a scheme

 

 

20Pfister, p. 226; Vogt, Constantin der Grosse, pp. 109—
105; Abbott, p. 335; Jones, I, 90; Kornemann, p. 385; Gibbon,
1, 382-83.

21

Pfister, p. 229; Gibbon, I, 380; Jones, I, 99; Abbott,
p. 336; Vogt, p. 112; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum
Mittelalter, I, 361.

 

 

53

whereby the most ambitious members of the Senate were accused
of participating in imaginary plots which provided him with
an excuse to deprive them of their positions. In addition to
its physical reduction in numbers, the Senate experienced

a more devastating blow when the emperor decided to move his
official residence from Rome to Milan.22 As long as the em—
peror lived at Rome the Senate might be physically oppressed,
but it could hardly be ignored as it came to be once the em-
peror resided at Milan. When the emperor fixed his residence
at a location removed from the ancient capital he could then
lay aside the constitutional dissimulation which Augustus

had constructed.

Under the new imperial edifice which Diocletian was
constructing, the army was the object of his personal concern.
During the previous fifty years of anarchy, the praetorian
guard had been one of the chief instigators of trouble and

as a result its prerogatives were greatly reduced.23

Septimius
Severus had already expelled from its ranks the Italian

members who could no longer be trusted and replaced them with
soldiers from the provincial armies who had satisfactory
military records. Diocletian went a step further as he filled
the ranks of the guard with his most trusted friends from

Illyria.

Diocletian also expanded the practice of selecting the

 

22Gibbon, I, 380.

23Lot, p. 15; Gibbon, I, 380; Jones, I, 52—60.

50

commanders of the army from among trusted friends instead of
permitting the Senate to hold these powerful positions.2”
This practice had been initiated not only out of jealousy,

but also as a matter of necessity. For the men of the Senate,
military duty was never an end in itself, but a preparatory
stage for civil office. This practice was no longer compati—
ble with the times. To carry on the struggles against the
barbarians and Persians, professional officers were needed

and to fill this need the emperors turned to the Equestrian
order. The highest offices in the army came to be filled with
men whose loyalty to the emperor was unquestioned.

Along with the military reforms, additional measures
were introduced by the emperors to reduce senatorial authority
even further. The executive, legislative, jurisdictional and
financial privileges of the Senate were, by the third century,
monopolized by the emperor.25 Even the provincial structure
of the Empire was reorganized so as to diminish the Senate's
influence.26 After decreasing the geographical size of the
provinces, in an effort to reduce the responsibility of each
governor, Diocletian then combined the provinces into larger

political units called dioceses and entrusted each of these

 

2”Jones, I, 98—99; Lot, p. 16; Bury, I, 12.

25Abbott, pp. 336ff.; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike
zum Mittelalter, I, 361; Vogt, p. 112; Gibbon, 1, 380—83;

Seeck, I, 95ff.
26

 

Jones, I, 96—99; Stein, 1, 98-102; Vogt, p. 112.

55

areas to the care of his personal friends.27 The Senate
which had once been the fountain head of power in the Empire
was now becoming a social position and nothing more.
The measures which were introduced by Diocletian in
his effort to transform the Empire from a "magistracy" to a
"monarchy" were continued by Constantine.28 By the end of
the latter's administration the palace had become the center
of the state and the emperor rigidly regulated the life of
the Empire. The old organs of sovereignty, such as the Senate,
retained only a mere shadow of their former greatness as the
Roman political order drifted closer and closer to a form of
royal absolutism with all its pettiness.29
The reigns of Diocletian and Constantine have long
posed a problem for scholars in that it is difficult to de—
termine to what extent each was responsible for the reorgan—
ization of the Empire and to evaluate the degree of success
experienced by their numerous reforms. Was the colossal edi-
fice of classical civilization reestablished upon a foundation
sufficient to weather such events as the barbaric invasions
of the fourth and fifth centuries, or was it essentially a

new empire, ready to succumb with the slightest agitation?

Did the reformers reincarnate the robust and happy days of

 

27Stein, 1, 102; Jones, I, 98—99.
28Lot, p. 86.
29

Ibid., p. 93. We can find evidence of court spies
and arrests being made on the flimsiest pretext.

 

56

Augustus, or did they merely provide a temporary lease on
life prolonging the inevitable destiny of a withering age?
It is in light of these and similar questions that the crisis
of the third century and the reforms of the fourth have rele-
vance for the present work. Thus, the remainder of this
chapter, and essentially the entire work, will be to illus-
trate the manner in which particular schools of thought, i. e.,
the catastrOphic, continuation, and transitional, have viewed
the rise of absolutism in the fourth century and how the
various analyses of this period have influenced the different
interpretations of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the
beginning of the Middle Ages.

The earlieSt accounts of the ills which plagued the
Roman world came from the humanist writers of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries. Although the works of a number of
these men were concerned with the collapse of the Empire, their
accounts of this event were, for the most part, quite general
and their explanations rather superficial.30 Being motivated,
and sometimes commissioned by the government, to trace the
history of the Italian states, the humanist historians nat-
urally concentrated their talents upon the rise of the communes
and their development into powerful territorial states. The

result of this particular procedure was that they failed to

 

30Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine History, trans., W.
K. Marriott (London, 1909). He covers the period from the
fall of the Empire to the reign of Charlemagne in Sixteen

pages.

57

penetrate the intricacies of Rome's internal problems which
in turn rendered them blind to the numerous innovations that
were being introduced through the reforms of Diocletian and
Constantine.

Evidence of the humanist treatment of this issue can
be found in the works of Leonardo Bruni, Flavio Biondo, and
Niccolo Machiavelli. Bruni, who was swayed in his thinking by
the personal conviction that republicanism was the best of
all political systems, believed the Empire began to decline
with the loss of political freedom which he directly related
to the despotism of the earliest emperors. In the words of
Bruni, "The Roman imperium began to go to ruin when the name

"31 It was the

of Caesar fell like a disaster upon the city.
opinion of Bruni, that freedom vanished with the appearance
of the imperial regime and the loss of liberty was paralleled
by a decline in civic virtue.32 In spite of the internal
ills that resulted from imperial rule, Bruni maintained that
the Empire was also to continue for another two hundred years
by virtue of the strength it had absorbed from the Republic.
In the eyes of Bruni, the critical period for Rome did not
come until the invasions of the fourth century. Once Con-

stantine had moved the capital to the East, the Western prov-

inces were neglected and left vulnerable to repeated inundation

 

3J'Wallace K. Ferguson, The Renaissance ip Historical

Thought, p. 10.
32Ibid.

 

 

58

by the barbarians.33 It is clear that Bruni believed the
Roman world did not experience any major changes in its poli—
tical structure until the invasions of the fourth century.
For Bruni, it had been the invaders who were responsible for
the chaos which finally destroyed the western portion of the
Empire.

In many respects the work of Flavio Biondo is in har—
mony with that of Bruni. Once notable difference, however, is
that Biondo extends the period of Rome's greatness much fur—
ther than Bruni. The Empire, Biondo argued, continued to
grow in power until the death of Theodosius the Great in 395
A. D.3u According to Biondo, it was not until the death of
Theodosius that the Empire was deprived of effective leader—
ship and, as a result, left open to the attacks of the bar-

barians.35

It was this latter event which ultimately launched
Rome on a downward course. Although the emphasis of this ob-
server was upon the external factors as being the critical
element in the decline of the West, he was also aware of the
internal factors as he raised the question of effective lead-

ership in the West prior to the invasions.

Machiavelli, in his Florentine History, likewise at—

 

tributed a major role to the barbarians in bringing death and

destruction to the Western portion of the Roman Empire. His

 

33Ibid., p. 10.

31‘Ibid., p. 11-19.

35Ibid.

 

59

work did, however, represent a significant advancement over
the two previously cited sources in that he placed much more
stress upon the internal weaknesses of Rome as being respon-
sible for the success of the barbarians.36 Machiavelli as—
serted that the invaders destroyed the West, "...by taking
advantage of the opportunity that was given them by the em—
perors who abandoned Rome, the ancient seat of the Empire,
and degraded themsleves by residing at Constantinople."37 In
brief, it was the belief of Machiavelli that the political
decline of the Empire was brought about by the sloth of the
emperors, the treachery of the ministers and the persistency
of the assailants.38
Although the humanist writers did not deal specifically
with the political crisis of the third century, it is clear
they believed there were no significant problems or alterations
of Roman imperial machinery until Constantine moved the capi-
tal to the East. It was this event that spelled doom for the
West as the barbarians were then free to penetrate the pro-
vincial boundaries with little or no resistance. Thus, the
emphasis of the humanists was upon the invaders as being the
major factor in the disruption of the heretofore viable Roman

political order.

It was not until the eighteenth century and the "Age

 

36Machiavelli, p. 5.

37Ibid.

38Ibid.

60

of Reason" that a more comprehensive inquiry was undertaken
concerning the Roman political developments of the third and
fourth centuries. While the humanists had been relatively

silent on the political developments of these two centuries,

Edward Gibbon presented in his Decline and Fall pr the Roman

 

 

Empire a most vivid and extensive investigation. Gibbon
viewed the half century of political anarchy that dominated
the period between the reigns of Alexander Severus and Dio-
cletian as one of the most blighting episodes in Roman his—
tory.39 With the constitution of Rome under the heel of an
army void of any national consciousness, the Empire was racing
toward an early death. According to Gibbon it was only the
reforms initiated by Diocletian and continued by Constantine
that altered the fateful course of the Empire.”0
When viewed through the eyes of Gibbon, the reign of

Diocletian was one of the most eventful and illustrious periods

 

39With the reign of Diocletian the source material be-
comes more abundant. In addition to the already mentioned
works of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, there is the Ecclesi-
astical History of Eusebius which describes not only the per-
secutions, but also throws light on the contemporary secular
conditions as well. An even more important source is Lactan-
tius' treatise. It is contemporary and useful in that it
castigates both the secular and the religious policies of the
persecution emperors. The legal sources are considerably
fuller than the previous fifty years. Justinian's Digest con-
tains substantial material from two jurists and the Justinian
Codes preserved about 1300 constitutions of Diocletian. For
the reign of Constantine, in addition to the sources listed
above, there is the Life pr Constantine by Eusebius and a
number of polemical tracts by Athanasius. We also have the
Theodosiam Code which includes over 900 laws from the reign
of Constantine, but the dates for these laws are difficult
to determine.

90

 

 

Gibbon, I, 279-316.

61

in the history of Rome. Gibbon saw in Diocletian a political

theorist of the first order.Lll

Following the accession of
Diocletian to the throne not only was he capable of identifying
the political ills of the Empire, but he was likewise capable
of prescribing a remedy. lle program formulated by Diocletian
in his effort to restore political stability necessitated the
implementation of a new system of imperial government.”2 To
still the disquiet of the Roman world, the emperor instituted
a program which resulted in the Principate of Augustus being
transformed into an absolute monarchy.”3 As a result of the
reformer's efforts not only was the army brought to bay, but
also the ancient role of the Senate was greatly altered as

it was reduced in both numbers and authority. The adminis-
trative duties which had been shared with the Senate under
the Principate were now concentrated into the hands of a cen-
tral authority. While the details of this new imperial order
will be left to the remaining chapters, we can conclude that
Gibbon viewed the reforms of Diocletian as being the artful

policy of a master politician.uu The policies introduced by

Diocletian and continued by Constantine not only quelled the

 

ulIbid., I, 352. For the reign of Diocletian, Gibbon
relies almost entirely upon the work of the fourth century
chroniclers Aurelius Victor, Eutropius and the highly polemical
works of Lactantius.

”21bid., p. 379.

”31bid., p. 351.

L”Ibid., p. 379.

62

disorder of the Roman world, but also instilled into it a
new life which permitted the imperial order to function with
success until it later fell victim to the barbarians and
Christianity.

Following the monumental work of Gibbon there were no
comparable investigations produced on the political transition
of the Empire until the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Although there were significant advances made in
the field of medieval historiography during the intervening
century, as we have already noted in the first chapter, these
advances were essentially dictated by a variaty of interests
which did not necessitate an investigation of the early Mid-
dle Ages. Thus, it was not until the closing decades of the
nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth that
late antiquity was once again brought under serious investi—
gation.

Using the voluminous works of Otto Seeck and J. B. Bury
as examples of this revival in classical studies, it is ques—
tionable whether the investigations of these two men repre-
sent any substantial advancement over the work of Gibbon.
While both Seeck and Bury proffered explanations for the fall
of the Empire that were more detailed and sophisticated than
Gibbon's, they both ultimately concluded that the invasions
of the fourth and fifth centuries represented the death blow

95

for the West. Of the two, however, the analysis rendered

 

usSeeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiker Welt,
1, 1-10; Bury, I, l.

 

63

by Seeck stands as the more unique. In his six volume work,
Geschichte des Untergang der antiken Welt, Seeck sought to
introduce the novel idea, which he expressed in his formula,
"Die Ausrottung der Besten," that the decline of the Roman
Empire was brought about by a demographic decay and the dis-
appearance of the "best men.”6 For Seeck the political life
of Rome, and the ancient world in general, was based upon a
fatal plan of self-destruction. Being strongly influenced

by Darwin's Descent pr Mgr, Seeck set out to discover whether
the forces of struggle and natural selection were given free
play in producing those men best fitted to govern and he con—
cluded that, within Rome, the opposite was true.”7 Seeck
maintained that as a result of the numerous civil and foreign
wars which had plagued Rome since the days of the Republic,

8 In addition

many of the ablest men had been liquidated.u
to the fatal loss that occurred from the prolonged wars, he
also believed that the ancient world was hastened to its end
as a result of the unnatural and primitive conditions that
existed in regards to family life. In an effort to retain
the political and economic privileges that accompanied their
exalted social position, the ruling class in Rome, i. e., the

senatorial aristocracy, had long accepted the practice of

forced marriages, which Seeck believed violated the process

 

usSeeck, I, 257-289.

”71bid.

L'8Ibid.

69

of natural selection, and as a result the most capable men
seldom rose to the head of affairs.”9 It was not uncommon,
says Seeck, for children to be married at the ages of nine
or ten with no concern being expressed for love or feeling.
The aristocracy developed an attitude in which marriage was
viewed as a necessary evil and became a mere transaction in
which the dowry played the decisive part.50 As a result of
this process of unnatural selection, the political scene in
Rome came to be dominated by men of inferior character and
by the fifth century A. D., the Empire stood as easy prey for
the militant barbarians.51 While Seeck maintained the ulti-
mate collapse of the West was brought about by external for—
ces, he also believed the fall had been preceded by an inter-
nal weakening of the political structure as a result of the
loss of capable leadership.

Turning to the work of J. B. Bury we find that he placed
even greater emphasis upon the role of the barbarians in the

collapse of the West than did Seeck. Although he maintained

in his History pr_the Later Roman Empire that it was impos-

 

sible to cite one event which led to the fall of Rome, in
each of the causes which he cited the barbarians appeared as

the chief instigators.

 

”91bid.

 

50Ibid.

51Ibid., IV, 353-380.

 

65

While it is true, said Bury, that the Empire experi-
enced a period of grave political instability during the fifty
years which separated the reigns of Alexander Severus and
Diocletian, it was restored to a sound basis as a result of
the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine.52 Bury maintained
that it was not until the end of the fourth century that the
West began its decline and that the gradual collapse of the
Roman power in this section of the Empire was the consequence

C O 53
of a "series of contingent events."

The first contingency,
says Bury, was the eruption of the Huns into Europe, "an
event resulting from causes which were quite independent of

"5” It was the

the weakness or strength of the Roman Empire.
appearance of the Huns that precipitated the movement of the
Visigoths intolfle Empire and the problems which grew out of
this event were totally mismanaged. The emperor Valens, de—
siring to handle the matter independently, took the offensive
against the Visigoths and in the process was not only defeated,
but lost his own life. The mismanagement of the Visigoths,
says Bury, was the second contingency leading to Rome's‘fall.55
The third factor leading to Rome's loss of its Western pro-

vinces came with Valens' successor, Theodosius 1. According

to Bury, Theodosius, assuming a course of least resistance,

 

52Bury, I, lff.

53Ibid., p. 311.

5”Ibid.

55Ibid.

66

permitted the barbarians to settle on imperial soil and
through this measure, established a very unfortunate precedent.
Even this event, however, was not cause for undue alarm had
the succession passed to a capable leader. Unfortunately,
Theodosius had not produced a competent heir and the govern-
ment of the West passed into the hands of less skilled Hono-

56

rius. The ascendency of Honorius to the imperial throne

was the fourth and last contingency which Bury cites as being

responsible for the collapse of the West.57

Bury maintained
that it was during the reign of Honorius the Germans came to
fill important posts in the West and ultimately established
independent kingdoms. As a result of these developments the
Empire lost control of its Western provinces. Thus, while
Bury may list a series of contingencies which led to the col—
lapse of the Western portion of the Empire, it is obvious
that he sees the barbarians as being the chief villains in
each of them.

The role of the invaders in the disruption of classical
antiquity was first brought into question by the "continuation"
school. The works of Henri Pirenne and Alphonse Dopsch rep-
resent, par excellence, the efforts of this school to absolve
the invaders of any responsibility for the fall of the Empire.

In presenting their case, however, the continuation school

went to the opposite extreme from the catastrophic in asserting

 

56Ibid., p. 312.

57Ibid.

67

that classical civilization continued, intact, far into the
post-invasion period.

Viewing the political reforms of Diocletian and Con-
stantine through the sympathetic eyes of Henri Pirenne we see
the Empire as a mythical marathon runner who after receiving
the proverbial second wind thrusts forward with renewed vigor
and strength, dethroning not only the besetting internal mal-
adies, but possessing sufficient stamina to outdistance any
external threat posed by the pressing barbarians. The ap-
pearance of this uncivilized mass of humanity in the provinces
of the Empire created no real problem for Pirenne because he
was convinced that the invaders desired not to destroy the
Mediterranean unity, but only to gain a Spot in the brilliant
classical civilization. According to Pirenne, it was not the
invaders that effected the great rupture between Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, but the rapid and unexpected advance of

58 Pirenne believed the Germanic

Islam in the seventh century.
kings who established themsleves within the Latin portion of
the Empire did not possess the power of a true sovereignty,

but were merely generals of the Roman army honoring the true
supremacy of the Emperor.59 The entire imperial administra-

tion was maintained. The Vandals in Africa were careful in

the heat of their venture to retain the well established Roman

 

58Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, p. 289; Medieval
Cities (Princeton, 1925), p. 27.

59

 

Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, p. 96.

 

68

institution. The face of Spain and Gaul bore no marks of dis—
figurement as a result of the invasion and certainly the Goths
brought no change in their respective areas.60
What appeared to the catastrophic school to denote a
decisive alteration in the status quo, namely the Germanic
invasions of the fourth and fifth centuries, Pirenne consider—
ed to be only another crisis in the history of the Empire.
He asserted that nothing was changed by the barbarians who
admired Roman institutions and desired to preserve that to
which they had fallen heir. They did not introduce a new
form of government. The only significant alteration that
came with the invaders was their effort to substitute inde-

61 Within the

pendent kingdoms for the old imperial unity.
analysis of Pirenne lies a basic assumption upon which the
validity of his entire thesis rests. Pirenne labored under
the assumption that if the invaders wrought no change then
no change took place. However, simply because the Germans
desired no change is not sufficient evidence to claim that no
change occurred. As shall be demonstrated later, profound
alterations in the status quo had already taken place before
the Germans appeared as a threat.

The emphasis which Pirenne placed upon the "continuation"

of classical antiquity had previously been examined by the

Austrian scholar, Alphons Dopsch. His thesis supported not

 

60Ibid., p. 99.

61Ibid., p. 125.

69

only the belief of a continuation of the established order
following the migration of the Germans, but also that condi-
tions continued with notable improvement. Basing his argu-
ment upon archaeological evidence, Dopsch was convinced that
the Germans did not behave as enemies of Roman culture, but
actually preserved and develOped it.62 According to Dopsch,
the Germanic conquest of Rome was unlike the conquest of any
other state in political history. "The Germans did not over—
run the Empire in a savage onslaught and then build their
culture on its primitive ruins. The Roman world was won from
within by a peaceful penetration which went on for centuries
during which time they absorbed not only its culture, but to

63

a considerable extent, took over its administration." Dopsch

maintained the Germans did not destroy Rome, but actually
strengthened it by virtue of their own ability.6u
According to Dopsch, the political organization, which
by the end of the fifth century was regulated by the new rul—
ers, was not a radical change which occurred instantaneously,
but was the culmination of a process which had been in the
making since the first migrations. DOpsch asserts, "The prim—

itive political organization of the Germans," which was char-

acterized by a vast number of small independent tribes, "began

 

62One of the reasons for the tremendous impact of the
work of Dopsch was his use of the latest archeological find—
ings, particularly coins.

3Dopsch,The Economic and Social Foundations pr_Euro-
pean Civilization, p. 386.

6

 

 

 

L'Ibid.

 

70

to break down by the time of the migrations as these various
independent units were slowly forged into larger tribal group—

65 The cause of

ings under the authority of a single ruler."
this amalgamation of smaller tribes into larger units, Dopsch
attributed to the numerous wars with the Romans. The results
were the development of tribal kingships with a much larger
basis of popular support and at the same time the development
of greater political powers by the various kings.66

According to Dopsch, as the power of the kings in—
creased, their influence also expanded by virtue of their con—
quest of smaller tribes. The ultimate end of this process
was the development of a single monarchy. Soon after the
final settlement of the Germans in the West, a monarchical
constitution evolved as the accepted order.67 Actually, as
Dopsch recorded it, the Germanic political order was more
acceptable to the Romans than their own corrupt system. It
was not uncommon, as this authority has indicated, for a Ro—
man to relinquish his possessions and position to seek refuge
among the Germans. In conclusion Dopsch asserted that the
abolition of the Roman political control of the West was only
a step in a much more involved process of change. "The re-
adjustment, so to speak, of a firm whose old name has long

ceased to describe the actual head of the business."68

 

65Ibid., p. 312.

66Ibid., p. 183.

67Ibid., p. 187.

68Ibid., p. 355.

71

The assessment of the political crisis of the third
century and the reforms of the fourth as found in Joseph

Vogt's Der Niederganijoms is also in harmony with the "con-

 

tinuation" school. In his assessment of the fourth century,
Vogt maintained the absolutism of Diocletian was the result

69 "As

of p priori thinking by a skilled political theorist.
a politician," says Vogt, "Diocletian had the exceptional a-
bility for analyzing existing power relationships and making
long—term plans based on his findings. Although the immediate
objective of his measures might be to remove certain specific
abuses, they were so skillfully dovetailed that the result

was a fully articulated system of government...whose hard core
was strong enough to weather many storms."70 In the eyes of
Vogt, both Diocletian and Constantine were master statesmen
who were not only capable of analyzing the existing problems,
but who were also capable of providing a solution. According
to Vogt, Diocletian, after carefully evaluating the problems
which he had inherited from the fifty years of anarchy, came
to the conclusion that the ancient institutions of the Empire,
such as the Senate and the annual magistracies, were politi-
cally innocuous and as a result all of the offices in the im—

71

perial administration were placed under his authority. To

justify this move, as well as the autocratic measures which

 

69Vogt, Der Niederganngoms, p. 72.
70

 

Ibid.

 

71Ibid., pp. 72—73.

72

he believed necessary to restore unity and order, Diocletian
introduced the very ancient tradition in which the absolute
power of the dominate was believed to rest ultimately on the

semi-divine nature of the ruler.72

Vogt maintains it was by
establishing himself as "god—emperor" that Diocletian came
to possess unlimited powers in the government of the Empire
and he exercised this absolute authority in such a manner as
to reorganize the central and outlying regions, "...in a new

and enduring form."73

Thus, according to Vogt, as a result
of the superior political ability of Diocletian and Constan—
tine the Empire was restored upon a sound footing and was to
continue as a viable institution far into the post-invasion
period.7u
It would appear from the investigations of these ad-
herents to the continuation thesis that the classical order
of the ancient world was unaffected by the flood of barbarians
that swept over Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries. How-
ever, the emphasis which this school placed upon the "continuity"
of the classical order was soon brought into question through
the investigations of the "transitional" school. Using the

work of Ferdinand Lot as a representative of this school it

soon becomes apparent that he is not in agreement with either

 

72Ibid.

73Ibid.

 

71“Ibid., pp. 72—98.

73

of the two previously mentioned schools of thought.75 Lot
turns our attention once more to the civil chaos of the third
century. With his emphasis focused upon the internal maladies
which plagued the Empire, he is rather dubious concerning the
degree of success experienced by Diocletian and Constantine
in curing the economic, social, and political sores which had
infected the Roman world. Lot maintains that while the polit-
ical reforms of these two men had restored a temporary sta-
bility to the Empire, they were unable to correct the inter-
nal problems that were breeding in its political, economic,
and social orders. Diocletian and Constantine were able to
coVer the outward signs of the disease, but the malignancy
which had worked its way into the spiritual fibers of classi-
cal society could not be removed by the most skilled political
surgeon.76

According to Lot, one of the key problems which must
be considered in the transition from ancient to medieval civi—
lization, as has already been encountered in a number of the
sources that have previously been considered, was the persis-
tence of Roman political institutions in the West after the
settlement of the Germans. Lot would agree that those insti—
tutions to which the intruders had fallen heir continued to
function with some degree of efficiency throughout the fifth

century. The Visigoths who came to control Spain and a major

 

75Lot, The End 9: the Ancient World, p. 50.

 

76Ibid.

 

79

portion of Gaul were closely allied to the Empire and per—
formed quite admirably in the service of Rome.77 While it is
true King Euric refused to recognize the absolute power of
the emperor, there was still a recognition of the Roman Empire.
Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that one hundred

years after the death of Euric, Visigothic coins still carried

78

the name of the emperor. Also, documents of the council

continued to be dated in the Roman fashion and the Roman fi—
nancial system continued to function.79
The continuation of the Roman political order can be
seen among other Germanic tribes as well as with the Goths.
According to Lot, the Burgundians remained faithful allies
of the Romans for nearly a century. Each Burgundian king up-
on his accession to the throne was careful to announce his
loyalty to the emperor as his federate.8O Even the Franks,
says Lot, were often on the best of terms with the imperial
government in Constantinople. Even those kings who were op-
posed to the sovereignty of the emperor were incapable of
becoming completely independent of the imperial tentacles.

Of all the Germanic tribes, the Vandals in Africa were prob—

ably the most hostile to imperial control, but even they were

 

77Ibid., p. 293.

7815id., p. 295.

79The economic factors involved in the transition will
be treated in a later chapter.

80Lot, p. 295.

75

careful to maintain many of the well established institutions
of the Romans such as their economic systems.81
While one could conclude, in light of the above com-
ments, that Lot essentially agrees with the "continuation"
of the Germans' rich inheritance, this statement must be made
with reservations. Although it is true that Lot believed the
intruders attempted, in many instances, to continue the insti—
tutions to which they had fallen heir, the critical factor
in Lot's thesis, as shall be more clearly illustrated in the
following chapters, was that he believed the institutions
which the invaders received had already been disrupted before
they became a controlling factor in the West.
Still another effort to analyze the crisis of the third

century and evaluate the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine

is found in Michael Rostovtzeff's Social and Economic History

 

pr_the Roman Empire. The work of Rostovtzeff differs with

 

the brief analysis of the third century crisis given in the
Opening pages of this chapter in that he maintains the basis

of this crisis was social and not political. In his own words,
Rostovtzeff asserts that, "The usual explanation given by
modern scholars which suggests that the violent convulsions

of the third century...were created by the endeavors of the
emperors to eliminate the senate politically and transform

the Augustan diarchy into a pure monarchy...does not stand the

 

81Ibid., p. 298.

76

82

test of facts." According to Rostovtzeff the struggle in

the third century was between an oppressed peasantry and the

city bourgeoisie.83

The mass of the Roman pOpulation, says
Rostovtzeff, was comprised of peasants and serfs who existed
as the subjects of the more powerful city bourgeoisie. "In
short, the peasants were a special caste separated by a deep
gulf from the privileged classes, a caste whose duty it was
to support the high civilization of the cities by their toil
and work, by their taxes and rent."8u In the eyes of Rostov—
tzeff the crisis of the third century was social in character
as the peasants, with the help of the army, tried to escape
the oppressions to which they had, for centuries, been sub—
jected.

Concerning the efforts of Diocletian and Constantine
to quell the numerous problems that grew out of the third
century crisis, Rostovtzeff, like Lot, is rather dubious of

85

their success. The primary objective of the oriental des-

potism which emerged from the reign of Diocletian, says Ro—

stovtzeff, was the restoration of unity and order within the

86

Empire. Unfortunately, while Diocletian and Constantine

 

82Michael Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 9:
the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926), p. 991.

83

 

 

Ibid., pp. 991-993.

8”Ibid., p. 993.

85Ibid., p. 959.

86Ibid.

77

were expending herculean efforts to obtain this goal, they
were unable to arrest the decay that was destroying the social

87 While it will be left to

and economic order of the Empire.
the next two chapters to discuss in detail Rostovtzeff's views
on the social and economic decline of the West, it is obvious
that he, like Lot, attributes the decline of the West to in-
ternal weaknesses and not to external forces such as the Ger-
manic invasions. "Without Diocletian and Constantine," says
Rostovtzeff, "the Empire no doubt would have succumbed much
sooner, but cure for the disease of the Empire there was
none."88

Another representative of the "transitional" school
whose conclusions are in general agreement with those of Lot
and Rostovtzeff is William C. Bark. In his efforts to amend
the analysis of the late Roman Empire and early Middle Ages
proffered by the continuation school, Bark maintained "...the
real catastrophe of the Roman Empire occurred in the civil
strife of the third century which destroyed the foundation of
the economic, social and intellectual life of the ancient

world."89

Powerful administrators and reformers through Dio—
cletian and Constantine may have been, "...their methods in
an extremely complicated situation calling for extraordinary

insight, finesse, and encouragement of individual talent were

 

87Ibid., pp. 959-87.

88Ibid.

89Bark, Origins Q: the Medieval World, p. 92.

 

78

imperceptive, clumsy, and Oppressive."90

In harmony with
the views expressed by Lot, Bark maintained that the primary
significance of the reign of Diocletian was the restoration
of the political unity of the Empire which prevented its frag—
mentation into individual states at so early a date.91 In
spite of their rigorous reforms, says Bark, Diocletian and
Constantine were unable to arrest the forces that were de-
stroying the ancient world. In his conclusion to this issue,
Bark maintained that the Empire, by the fourth century, was
beyond total restoration, "...for the chaos and destruction
of the third century could not be rescinded even by the most
despotic legislation."92
Although there has been a great deal more literature
produced concerning the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine
than has been considered above, much of this work has con-
centrated more on the reformers than upon the significance of

their reforms.g3

Whether or not the reformers were justified
in the despotic measures which they employed in the early
fourth century was probably debated less by their contempor—
aries than by modern historians. The central issue in ques—

tion is not whether they were justified in their actions, but

rather whether or not the policies which they introduced

 

90Ibid.

91Ibid., pp. 93—99.

92Ibid., p. 93.

93Ibid., p. 92.

79

represented a genuine restoration of the classical world.
Politically speaking, it has already been demonstrated that
the concept of Empire as existed in the first and second cen—
turies A. D., experienced a radical change at the hands of
Diocletian and Constantine. No longer could the claim of
Aelius Aristides, that the Empire was free of despotic rule,
be made. The power was now absolute and exercised solely at
the discretion of the emperor. As it shall be more clearly
demonstrated in the following pages, the state no longer
existed for the people, but the people came to exist for the
benefit of the state.

In spite of the obvious constitutional changes that
emerged from the late third and early fourth centuries, the
adherents of both the "catastrophic" and "continuation"
schools are of the opinion that the Empire was not permanently
affected by the civil disturbances of the third century.

Both of these schools maintain that as a result of the ex-
pedient measures taken by Diocletian and Constantine the an—
cient world, in all respects, was restored to a sound basis

of operation. In the eyes of the catastrophic school the
collapse of classical civilization was not the result of in-
ternal weaknesses, but rather the result of external pressures,
e. g., Christianity, barbarians, Islam, that were brought to
bear upon the Empire and which sapped it of all its vital
strength.

The position of the "continuation" school with regards

to the crisis of the third century and reforms of the fourth

0!

pa.

 

. till] .fxr

a.»

 

‘1

 

!\n

80

is obvious in its title. It is the opinion of this school
that not only was the ancient world restored through the ef-
forts of Diocletian and Constantine, but that it retained
sufficient strength and vitality to be relatively unaffected
by such events as the Germanic invasions of the fourth and
fifth centuries. Those events which the "catastrophic" school
classified as a significant alteration of the status quo, the
continuation school dismissed as only superficial political
novelties which caused no lasting effect upon the imperial
structure.

In contrast to both of these interpretations stands
the investigations of the "transitional" school. It is the
belief of this school that while Diocletian and Constantine
had been able to restore political unity to the Empire and
thus avert its early fragmentation, their methods in an ex-
tremely complicated situation, to use the words of Bark, had
been imperceptive, oppressive, and clumsy. According to the
transitional school the real catastrophe of the Roman Empire
occurred during the civil strife of the third century at
which time the foundations of the social, economic, and in-
tellectual life of the ancient world were being destroyed.
While Diocletian and Constantine had been able to restore a
measurable degree of stability for the Empire, they had been
unable to construct a program whereby the internal problems
of the ancient world could be resolved. According to this
school of thought the ancient world did not continue uninter-

rupted into the seventh century nor did it experience a

4‘

 

 

AU

81

catastrophic end at the hands of external foes. The Roman
world collapsed in the West as a result of internal weaknesses
and the influence that was brought to bear upon these frail-
ties by the Church and the barbarians. The ancient world
was gradually transformed into a new way of life which was
motivated by a new ideology and directed by a new set of in—
stitutions.

As we turn now to a more detailed analysis of the prob-
lems inherited by Diocletian and Constantine and the manner
in which they tried to solve them, the importance of the later
third and early fourth centuries in the shaping of medieval

historiography can be more clearly demonstrated.

)

CHAPTER III
THE ECONOMIC CRISIS (THIRD-SIXTH CENTURIES)

Although it has required a legion of scholars working
in many areas to rent the shroud of ignorance which so long
engulfed the early Middle Ages, few of them deserve more cre—
dit than those who undertook the arduous task of reconstruc-
ting the edifice of late Roman and early medieval economic
institutions. While the quantity of source material is lim-
ited, the final harvest has been plenteous in that much has
been accomplished toward altering the existing concept of a
"Middle Age."

Just as the cultivation of any field of research is
often subject to a stunted yield as a result of the scholar's
biases and misconceptions, the investigations of the economic
institutions of late antiquity have proved to be no exception.
Using the continuation school as evidence of this claim, the
following pages will seek to demonstrate how the adherents
of this school, particularly Alphons Dopsch, Henri Pirenne,
Joseph Vogt, Ernst Kornemann and Kurt Pfister, were led
astray as a result of being blinded by the past brilliance of
classical civilization and by their exaggerated faith in the
economic ability of the invaders. The continuation school
could not conceive of a civilization possessing the grandeur

which Rome had once possessed falling into a state of internal

83

decay and succumbing so early in life. As a result of their
blindness, they created a picture of late Roman and early
medieval economic institutions as possessing a vitality and
stability which actually did not exist.

Viewing once more the posthumously published work of

Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlempgne, we find the author

 

imbued with the same confidence in stressing the economic
continuity of classical civilization throughout the so-called
"dark age" as he was in stressing the political continuity.
He persistently maintains that while the crisis of the third
century and the appearance of the invaders in the fourth and
fifth may have initiated a brief reign of chaos, the calm
returned after the tempest leaving the Mediterranean unity
as it had existed prior to these events.1 Concerning the
classical economy, the author erroneously sees numerous ut-
terances in the work of Gregory of Tours as indications that
the economic unity of the Mediterranean continued to exist

until the seventh and eighth centuries when the mare nostrum

 

finally became a Moslem lake.

According to Pirenne, evidence of the economic unity
of the Mediterranean following the invasions can be found in
the extensive trade which flourished long after the barbarians
had effected their triumph. Pirenne is extremely dogmatic in
his reference to the commercial movement which he saw existing

between the Eastern and Western portions of the Empire. In

 

lPirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, p. 75.

 

89

the eyes of Pirenne, the lucrative traffic which existed in
both necessities and luxury items was unaffected by either
the crisis of the third century or the invasions.

To support his contention that extensive commercial
activity persisted, Pirenne placed great emphasis upon the
large number of oriental merchants residing in the West during
the fifth and sixth centuries. With the chief commercial
agent of the day being easterners, particularly the Jews,
Syrians, and Egyptians, Pirenne maintained the repeated ref-
erences to their presence in the West was proof of an exten-
sive commercial program. Had these men not been operating at
a substantial profit they would have discontinued their ac-
tivities. Yet, Southern Gaul leaves evidence of a large num—
ber of these oriental merchants whose business it was to
transport merchandise from the East to the West; and in ad-
dition to those who were involved in the transportation of
wares there was a large number of merchants who established
permanent residence within Gaul.2

Further evidence convincing Pirenne of the continuation
of commercial activity during the post invasion period was
the large number of luxuries that were to be found in the
West. Pirenne finds frequent reference in the work of Greg—
ory of Tours to ivory carvings, decorative liturgical tunics,
oriental curtains, papyrus and silks which were present in

the West and could have had as their origin no other place

 

2Ibid., p. 82.

85

than the Eastern Mediterranean.3 Also, there was a large
amount of table luxuries which must have been imported from
the East. The wines of Syria could be found in large quan-
tities and the bitter herbs of Egypt were imported for as—
cetic consumption during the Lenten season. But most sig—
nificant was the extensive spice trade that existed.Ll Pirenne
believes it would be impossible to exaggerate the flow of
spices into the West as they continued after the invasions,
as before, to form an important constituent of the everyday
diet. Spices from the East could be found on practically
every table in the West.5

While the presence of the merchants and luxuries in
the West following the invasions was essential in Pirenne's
efforts to support his economic thesis, he placed even greater
emphasis upon the amount of gold that existed in the West
from the fourth to the sixth century. If there was an ex—
tensive commercial program in operation, as Pirenne claims,
then there would have to be an equally extensive amount of
‘gold present. Here Pirenne did not falter as he saw the Ger-
manic kings quite successfully implementing the imperial eco—
nomic system. The Roman gold solidus which had been adjusted
by Constantine, continued to serve as the monetary unit

throughout the Empire. This monetary system, with which the

 

3Ibido, pp. 82"89.

l”lIbid., p. 89.

5Ibid., pp. 89-90.

86

Germans had long been acquainted while serving the Empire,
was preserved after their final triumph as the accepted fi-
nancial standard.6 Nothing attributes more clearly the per-
sistence of the economic unity of the Empire, Pirenne main—
tains, than the continuation during the fifth and sixth cen-
turies of the Roman monetary system.7 The economic standards
of the barbarians were those of Rome and no alteration was
made until the introduction of the silver standard during

the Carolingian period. For Pirenne, there is no doubt that
the economic unity of Rome continued with all of its splendor
into the post invasion period.

The central issue in the work of Pirenne is that the
unity of the Mediterranean world was maintained unbroken in-
to the eight century when the unity was finally shattered as
a result of the Arab conquest. Although Pirenne, as a result
of his superb pleading, won a number of converts, a large num-
ber of scholars were not convinced of the validity of his
claims. For the last forty years nearly all that has been
written on early medieval economic history has reflected the
heat of the controversy over the "Pirenne thesis."

The nature of this controversy can be seen in such
works as Norman H. Baynes' "M. Pirenne and the Unity of the

Mediterranean World."8 With Pirenne's heavy reliance upon

 

6Ibid., p. 107.

7Ibid.

8Norman H. Baynes, "M. Pirenne and the Unity of the Med—
iterranean World," in gyzantine Studies (London, 1955), pp. 310—
16.

 

87

the presence of an extensive commercial program in the West
during the fifth and sixth centuries to support his thesis

of economic unity, the central issue in Baynes' essay involves
the role which the Syrian merchants played in the economic
life of the Merovingian kingdom. In respect to this issue,
Baynes maintains that Pirenne was guilty of imposing upon

his major source, History pr the Franks by Gregory of Tours,

 

ideas that were foreign to its context.9 According to Baynes,
Pirenne tried to impose modern concepts and meaning upon
medieval terminology. Where Pirenne saw reference to a "mer-
chant" he was inclinded to presume that this was an indication

10 While such an assump-

of a far—reaching commercial program.
tion as this may hold true for modern history, the same can—
not be said for the early Middle Ages. In contrast to Pirenne's
use of the term merchant, Baynes asserts that a more accurate
description of a medieval merchant is that of one who was in-
volved primarily in local trade and even there, only on a very
modest scale.11 It is a mistake, says Baynes, to cast a me-
dieval merchant in the role of an entrepreneur as Pirenne has
attempted.

Pushing his argument even further, Baynes asserts that

Pirenne likewise abuses the sources when he sees inference

in the mention of "Syrians" in the West that these Eastern

 

gIbid., pp. 310—16.

10Ibid.

11Ibid.

 

88

immigrants remained in close commercial relations with their
country of origin and that their population was being con-
stantly reinforced by new arrivals from the East.12 In sup-
port of his criticism of Pirenne's use of the sources, Baynes
claims that if there had been the extensive trade between
the East and West which Pirenne claims, Gregory would have
been much better informed of the East than his work indicates.
In those areas to which there were frequent embassies, such
as Visigothic Spain, Gregory was fully informed while of Rome
and the pOpes of the time we hear nothing.l3 Had there been
the regular contact between the East and West, as Pirenne
claimed, no doubt Gregory would have given longer accounts
of the affairs in Rome. His silence, says Baynes, is due to
the lack of information which was at his disposal which is
also an indication of the limited contact between the East
and West.lu
In addition to the work of Baynes there exists a con-
siderable body of literature which has been quite critical of
other aspects of the Pirenne thesis. One could cite the
work of H. St. L. B. Moss, who questioned Pirenne's claim
that the invasions had no appreciable effect upon trade, or

the works of Robert Lopez and Daniel Dennett, who refuse to

accept Pirenne's claim that the Moslem conquest was a

 

12Ibid.

13Ibid.

ll‘Ibid.

 

89

"catastrophic" event for the West economically.15 However,
in spite of the sustained attacks against the work of Pirenne,
the acceptance of the "continuation" thesis has not been com—
pletely aborted. As shall be demonstrated in the following
pages, the additional weight which was supplied to the con—
tinuation thesis through the investigations of Alfons D0psch
provided it with sufficient strength to weather the attacks
of its opponents.

As indicated in the above statement, another represen—
tative of the continuation school who places great emphasis
on the persistence of the Roman economic order in the West
is Alfons Dopsch. Dopsch believed that after peacefully pen-
etrating the Empire, the Germans did not disrupt the existing
porder of trade, but actually served as a stimulant. Accord—
ing to Dopsch, the Gothic kings looked very favorably upon
commercial activity and in the course of events even passed
significant legislation which resulted in increased activity.16
The Germans had long been in contact with the Roman economic
organization and had developed a considerable knowledge of
its functions which permitted a continuation of these activi—

ties after their final settlement.17

 

15H. St. L. B. Moss, "Economic Consequence of the Bar—
barian Invasion," Economic History Review, VII (1937), 206-16;
Robert Lopez, "Mohammed and Charlemagne: a Revision," Speculum,
XVIII (1993), 19—38; Daniel C. Dennett, "Pirenne and Mohammed,‘
Speculum, XXIII (1998), 165—90.

16Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations pr Euro-
pean Civilization, pp. 390—91.

17

 

 

 

 

 

Ibid., pp. 390-99.

90

With respect to the large number of Oriental merchants
living in the Western Mediterranean and their transporting
from the East such products as silk, spices, paper, and rare
wines, Dopsch maintains it is wrong to suppose that trade in
this period was carried on exclusively by foreigners and that
their products were limited to luxuries.18 According to
Dopsch, the monasteries were dependent upon trade in the fifth
and sixth centuries and they were capable of supplying their
needs by purchasing such items as cloth, grain and oil for
their lamps, in the local markets. Also, much of this trade
was being conducted by enterprising members of the local pop—
ulation in addition to the Syrians. Dopsch asserts that one
can find evidence to prove that even the clergy engaged in
trade, under assumed names, in an effort to reap some of the

19 The German participation in commercial

lucrative rewards.
activities should not be difficult to accept, says Dopsch,
because archaeological findings have proved that trade had
been flourshing between Rome and the barbarians since the
third century; this exchange provided the Germans with a con-

20 This long—estab-

siderable background in economic dealings.
lished trade did not cease when the barbarians overran the

West, but just assumed a new partner. Thus, the migrations

 

18Ibid., p. 399.

lgIbid., pp. 399-95.

20Ibid., pp. 397-98.

91

of the Germans into the Empire had not created economic chaos,
but actually made new connections which in turn created in—
creased commercial activity.21
Migrations have always served to integrate mankind and
have often functioned as a catalyst to bring different civi—
lizations into touch so that gulfs were bridged and cultures
could be transmitted one to the other. The migrations of the
Germans, Dopsch asserts, proved to be just such an event in
that it eventually stimulated the economic life of the Medi—
terranean which continued to flourish into the sixth century.
Returning once more to the evidence produced by his archaeo—
logical endeavors, Dopsch concludes that evidence has been
sufficient to support the belief that the Germans continued
to employ the monetary system to which they had fallen heir.22
The coins which have been discovered illustrate that the Ger—
mans were familiar with the Roman currency and wanted to pre-

serve it.23

The lack of German coins during the early in-
vasion period does not mean they were incapable of producing
their own, but actually indicates there was such an abundance
of Roman coins that the Germans had no need of minting new.
When they did commence striking their own coins, which em—

bodied the effigy of the emperor, they were so genuinely pro-

duced that it is difficult to distinguish them from the

 

21Ibid., p. 398.

22Ibid., p. 359.

23Ibid.

 

92

Roman.2u According to Dopsch, this is adequate evidence to
support the belief that the Germans actually possessed suf-
ficient knowledge and craftsmanship to continue the imperial
monetary system.

Although the findings of Dopsch and Pirenne have been
seriously challenged in recent decades, there are those who
continue to advocate the "continuation" thesis.25 The works
of Heinrich Dannenbauer and Joseph Vogt represent two of the
strongest efforts to perpetuate the economic ideas which were
first espoused by Dopsch and Pirenne.26 The Oriental mer-
chants who had come to dominate the trade of the Mediterranean
world, Dannenbauer and Vogt found to be omnipresent in the
West. In the sixth century, Gaul swarmed with merchants as
there was an abundance of Syrians, Jews, Egyptians and Greeks
who continued to peddle their wares from the frontier of the

27 Dannenbauer also believes that the Ger-

Rhine to Britain.
mans themselves assisted in the perpetuation of the Roman
commercial system as he states, "...ihr Weg ist also von

Agypten uber der Meer nach Italien ins langobardische Reich

 

ZWIbid.

5The opponents of the continuation thesis will be
examined in the latter portion of this chapter.

26Dannenbauer, Die Entstehung Europas vom der Spatan—
tike zum Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1959), II, 88-93; Vogt, Dgr
Niederganijoms, pp. 201ff. The views expressed in these
works on economics are almost identical to the conclusions
found in the work of Pirenne.

 

 

7Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
p. 88; Grundlagen der Mittelalter Welt, p. 15; Vogt, p. 201.

 

 

93

gegangen, und von hier uber der Alpenpasse weither norder,
nach Alemannien und an der Rhein, und die Vermittler mussen
langobardische Kaufleute gewesen sein."28 The chief articles
of import from the East continued to be luxuries as the West
received an abundance of silver tableware from Syria, myrrh
and frankincense from Arabia, and spices from Malabar.29 The
works of Dannenbauer and Vogt are also in agreement with those
of Dopsch and Pirenne in maintaining that the Roman monetary
system continued to thrive during the period of the invasions
and managed to maintain its proper weight and standard until
it was polluted by the Carolingians in the ninth century.30
Both Dannenbauer and Vogt would agree that the imperial econ—
omic system continued to function with a great deal of success
in the post invasion period and that it was not until the
period of the Carolingians that the system experienced any
decline.

While additional references for the continuation

school could be cited, e. g., Ernst Kornemann and Kurt Pfister,

 

28Dannenbauer, Vom Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II, p.

 

 

89.

29Dannenbauer, Grundlagen der Mittelalter Welt, pp. 15-
16; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 201. Vogt also maintained

 

 

 

there was a considerable trade in non—luxuries—-"Sie handelten
auch mit waren fur den gewohenlichen Verbrauch."
30

Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 103—202; Dannenbauer,
Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II, pp. 89-91. It is at
times difficult to follow the conclusions of Vogt and Dannen—
bauer as their evidence does not always support their conclu—
sions. For example both maintain there was an abundance of
luxuries and gold in the West, but they sold for exorbitant
prices. Evidently the law of supply and demand did not apply
to the ancient world!

 

 

 

 

99

its aim and objectives are already apparent. From the above
material it can be concluded that it is the belief of the
continuation school that the economic order of the classical
world passed from the Romans to the barbarians without any
appreciable alterations. Neither the internal maladies which
plagued the Empire in the third century nor the external
threat posed by the barbarians in the fourth and fifth had
been sufficient to undermine the economic foundations of the
ancient world. The fiscal difficulties that arose from the
civil disturbance of the third century were forced into abey—
ance through the ingenious efforts of Diocletian and Constan—
tine. In a similar fashion, the continuation school dismisses
the idea that changes were invoked at the hands of the Germans
who both admired and wished to preserve that to which they
had fallen heir. The various members of this school of thought
are of the opinion that the barbarians had been sufficiently
schooled in the economic ways of the Empire to continue that
which they received. For the continuation school, the flame
of economic unity passed from the Romans to the barbarians
with little more than a flicker in the process.

The analysis of the late Roman economic institutions
as proffered by the continuation school has been seriously
challenged by the members of the "transitional" school. The
basic objection which the transitional school has set forth
concerning the continuation thesis is in regards to the ob-
vious liberties which the continuation school has taken in

its use of primary sources. Evidence of their questionable

95

use of sources has already been alluded to in the case of
Pirenne seizing upon the occassional reference to merchants

in the work of Gregory of Tours in order to make a case for

a vigorous commercial activity in the fifth and sixth century.
As previously noted, a number of scholars, such as Norman
Baynes, have since illustrated the futility in attempting to
cast the "peddlers" of the sixth century in the role of great
entrepreneurs. The chief commodity in their trade was slaves,
and, with a few exceptions, they seem to have carried out
their activities on an exceedingly modest scale. When put

to the test of facts, many of the claims of Dopsch concerning
the ability of the Germans to perpetuate their rich inheritance
also appear to be wanting. As C. Warren Hollister has re-
cently observed, one must search in vain for any real evidence
of what Dopsch describes as "a political solicitude for the

"31 Pirenne and

welfare of the mass of the free population.
Dopsch both postulated a vigorous commercial life for the
post invasion period which more recent and dispassionate in—
vestigations have made clear was a mirage. As we shall see
in the following analysis, William C. Bark may not have ex—
aggerated too extremely when he concluded that the continua—

tion school "possessed not only the ability to make bricks

without straw, but at times did not even need clay."32 Pirenne

 

31C. Warren Hollister, "Twilight in the West," in The
Transformation Q: the Roman World, ed., Lynn White (Berkeley,
1955), p. 187.

32

 

 

Bark, Origins Q: the Medieval World, p. 13.

 

96

could build a flourishing trade on the basis of a few debat-
able references found in the writing of Gregory of Tours while
Dopsch could make a mint out of the presence of a few coins
uncovered in his archaeological endeavors. The exaggerations
and fabrications which support a number of the conclusions
reached by the continuation school will be further revealed

as we turn to a consideration of the economic crisis as found
in the works of the transitional school.

In an effort to counter the theses advanced by the con-
tinuation school, the transitional school turned to the crisis
of the third century and the internal maladies that plagued
the imperial economic order. It is a fact generally agreed
upon by the transitional school that the Roman world under—
went a serious economic upheaval from the second half of the

second century on.33

In every age of upheaval the coinage
serves as one of the most sensitive of all gauges. With the
advance of the third century, the severity of the domestic

and foreign problems plaguing the Empire was revealed in the
work of such men as Michael Rostovtzeff, Ferdinand Lot, Robert
Latouche, William Bark and H. St. L. B. Moss, that the once

stable imperial weight of the coins had become increasingly

irregular and their content polluted.3u The portion of base

 

33Lot, The End 9: the Ancient World and the Beginning
Q: the Middle Ages, p. 55; Robert Latouche, The Birth pr Wes-
tern Economy, trans., E. M. Wilkinson (New York, 1961),

 

 

 

 

PP- 3:
13; Stein, Geschichte des Spatromischen Reiches, I, 107-108;
Bark, p. 97; Moss, The Birth Q: the Middle Ages, pp. 1—9; R0-
stovtzeff, Social and Economic History 9: the Roman Empire, p. 917.

3”Rostovtzeff, p. 917; Lot, p. 55; Latouche, pp. 3, l3;
Bark, p. 97; Moss, pp. 1-9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

metal had risen to an astonishing 98.5 per cent with the sil-
ver coins becoming little more than a piece of lead or copper

35 While Diocletian and Constantine

dipped in silver wash.
were able to restore a sound coinage of the silver products
and of the gold solidus, the latter, which was the basis of
their monetary system, was already becoming rare. Due to the
scarcity of precious metal, Constantine established the prac-
tice of minting copper coins to be used for every occasion
except imports.36 As Robert Latouche has observed, however,
these inferior coins were never accepted by the people as a
great number of them turned to barter.37 In spite of the
efforts to curb the economic maladies, unmistakable signs
made it clear that ancient society was in a state of economic
retrogression with the monetary economy yielding more and more
to a natural economy.38

Thus far there has been no mention of a natural econ—
omy because with all the gold which the continuation school

saw existing in the West during the post invasion period,

they would have dismissed any thought of a natural economy

 

35Lot, p. 55; Bark, p. 51; F. F. Abbott and A. c. John-
son, Municipal Administration rp the Roman Empire (Princeton,
1925), p. 220.

36

 

 

Latouche, pp. 13—17.

37Ibid.

38Stein, 1, 177; Pfister, p. 230. Pfister believes
that a natural economy did exist, but the reforms of Diocle—
tian forced it into abeyance. Gunnar Mickwitz, Geld und

Wirtschaft im_Romischen Reich des vierten Jahrhundert
(Helsungfers, 1923), p. 3.

 

 

98

during this era. However, the verdict of recent scholarship
would not agree with the conclusions of these men.39
By the end of the third century the finances that were
needed to maintain the Roman world far exceeded its available
revenue.l+0 As a result of the numerous internal and external
wars which plagued the Empire, its supply of precious metal
was greatly impaired which in turn upset the heretofore sta—
ble monetary system. For Diocletian to be able to continue
with the numerous reforms which he had instituted (see Chapter
II) and maintain the splendor of the classical world, it was
necessary that he establish a reliable income for the Roman
fisc. As the currency was debased and unstable the solution
to this problem could not be a mOnetary one. According to
such authorities as Gunnar Mickwitz and Michael Rostovtzeff,
the answer provided by the emperor was the revival or exten—
sion of the annona, a tax in kind, which up to this time had
been used only as a special assessment to supplement the
normal revenue in times of war or famine.”l Thus, under the
reign of Diocletian, states the transitional school, the
annona was changed from an emergency measure to a regular

burden and the Empire came to depend upon a tax in kind for

its sustenance.

 

39Mickwitz, p. 190. He stresses the fourth century as
being critical in the transition to the Middle Ages as the
economy was already headed toward a natural economy. Bark,
p. 72.

noKornemann, p. 362; Rostovtzeff, pp. 969-66.

l”Mickwitz, pp. 190ff.; Rostovtzeff, p. 969.

99

The annona was levied on a standard fiscal unit, the
iugum, which was worked out from a survey of all the land

available plus the size of the labor force, the capita, avail—

92

able to work it. In the beginning the iugatio-capitatio

 

assessment was determined every five years by an imperial
agent whose job it was to determine the potential productivity

of the land.”3

According to Rostovtzeff, the instituting of
the annona as a regular tax represents the efforts of the
state to solve its economic problems without regard for the

9

interest of the'people.Ur "It represents," says Rostovtzeff,

"the efforts of a soldier to solve a delicate problem by

"”5 The demands of the fisc became

ignoring its delicacy.
increasingly burdensome as the assessments were increased
tremendously, the ability to pay declined and the collection
of the dues became more brutal. One source in the fourth
century records a case where a man who was unable to pay the
assessed amount was thrown into prison, his wife flogged and

his three sons sold into slavery.”

In addition to the normal hardships imposed by the

 

queeck, II, 25-52, 266-79. Seeck has contributed a
great deal of original insight into the working of the annona.
Stein, 1, 108-111; Rostovtzeff, p. 965; Bark, p. 53; Lot, p.
121.

usSeeck, II, 250-52; Stein, 1, 108—111; Rostovtzeff,
p. 965; Bark, p. 53; Lot, p. 121.

l'“J'Rostovtzeff, pp. 969-65.

L'SIbid.

”BDannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,

 

295.

100

annona, such as fifteen year assessments, failure to consider
the condition of the soil and the possibility of crop failure,
the burden was further magnified by the fact that the bulk

of the responsibility was placed on the small farmer who was
least able to pay. The wealthy lords, the senatorial class,
had, by virtue of their position and strength, escaped the

burdens of taxation. In his extensive work, Westromischen

 

Studien, Johannes Sundwall has given an excellent account of
the inequities which existed within the Empire during the
late fourth and fifth centuries in respects to the distribu-
tion of wealth and taxation.”7 Sundwall has demonstrated
that in the fifth century most of the wealthy lords, who were
most able to pay, were in arrears with their tax payment.“8
So blighting was the annona that many of the small farmers
began to impair their own farms in an attempt to reduce their
tax due. This practice had become so widespread by the end
of the fourth century that Emperor Theodosius proclaimed that
anyone who permitted his yield to decline would be punished
by confiscation and death.”9 As we shall see in the next
chapter, so heavy was the responsibility of the small farmer

that many began to desert the land to escape the hardships.

As the transitional school has shown, by the end of

 

97
p. 167.
98

Johannes Sundwall, Westromische Studien (Berlin, 1915),

 

Ibid.

1'LgDannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,

 

 

296.

101

the third century and the beginning of the fourth, the Roman
state had instituted the practice of receiving the land tax
in kind and in the process also established the policy of
paying the salaries of state officials in kind.50 Gunnar

Mickwitz, in his Geld und Wirtschaft in Romischen Reich des

 

 

vierten Jahrhundert, claims the imperial administrators ac-

 

tually labored to implement a tax in kind as well as salaries
in kind because such a system would have been to their advan—
tage with the uncontrolled inflation of the fourth and fifth
centuries.51 However, Mickwitz, who is one of the foremost
authorities on this subject, has also been careful to point
out that there was by no means a thorough replacement of a

52 As he and Michael Ro—

gold economy by a natural economy.
stovtzeff have stated, there was a wide variation of condi-
tions within the Empire making it both risky and erroneous
to generalize about the entire Empire from specialized cases.53
No better evidence of this can be seen than in the Eastern
portion of the Empire as this area of the ancient world was
able to restore a relatively stable economy while the West

passed into greater poverty.51+

 

50Lot, p. 57; Bark, p. 53; Moss, p. 9; Stein, 1, 110-
111; Seeck, II, 266-79; Mickwitz, pp. 2—3, 190.

51Mickwitz, p. 176.

52Ibid., pp. l76ff.

53Rostovtzeff, "The Decay of the Ancient World and its
Economic Explanation," Economic Historical Review, 11 (1930),
200-01.

59

 

Mickwitz, p. 188; Stein, 1, 26-27; Bark, p. 71.

102

It is the conclusion of the transitional school that
as a result of the profound economic upheavals which infested
the ancient world, society became very disillusioned, in—
debted and insecure with their present stations in life. As
the noted economic historian, Robert Latouche, has pointed

out in his work, The Birth pr Western Economy, the problems

 

 

of the second and third centuries became so devastating in
the fourth and fifth that they were climaxed by an extensive

exodus to the large estates.55

Many individuals began to
seek security by placing themselves in the hands of men more
powerful in order that they might gain their guardianship

56 Along with the small, free farmer who

and protection.
was unable to meet the demands of the fisc, the residents
of the cities also left their declining and insecure positions
to seek refuge on the large estates.57
As we have already seen, with the eclipse of city life
the rural economy assumed a position of greatest importance
in the survival of society. As we shall see in the next
chapter, so significant was the agrarian class that the gov—
ernment was impelled to take action which would ensure the
continued services of this economic entity. More important,

however, than the economic aspects of the agrarian community

was that the large estates represented one of the few

 

55Latouche, p. 21.

56Ibid., p. 23.

57Abbott and Johnson, p. 200; Latouche, pp. 19—23.

103

institutions that were capable of existing amidst the other-
wise chaotic world. This sytem which served as a haven for
slaves, small landowners weighted down with debts, barbarians,
and the discontented element of the cities, was so successful
that it was later adopted by the Germanic aristocracy and
came to be one of the moulding forces of the new Western
world.58
Additional repercussions set in motion by the economic
upheavals can be seen in the deterioration of the military
order. According to such authorities as Lot, Latouche, Mick—
witz and Bark, with the lack of precious metal, which result-
ed in the disappearance of money payment, the costly Roman
army was soon supplemented by barbarians using their own
weapons, fighting under their own chiefs, and receiving land
as payment for their services. These authorities of the
transitional thesis are correct in concluding that the in-
evitable consequence of a system which allows services ren-
dered to be rewarded by means of salaries in kind or the
distribution of land, is the emergence of the so—called feu—
dal system.59

From the above material there emerges a problem of the

highest importance. How can it be explained that the Roman

 

58Latouche, pp. 19—23.

59Lot, p. 13; Latouche, p. 123; Mickwitz, pp. 167—68.
Payment of salaries in kind began in the fourth century with
the army and later was extended to the administrators. By
the fifth century the practice had been established to reward
the army with land as payment for their services.

109

world, economically prosperous at the end of the Republic and
during the first century and a half of the Empire, was now
irreparably ruined? One of the critical factors can be found
in the Roman industrial system. There can be little doubt
that the population of Rome had been decreasing since the
close of the second century.60 Along with the demographic
decline one must also bear in mind that the man of antiquity
had few needs. His food and clothing was simple and no
emphasis was placed upon mass consumption of products. With
the frugality and simplicity in which man lived there was

61 Even

little opportunity for the development of industry.
the rich, who were financially able, showed little inclination
to create or maintain any extensive industry. They were con-
tent to live off the products of their own estates and to
purchase any additional commodities from Eastern merchants.
Producing little the Romans had little to sell, and,
as William C. Bark and Robert Latouche have stated, this re-
sulted in an unfavorable balance of trade which in turn cre-
ated a constant drain on the Western economy. Rome's perpet-
uation of this unfavorable balance of trade meant the West

had to pay for the raw materials and wares which it received

with precious metal. As the mines which produced this metal

 

60Lot, p. 73; Arthur E. R. Boak, Manpower Shortage and

the Fall Q: the Empire (Ann Arbor, 1955). Moses 1. Finley,
TrManpower Shortage," Journal pr Roman Studies, XLVIII, (1958).
156-69. Finley takes exception with the emphasis which Boak
attributes to the manpower shortage and the fall of the Empire.

 

 

 

 

61Bark, p. 97; Latouche, p. 13.

105

were exhausted or lost in war, the Empire was rapidly becoming
bankrupt.62 When Constantine finally transferred the capital
from the West to the East, the center of world trade moved
with it and from this time Constantinople grew at the expense
of Rome.63
In spite of the efforts of such men as Ernst Stein,
Michael Rostovtzeff, Gunnar Mickwitz and Norman H. Baynes,
too little concern is still shown to the East in determining
the economic status of the late Empire.6u These authorities
have been quite dogmatic in asserting that it is only by
looking at the East that the decline of the West can best be
understood. What was saved out of the wreckage of the third
century and the reforms of the fourth? Certainly not the
Empire of Augustus. What was salvaged was renewed life for
the Eastern Empire, and it is a mistake to consider that the
complete Empire of classical times continued intact. The old
Roman Empire expired in the rigors and reforms that brought
new life to the East. As shall be evident in the following
pages, the East experienced economic recovery at the end of

the fourth century, but the West was quite otherwise.65 As

 

62Latouche, p. 13.

63Moss, p. 50; Stein, 1, 23-27. Stein shows that the
East began to recover while the West was unable to do so.
Additional evidence of this can be seen in the work of Mickwitz.
See especially p. 188.

69 .
Rostovtzeff, pp. 200—01; Baynes, pp. 29—35; Stein,
1, 26-27; Mickwitz, pp. 188ff.

65Stein, 1, 26ff.; Mickwitz, pp. 188ff.; Bark, p. 71.

106

Ernst Stein and Gunnar Mickwitz have expressed it, the East
jettisoned the destructive forces that ran free in the West.66
As was previously suggested by the writings of the
continuation school, the economy of the West, if not closely
examined will tend to give a false impression of stability

which it actually did not possess.67

The various represent-
atives of the transitional school would agree that there was
gold remaining in the West during the fourth and fifth cen—
turies, but how extensive was it and how long did it remain
there? It is certain, says Bark, "...that a good deal of it
had already found its way back to the East from whence it

came."68 It can be demonstrated that Constantinople repeat-

edly escaped the aggressions of the barbarians by bribing the

would—be attackers with gold whereas the West had to go through

 

66Stein, 1, 26ff.; Mickwitz, pp. 188ff.; Bark, p. 71.
In these references we can find evidence that the East was
able to abort the natural economy while the West was not.

67As we shall see in the following pages the primary
mistake of Pirenne and Dopsch was that they exaggerated on
the minute evidence which they had to support their thesis.
Pirenne also misrepresented some of his secondary sources.
He used the work of Gunnar Mickwitz to prove that there was
no natural economy in the West and as we have seen in the
above material, Mickwitz did not say this. Dopsch and Pirenne
also expanded upon some of the terminology which they found
in their source material, such as the term "merchant." Vogt
and Dannenbauer expanded upon the source material they used
as they included literary works of such men as Symmachus to
prove there was still faith and hope in the Roman economic
system into the fifth century. They fail to point out that
Symmachus was the owner of over a dozen large estates and
with all his wealth it is little wonder that he was not
weighed down with pessimism.

68Bark, pp. 95—98; Mickwitz, pp. 295-96; Lot, p. 513.

107

such difficulties without this advantage.69 Johannes Sundwall,
in an attempt to show the economic superiority of Constanti—
nople over Rome, concluded that the East did not hesitate to
sacrifice the West, nor Rome itself, as can be seen with the
Visigoths and again with the Huns, in an effort to protect

herself.70

The point is obvious: the East could afford to
buy protection with money while the poorer West could not and
therefore had to forego this life—sustaining luxury.7

As a result of its enfeebled position, the West was
no longer a viable force within the Empire. It was in the
process of dying. Its provinces were being plundered while
its cities were destroyed and abandoned. It is true, as
Pirenne had pointed out, that the trade of the West had fal—
1en into the hands of Oriental merchants, primarily the Syr-

72 It is also true that these merchants were

ians and Jews.
operating at a profit or they would not have remained in the
West, but this was made possible primarily by the supply of
gold that was arriving periodically in the West as tribute

money to the Merovingian kings from the Eastern emperors.73

 

69Bark, p. 98; Stein, 1, 21—22; Sundwall offers an
estimate of the amount of tribute the Huns were able to ex-
tract from the East; see especially pp. 153-59.

70Bark, p. 98; Stein, 1, 21-22; Sundwall, pp. 153-59.

71Stein, 1, 23, 520-21; Mickwitz, p. 189; Sundwall,
pp. 153-59.

72

Lot, p. 81; Bark, pp. 98-99; Solomon Katz, The Jews
in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms pr Spain and Gaul
(Eambridge, 19377, pp. 125-35.

73Lot, p. 81; Bark, pp. 98—99; Katz, pp. 125—36.

 

 

 

108

It was this activity of the Eastern merchants that gave to
the West an appearance of prosperity which it did not possess.
In the words of Bark, "From the Eastern point of view these
merchants were bold, capable businessmen, able to make money
even under the unproductive, adverse conditions in the West.
From the Western point of view they were foreigners, hated
because of their wealth and Byzantine connections."7u
Robert Latouche is correct when he concludes that the
presence of these merchants in the West was not to suggest
prosperity, but decline. "It was the deterioration of the
commercial activity resulting from the internal and external
forces at work in the West which brought these eastern traders
with hope of making a substantial profit from the wares they

brought with them."75

It has also been pointed out that the
products handled by the merchants were not always respectable
as slavery was the most profitable of their concerns. It has
likewise been shown that it is an exaggeration to speak in
terms of big business, international trade or import—export
trade. Such phrases are too modern to describe the modest

76

activities in which most of these traders engaged. With

regard to the economy of the West in the late fifth and early
sixth century, Latouche concludes that, "The now fashionable,

if unpleasant work, 'rot' describes it to perfection."77

 

 

7L'Bark, p. 50.
75
Latouche, p. 123.
76Ibid.
77

Ibid., p. 139.

109

Also, as Norman H. Baynes has indicated, even the pre-
sence of the Oriental merchants in the West does not neces—
sarily indicate that a transmarine trade existed.78 As was
previously stated, Baynes believes the term "merchant" has
been expanded by modern day economic historians to include
more than was originally intended. Many of these persons
who bore the title merchant were involved primarily with lo—
cal trade. This is by no means to indicate that they were
in communication with the East nor that their numbers were
being replenished by new arrivals.79 There is actually lit-
tle to suggest that there was any tremendous commercial ac-
tivity existing during the post invasion period.

By the end of the sixth century, it is inconceivable
to conclude, as does the continuation school, that the bar-
barians continued an extensive economic program as there was
little to continue. It must be added, however, that there
were efforts to use those economic institutions which did
remain. There is evidence to support the fact that they con-
tinued to collect the indirect taxes, such as tolls, but at
the same time, were incapable of collecting the direct tax
which would have been their greatest source of revenue. It

is now evident that by no stretch of the imagination can it

 

78Baynes, "M. Pirenne and the unity of the Mediter-
ranean World," in Byzantine Studies and other Essays (London,
1955), pp. 310-16; Latouche, pp. 122—23.

79

 

Baynes, Byzantine Studies and other Essays, pp. 310-

 

l6.

110

be maintained that a brilliant economy existed in the post
invasion period. As the transitional school has tried to dem—
onstrate, trade was stagnant, the monetary system was debased,
gold was rapidly being drained from the West, wealth was very
unequally divided as was the tax, inflation was destroying
the cities, a partial natural economy was prevailing, feudal
practices were being introduced, and the large estates were
the center of the social and economic order. Any accurate
statement concerning the continuity of an economic order fol-
lowing the invasions must, of necessity, include these grave
reservations.

In conclusion it can be said that during the period
from the fourth to the sixth century there was not a contin-
uation of classical economic order, but a period of transition
which permitted the Germans to retain a small degree of the
imperial system. Had the Germans received a more substantial
inheritance, they may have salvaged more. But as we shall
see in a later chapter, the developments of the sixth and

seventh centuries became even more deplorable than before.

CHAPTER IV
SOCIAL TRANSITION (THIRD—SIXTH CENTURIES)

In viewing the social conditions which existed in the
Roman world from the reign of Diocletian into the post in—
vasion period, the interested student is confronted with a
problem which is relatively different from that which has
been encountered in the previous chapters. While the various
sources which we have been considering in this study reveal
a marked disagreement regarding the economic condition of the
West during the fourth and fifth centuries, their variances
on the social conditions of the Empire during the same period
are far more difficult to distinguish. The fact that the
Roman world experienced a social transformation from the
reign of Diocletian on is not a widely disputed point.1 The
dispute which exists among scholars on this issue involves,
primarily, the degree of emphasis which the social changes
merit as a contributing factor in the decline of the Western
portion of the Empire. Because of the subtlety in which this

issue is handled by a number of sources, the casual reader,

if not careful, will be lulled into seeing a unanimity which

 

1Practically all of the sources which we will be con-
sidering in this chapter are in agreement that from the reign
of DioCletian on certain legislative policies were introduced
which led to an alteration of the existing social order.

111

112

a more careful investigation will reveal to be wanting. Quite
often it is not until the conclusions of the various writers
are viewed in light of their more general theses on the de-
cline of the West that these variances can be detected. It
is for this reason that the reader should bear in mind whether
the various authorities under consideration in this chapter
cite external forces or internal weaknesses as the major fac-
tor in the collapse of the West, for it is only by doing so
that he can properly evaluate the conflicting interpretations
of the social reforms of the fourth century.

It is a fact generally agreed upon that the Western
portion of the Roman Empire experienced a significant and
lasting alteration of its social order during the perilous
days of the late third and early fourth century. To under—
stand both the nature and historical significance of this
reordering of society, it is necessary that the reader view
this development in light of the fluctuating and unstable po-
litical and economic conditions within the West during the
same period (see Chapters 11 8 111). As will be recalled,
the revenue which was needed to maintain the splendor of
Rome was, by the fourth century, increasing while the inabil—
ity of the subjects to meet such demands went unrespected.
The inexorable demands of the Roman fisc upon the dwindling
resources of the middle and lower classes became an unbear~
able burden. Unfortunately for her subjects, Rome tried to
live with the same degree of public display during a period

of relatively insolvency as she had during earlier periods

113

of prosperity. When the unpalatable financial demands of the
imperial regime are viewed along with the increasing menance
posed by the barbarians and the inability of the State to

cope with them, the future of the Roman citizenry appears ex—
ceedingly dismal.2 Being oppressed from within and threatened
from without, the Roman public could no longer tolerate the
insecurity of their present stations in life and the doubt—
ful prospects of improvement. A large segment of society

came to believe that the only hOpe of social and economic
appeasement was to be found in escaping their present stations
in life. As a result, peasants left the countryside, artisans
abandoned their trade and the decuriones fled the municipal

3
senates.

 

Living in memory of the period of anarchy which had
nearly shattered the Roman Empire in the third century, Dio—
cletian and Constantine could see but one means of securing
the still vacillating Roman edifice and that was to be in-
stituted at the expense of the public. In a desperate move
to halt the exodus of citizens from their posts and to pre-
serve production, public services and revenue, the Roman

government implemented the suppressive policy of forcing

 

2Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiker Welt, I,
see especially pp. 257-81.

3Lot, The Epd of the Ancient World and the Beginning
of the Middle—Ages, pT_100; Vogt, Constantin der Grosse, p.
228; PfiSter, Der Untergang der antiken Welt, p. 239; Dill,
Roman Society ip the Last Century of the Roman Empire, p. 228;
Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Admihistration $2.322 Roman

Empire, p. 206.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

citizens to remain at their jobs in spite of the hardships
which it entailed.‘Jr With many of the Roman subjects already
expending considerable energy to escape the burdens of the
State, stringent precautions were taken by the emperors to
eliminate every possible avenue of escape. It was through
these measures, aimed at preserving productivity and service,
that the once free and mobile society of Rome was turned into
a blighting standardized machine.5

Just as Diocletian had turned to an oriental form of
monarchy in his efforts to stabilize the Roman political or-
der, his reign likewise witnessed the adoption of another
practice that was common to the Orient, i. e., the caste sys—
tem, in an effort to stabilize and perpetuate the productivity
of the Empire. The methods employed by the emperor in pur—
suit of this end has provided a notable controversy among
scholars which has been reflected in medieval historiography.
The central issue in this controversy involves the question
of whether or not the measures employed by the State in its
efforts to preserve productivity and public service within

the Empire were actually a major factor in hastening its

 

l+Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 27; Abbott and Johnson,
p. 218; Seeck,_II, pp. 320-29; Dill, pp. 250—59; Bark, gri-
ins 9: the Medieval World, p. 97; Moss, The Birth 9; pp;
Middle Ages, pp. 25-30; Lot, pp. 100—27; Dannenbauer, Dig
Entstehung Europas vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
36; Bury, History Q: the Later Roman Empire, 1, 55.

5Abbott and Johnson, p. 218; Bark, p. 97; Moss, pp.
25-30; Lot, pp. 100-27.

 

 

 

 

 

115

decline. Although it is reserved for the latter portion of
this chapter to illustrate the nature of this controversy, it
can be stated at this point that the views of the various
scholars in respect to the social reforms of Diocletian and
Constantine have in essence been shaped by their more general
intepretations of the collapse of the Empire itself. For
those who attribute the collapse of the Western portion of
the Empire to external forces, e. g., Christianity or bar—
barians, the reforms of the emperors are viewed as necessary
and successful measures while the views of those who attrib—
ute the decline of the West to internal weaknesses are quite
otherwise. Before proceeding with our analysis of this con-
troversy, however, it will first be necessary to present a
general picture of the measures introduced by Diocletian and
Constantine in an effort to see the nature and extent of their
innovations.

The history of the caste system actually dates far
back into the dim past of the Orient as the ancient monarchs
of the East often used this system to tie the peasants to the
soil. In the hands of the desperate emperors of the fourth
century A. D., however, this practice was greatly expanded to
include not only the peasants, but practically every element

of society.6 Naturally the first group to be affected by the

 

6Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
36; Seeck, II, p. 329; Pfister, p. 235; Kornemann, pp. 369-
65; Bury, pp. 55-56; Dill, pp. 228ff.; Lot, pp. 100-27; Bark,
pp. 97-98; Moss, pp. 26-30.

 

116

saving efforts of the emperors were those public servants
whose fidelity to the state was most urgently needed.7
As was demonstrated in the previous chapter, many of
the immediately pressing problems within the imperial regime
during the third and fourth centuries had an economic basis.
The lack of industrialization, the unfavorable balance of
trade with the East, and the continual diminution of specie
necessitated that the state—owned and operated mines be one
of the first institutions to be regimented. During the days
when Rome was constantly expanding, employment in the imperi-
al mines had been no problem as the labor force was being
constantly replenished by captives taken in war. By the sec-
ond century, however, as Roman imperialism waned and the once
stable influx of slave labor declined, the problem of staf—
fing the mines became acute. With hope of preserving a suf—
ficient labor force and curbing the fiscal maladies which
threatened the Empire, employment in the imperial mines had,
by the fourth century, become compulsory and even hereditary.8
This development should not be difficult to understand, for
who would have accepted voluntarily the burdens and hardships
suffered by an ancient miner?

The fate of the Roman miners, which had been deter-

mined by the saving efforts of the emperors, was soon to be

 

7Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 199; Abbott and Johnson,
p. 207; Seeck, II, pp. 310-11; Lot, p. 101.

8Abbott and Johnson, p. 207; Dannenbauer, Vom der
Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, 32.

 

 

117

shared by the vast number of artisans within the Empire.
Seeking assurance that the large body of craftsmen needed to
maintain the splendor of Rome would be loyal to their posts,
Diocletian expanded the caste system to include their services.
As a result, another large segment of the Roman labor force
became bound to their stations by a life sentence which passed
from father to son.9 So penetrating were the efforts of the
emperors that they came to dominate even the personal life
of the artisans. It was stipulated that the son of a crafts-
man must marry the daughter of a fellow craftsman and if any—
one was even suspected of attempting flight, he would be
readily subjected to adverse treatment.10
As the regimentation of society continually gained in
momentum, a comparable fate was soon to befall all civil
servants. The armourers, weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters
and all posts of significance soon became rigidly organized
and subject to a military form of regulation and discipline.11
Those merchants who were charged with the transportation of
the imperial income, which was now being paid largely in
kind, and those responsible for the preparation of these re—

ceipts for public usage, were also bound socially.12 Even

 

9Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
36; Jones, The Late Roman Empire, 1, 369; Bury, I, 56; Dill,
pp. 295-96; Seeck, 11, 301—11.

 

 

 

 

10Lot, p. 101; Bury, p. 56; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms,
p. 196.
11 .
Lot, pp. 101—03; Vogt, Der Niedergpnijoms, p. 27.
12

Seeck, II, 311; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 98;
Bury, I, 58.

 

118

the maintenance of buildings and gladitorial games became

tightly regulated institutions.13

In the mind of the emperors,
it was only through such harsh measures as these that the
state could be assured of the continued services of its per—
sonnel.

Although the caste system was first used as a tool to
regulate the movement of civil servants, it was eventually
expanded to include other phases of life as well. Whether
the inability of the Empire to supply the adequate numbers
needed to fill its military ranks was due to a decline in
man-power or to the waning of public spirit is a question
which is still disputed.lu Regardless of the cause, however,
the imperial army, by the middle of the fourth century, ex-
perienced considerable difficulty in finding a sufficient
number of recruits to defend the Roman borders. In the sec—
ond half of the fourth century the state came to demand re-
cruits from the coloni who were working the land of the large
estates. The proprietors, on the other hand, often found
ways, either through bribery or open resistance, of evading

15

this levy. The resistance to the call to arms among the

 

13Lot, p. 103; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum
Mittelalter, I, 36ff.; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 199.

l”Boak, Manpower Shortage and the Fall pf the Empire;
Finley, "Manpower Shortage," The Journal pr Roman Studies,
XLVIII (1958).

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vogt, Der Niedergapg Roms, p. 193; Lot, p. 105.

 

119

J

conscripts themselves was so widespread that there are fre—
quent references in the imperial codes to self mutilation by

16 In light

recruits and desertion on the part of soldiers.
of these conditions, the State concluded that the caste sys-
tem would be applied to all military personnel. Once a man
was enlisted in the army he was required to take an oath of
allegiance which bound him to his post until his usefulness
was exhausted. Even the children of soldiers became the
property of the army as sons were forced to follow their fa-

l7

thers in duty. It is neither surprising nor difficult to

understand that the prowess of the Roman army declined as it

18 It is little

was reduced to the bonds of strict servitude.
wonder that the barbarians experienced repeated success when
confronted by an army whose esprit dp gprp§_had vanished in
the wake of the saving efforts of the emperors.

Still another element of Roman society to be affected

19 The

by the caste system was the coloni or free farmers.
process whereby the coloni were reduced to an inferior social

position is not altogether clear.20 In the early Empire the

 

16Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 193; Lot, p. 105.

 

l7Lot, p. 105.

18Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 193; Lot, p. 105; Bury,

 

lgMoss, p. 26.

20Lot, pp. 100—27; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 21;
Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Kolonates
(1910), p. 398ff.

 

 

120

coloni were chiefly free tenants, but by the fourth century
they were free in name only as no small portion of them had

been bound to the soil.21

It seems probable that the bondage
of the colonate came about as a result of the economic prob—
lems which plagued the Empire in the late third and early

fourth centuries.22

As was demonstrated in the previous
chapter, by the fourth century it was no longer possible for
the Western portion of the Empire to survive from the fruits
of commerce and industry. As a result of Rome's blighted
commerce and dwarfish industry, the hope of survival passed
into the hands of the peasants. Being dependent upon the
yield of the coloni to sustain the idle masses that inhabited
the cities and the vast army, it became necessary for the
State to regulate their activity in an effort to guarantee

23

their production. Thus, due to their significant position

within the life of the Empire, the station of the coloni rap-
idly deteriorated from a free tenant to a position of life

employment and serfdom.2” Their personal freedom was greatly

 

21Rostovtzeff, Studien, pp. 398ff.

22Lot, p. 111; Abbott and Johnson, p. 217; Rostovtzeff,
Studien, pp. 398ff.

23Bark, p. 56; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 22, main-
tains this actually stimulated production. Jones, I, 293;
Bury, I, 56; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 217—18, stress the need
of free labor to develop an agrarian society. With their re-
forms, the emperors destroyed the basis of their economy.
Seeck, II, pp. 320-29; Lot, pp. 100-27; Moss, pp. 25-30; Dan-
nenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, p. 38; Dill,
p. 228.

2HBury, I, 56; Lot, pp. 100—27; Seeck, 11, 320-29; Dan—
nenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, 37-38; Vogt,
Der Niedergang Roms, p. 22; Jones, I, 293; Moss, p. 26.

 

 

 

 

 

121

curtailed as they were reduced to an inferior legal position.
In an attempt to prevent the coloni from resisting their so-
cial demotion all avenues of escape were closed off as they

25

were forbidden to leave the soil. If the subject attempted

to desert his post he was to be chained and treated as a

common slave.26
The caste system, which was being used to regulate

most of society, came also to affect the municipal life with—

27 Until the political reforms of Diocletian,

in the Empire.
the Empire could be regarded as "...an organization based up—
on a federation of municipalities forming an aggregate of
civic communities enjoying a measure of autonomy and having

a certain characteristic derived from an age when state and
city were convertible terms."28 Up to the fourth century the
municipalities had always been responsible for their own op-
eration as they provided their own labor, resources and au—

thority. The local senate, the curia, which was composed of

the leading citizens of the city, was almost totally responsible

 

25Abbott and Johnson, p. 218; Dannenbauer, Vom der

Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, 38; Vogt, Der Niedergang—Roms,
pp. 193-98. As has been demonstrated in previous chapters,
Vogt's Der Niedergang Roms is often given to contradiction.
Here we find it agaifi as he states on page 193 that a legion
of officials were needed to pursue those who were leaving
the land and on page 198 he claims the rural population must
have acqubsced in their descent into serfdom.

26Jones, I, 293; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 216-18; Dan—
nenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, 92.

27
p. 978.

28

 

 

 

J. S. Reid, Municipalities pr the Roman Empire (1913),

 

 

Ibid.

 

122

for the administration of the municipal community.29 It
held court, managed local finances, provided for the mainte-
nance of the roads, temples, baths, and in each of these func-
tions actually shared a considerable portion of the cost.30

Unfortunately, from the end of the third century, the
municipal constitution underwent a serious alteration. With
the political reforms of Diocletian and his efforts to create
a more centralized authority, municipal self—government was
radically changed. Instead of devoting their time to local
problems, the curiales became responsible for a number of

31 The most arduous of their newly found re-

imperial duties.
sponsibilities was that of being charged with the collection
of the tax.32 During the first and second centuries of the
Empire the collection of the imperial due had been no problem
as it was handled by publicans who made a sizeable profit
from the venture. By the end of the third century, however,

the publicans were no longer interested in assuming the task

as the revenue was becoming more and more difficult to collect.

 

9Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
39; Dill, p. 295. Dill believes the municipal structure had
been the core of the Roman political—social organization and

 

 

when it was destroyed, the ancient world was destroyed. See
especially pp. 250ff.
30

Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
39; Dill, pp. 250ff.

31Dill, pp. 250ff.; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 199;
Abbott and Johnson, p. 222; Bury, I, 59; Seeck, 11, 319-19.

32Dill, pp. 250ff.; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 199;
Seeck, II, 319-99.

 

 

 

 

123

Tax collecting actually became a crushing burden. In an
effort to insure the receipt of this tax the curiales were
made responsible for its collection, and, as a result of the
imperial demands, their office became almost unbearable. The
wealthy proprietors, for example, who were functioning as in—
dependent authorities throughout the countryside, refused to
co-operate with the curiales. On occasions they would even
use force to drive away the would—be tax collector. This,
along with the numerous bad harvests, tended to ruin the
holders of this responsibility as they were compelled by the
State to make up any deficiencies out of their own finances.33
The most serious repercussion from this development was that
influential citizens no longer sought the important municipal
offices.3u

Under the weight of the crushing imperial demands,
many of the curiales began to flee the city to seek refuge
on their rural estates. In addition to the rural havens, a
number of the curiales were trying to escape their imperial
responsibilities by joining the army, buying their way into
the senatorial ranks or by taking holy vows. However, just

as the State had taken measures to tie other elements of

 

33Moss, p. 29, Abbott and Johnson, p. 222; Dill, pp.
250—51; Bury, I, 59; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum
Mittelalter, I, 35; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 27; Seeck,
11, 319—19.

3L'Dill, pp. 250-51; Bury, I, 59; Abbott and Johnson,
p. 222; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
35; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 27.

 

 

 

 

 

129

society to their post, the curiales were prevented from es—
caping their burdens.35 By the end of the fourth century the
exodus from the cities had impaired the tax income to such
an extent that stringent measures were taken to prevent the
curiales from deserting their posts.36 The expansion of the
caste system to cover the curiales forced these officials and
their heirs to remain in the cities and to hold the posts
which were certain to bring ruination to them in the future.37
In contrast to the declining social status that was
being experienced by most of Roman society, stand the wealthy

landlords.38

With the Empire having to depend more and more
upon the products of the land for its survival, the power of
the landlords was greatly expanded. As we have seen in their

treatment of the curiales, the owners of the large estates

were slowly acquiring privileges which would ultimately with—

 

35Latouche, The Birth pr_Western Economy, p. 20; Dan-
nenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I, 35; Jones,
I, 228; Abbott and Johnson, p. 206; Dill, p. 259.

36Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
35; Bury, I, 58—59. Here Bury states that the decline of
municipal life and the middle class was one of the important
social facts of the fourth and fifth centuries, but on pages
31-11, where he lists the causes for the fall of the Empire,
he cites the barbarians as the primary culprits. Abbott and
Johnson, p. 222; Seeck, II, p. 317; Dill, p. 295; Lot, pp.
100-27; Latouche, p. 23.

37Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
35; Bury, I, 58—59; Dill, p. 295; Lot, pp. 100-27; Latouche,
p. 23.

 

 

 

 

 

38Moss, pp. 29-30; Dill, p. 299; Abbott and Johnson,
p. 203.

125

draw them from the authority of the imperial regime.39 Taking
advantage of the central government, which was preoccupied
with the barbarians and major internal problems, some of the
more powerful lords began to develop their own power in such

a way that the estate soon became a separate enclave within

society.”0

As a result of the rigid reforms being introduced
by Diocletian and Constantine, the lords were becoming the
most important element within society.

One of the essential tools employed by the large pro—
prietors in an effort to expand their sphere of influence
was that of "patronage." Being motivated by a desire to in—
crease their own power and become more independent, the lords
began to turn their estates into asylums where they received
runaway slaves, the curiales who wanted to escape the burdens
of city life, and anyone who had need or reason to escape the
mounting pressures imposed on society by the State.”1 The

large proprietors came to control not only the coloni, but

also the free peasants residing in the general area of their

 

39Abbott and Johnson, p. 203; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms,

p. 22; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West 900-1000
(London, 1952), p. 10. Wallace—Hadrill, who stresses the role
of the invaders in bringing destruction to the West, maintains
the lords were doing all they could to assist the state by
keeping taxable land in production. Dill, pp. 272—75, dis—
agrees with Wallace—Hadrill and says the lords were using their
positions and wealth to remove themsleves from the jurisdiction
of the State.

roogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 98; Bury, I, 57; Abbott
and Johnson, p. 203; Dill, p. 272.

ulVogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 197-98; Bury, I, 57;
Abbott and Johnson, p. 203; Dill, p. 275; Moss, pp. 29-30;
Lot, pp. 128-39; Bark, pp. 79-82.

 

 

 

 

126

estates who wanted to escape the burdens of taxation and the
corporal punishment that accompanied such action. As the
free peasant turned to the lord for protection he would sur-
render his property and receive it back on a temporary basis,
thus, becoming the client of his patron.”2 In their use of
the patronage system the lords not only expanded their geo—
graphical Sphere of influence, but also their power as they
came to control a large segment of the population.

While the binding of various elements of Roman society
to their posts is a fact which is disputed by neither the
continuation nor the transitional school, the significance
of this development does not share the same concensus. Un—
doubtedly the reason for the unanimity among authorities in
respect to the nature and extent of the reforms of the fourth
century can be attributed to the numerous references to these
measures found in the imperial codes. (There are no fewer
than 192 enactments in the Theodosiam Codes which deal with
the position and duties of the curiales alone.) In light of
the unanimity which exists among scholars concerning the
nature and extent of these reforms, the student will no doubt
be puzzled, and with justification, by the diversity which
exists among the same scholars as to the significance of these
innovations. In an effort to illustrate the manner in which
the reforms of the fourth century have been treated by various
schools of thought, we must turn to a more detailed analysis

of the various sources.

 

quogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 197-98.

 

127

As would be expected, those authorities who adhere to
the continuation thesis maintain that the ancient world was
not diyprsely affected by the saving efforts of the emperors.
Although the continuation school has offered a number of
reasons for asserting this claim, probably none is less sat—
isfying than that which has been proffered by Kurt Pfister.
Pfister appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the
crucial factor in the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine
was not whether society was diversely and permanently affect—
ed by these measures, but whether or not the emperors were

”3 If one of the tasks of

justified in their implementation.
the historian is to concern himself with the issue of "cause
and effect," then the investigations of Pfister into the re-

forms of the fourth century only fill half the bill. In his

work, Der Untergang der antiker Welt, Pfister's primary ob—

 

jective is to relieve Diocletian of any responsibility for
the decline of the ancient world by proving that the rigid
measures introduced by the emperor were necessary. Accord-
ing to Pfister, the problems which emerged from the crisis

of the third century were of such a magnitude that Diocletian
had no alternative other than the severe and drastic measures
which he employed.Dru Thus, Pfister is concerned primarily
with the cause of the reforms and not with their effect.

Although most of the authorities which will be

 

”stister, Der Untergang der antiker Welt, p. 239.

99

 

Ibid.

128

considered in this chapter would agree with Pfister's con-
tention that there was justification for the social reforms
of the fourth and fifth centuries, one notable exception to
this view can be found in the work of Otto Seeck. Without
going into a repetitious account of Seeck's thesis, it will
be recalled that he was of the opinion that Rome had been in
a state of decline since the days of the Republic due to the
lack of competent leadership. While Seeck would agree that
the use of compulsory labor to preserve and stabilize pro—
ductivity may have been necessary during the reigns of Dio-
cletian and Constantine, he maintains that the continuation
and expansion of this program into the late fourth and early
fifth centuries was not.”5 According to Seeck the expansion
of the caste system by the successors of Constantine to in-
clude every class and industry was not for the purpose of
revenue, but rather for "the delight of the wicked ruling

class.”6

In the eyes of this authority, such measures as

the reduction of free peasants to a position of serfdom came
as a result of weak and aimless rulers yielding to the demands
of wealthy lords who were in need of a cheap and permanent
labor force.”7 However, while it can be said that Seeck was
cognizant of the social abuses of the fourth century, he did

not interpret these abuses as a significant factor in the

 

usSeeck, II, pp. 319ff.

”61bid., p. 319.

L”Ibid., p. 331.

129

collapse of the West. As will be recalled from a previous
chapter (see Chapter II) he was of the opinion that the Western
portion of the Empire fell at the hands of the barbarians and
such factors as incompetent leadership and social abuses

served only to make the ultimate victory of the barbarians

less difficult.

Turning once more to the views of the continuation
school we find that while a number of the representatives of
this school have devoted more attention to the "effects" of
the caste system than did Pfister, it is questionable whether
their interpretations are any more acceptable. For example,
the compulsory measures introduced by Diocletian and Constan-
tine which left a large segment of Roman society bound by a
hereditary status, such authorities as Joseph Vogt, Heinrich
Dannenbauer, J. B. Bury and A. H. M. Jones conclude were of
only relative importance. Both Vogt and Dannenbauer try to
lessen the severity of these measures by concluding that
while in practice the people were bound to their jobs, in
theory they remained free men.”8 Dannenbauer goes even fur—
ther when he asserts that from the third to the sixth cen-
tury the social order of the Empire was not appreciably al—
tered. According to this authority, while it is true the
coloni and curiales may have experienced some infringement

upon their freedom, this did not alter the social structure

 

”8Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,
36; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. l98ff.

 

 

 

130

of the ancient world.”9 In support of his claim, Dannenbauer
maintains that Roman society had always been composed of free
and unfree and by the sixth century these conditions contin-
ued to exist.50 The fact that the ranks of the unfree were
being increased at the expense of the free was not a signi-
ficant factor to Dannenbauer.

Another work which concludes that society had not been
appreciably changed by the reforms of the fourth century is
that of Joseph Vogt. Although Vogt is aware of the numerous
compulsory measures imposed upon society by the State, he
concludes that Roman society had not been disrupted by these
measures.51 According to Vogt the most significant element
of Roman society was the senatorial aristocracy and this
class was unaffected by either the reforms of the fourth cen-

52 He maintains that the

tury or the invasions of the fifth.
senatorial aristocracy continued to function as the core of

the Roman social order long after the reforms of the fourth
century.53 What Vogt fails to see, however, is that the role
of the aristocracy had, by the fourth century, been drastically

changed. As shall be demonstrated in the latter portion of

this chapter, instead of working from within the classical

 

gDannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, I,

 

92.
50Ibid.

5lVogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 98, 197-98.

 

52Ibid., pp. 197—98.

53Ibid.

131

structure, the aristocracy began to work against it.
Additional efforts to minimize the significance
of the reforms of the fourth century as a factor in leading
to the decline of the West can be found in the works of J. B.
Bury and A. H. M. Jones. According to Jones, the immobili-
zation of Roman society has been greatly exaggerated as an
element in the collapse of the West. Sons were only too
happy, says Jones, to be heirs to their fathers' business.5u
In harmony with the views expressed by Jones stand the con—
clusions of Bury. In his own words, Bury claims that, "along
with the hardships of the system the individuals also re-
ceived benefits as the sons had the right to follow their

fathers."55

The coloni, says Bury, profited considerably
from the compulsory measures of the fourth century. They
could now be protected against exorbitant taxation and un-
just removal from the land.56

Both Jones and Bury are also opposed to the idea that
the regimentation of the populace into hereditary castes

created a fatal degree of inertia and discontent.57

Using
the curiales as an example, both of these authorities main-
tain there was a decline in public spirit in the late Empire,

but this condition was not produced by the implementation

 

5LWJones, I, 369.
55Bury, I, 55.
56Ibid.

57Jones, I, 369ff.; Bury, I, 56ff.

132

of a hereditary caste.58 Under the principate there had ex-
isted a strong sense of civic patriotism among the curiales
and they had given freely of their time and money not only
to improve the amenities of their cities, but to perform
many administrative duties. Jones and Bury argue that from
the third century onwards this civic patriotism faded and
the imperial government had to rely more and more on its own

59 With both of these men

administrators and civil servants.
attributing the decline of the West to external forces, they
concluded that the apathy which characterized the late Empire
was produced by the Church and not by any action on the part
of the State.60 Under the late Empire the old pagan idea of
public service waned as the Church expanded its sphere of

influence and taught its converts to regard imperial service

as sinful work.61

Thus, according to Jones and Bury the
waning of public spirit within the Empire was not the result
of oppressive measures introduced by the State, but rather

of the spread of Christianity and its teaching that salvation
was to be found only in the world to come and the things of

this world did not matter.62

Although it is left for the
following chapter to discuss the details of the conflict be-

tween Christian and pagan ideologies, a very important

 

58Bury, I, 56ff.

59Ibid.

60Ibid.

61Jones, I, 369ff.

62Ibid.

133

question emerges from the conclusions of Jones and Bury. If
the spread of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries
was the cause of the inertia, discontent and apathy which
came to characterize late Roman society, how then is the ra-
pid growth of Christianity during this period to be explained?
This is an issue which Jones and Bury leave unexplained. As
shall be demonstrated in the next chapter, the spread of
Christianity is probably more accurately explained by viewing
it as a "result" of the apathy and discontent which plagued
the Roman world, than as the "cause" of these conditions as
suggested by Bury and Jones.

Thus, according to the continuation school, the com-
pulsory measures employed by Diocletian and Constantine in
the fourth century were not a significant factor in the col-
lapse of the Western portion of the Empire. While in prac-
tice a considerable portion of society became bound to their
post, in theory they remained free men. The hardships which
were imposed upon society by the caste system were offset by
the benefits which came with the reforms. According to this
school of thought, the collapse of the West was not the re—
sult of internal weaknesses.

In contrast to the views on the social reforms of the
fourth century as expressed by the continuation school,
stand those of the transitional school. Viewing the reforms
of the fourth century through the works of such men as William
C. Bark, Ferdinand Lot, Samuel Dill, H. St. L. B. Moss, and

Frank F. Abbott, there emerges a picture of the fourth and

139

fifth centuries totally different frOm that portrayed above.
As the transitional school places great emphasis upon inter—
nal weaknesses as a major factor in the collapse of the West,
the social measures employed by Diocletian and Constantine
are not viewed in the same fashion as was shown above.

It will be recalled from a previous chapter that Wil—
liam C. Bark, while agreeing that there was a need for re-
form measures in the fourth century, concluded that the mea-
sures employed by Diocletian and Constantine were harsh and
Oppressive.63 Along with Bark, Michael Rostovtzeff concludes
that the chaos and destruction which had come to plague the
Roman world by the fourth century could not be rescinded by

6” The transitional school,

the most despotic legislation.
in general, maintains that in a very complicated situation
calling for encouragement of individual talent and initiative,
the emperors turned instead to a regimentation of society and
as a result the social order of the ancient world was irre-
parably ruined.6

In support of their conclusions, the transitional
school looks to such events as the enslavement of the coloni.

In regards to the fate which befell the coloni, Michael Ro-

stovtzeff, Samuel Dill, Ferdinand Lot and William C. Bark

 

63Bark, p. 92.

6”Bark, p. 92; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History

 

 

pr_the Roman Empire, pp. 969-87.

65Bark, pp. 92ff.; Rostovtzeff, pp. 969—87; Dill, p.
228; Lot, pp. 100-27; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 270ff.

135

maintain that it is a legal fiction to argue, as the contin-
uation school does, that a man bound to the soil is free.66
The truth is he is neither free to move nor free to change
his occupation. Under such circumstance, his nominal free—
dom could have been little consolation. Although the binding
of the coloni to the soil was an effort to preserve produc-
tivity, according to Frank F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson it

had the reverse effect. Abbott and Johnson maintain that for
an agricultural society to develop there must be a supply of

67

free labor. With the regimentation of labor, the initiative

of the individual was destroyed which in turn resulted in a
decline in production rather than an increase.68
The transitional school also questions the so-called
"benefits" which the coloni received from the caste system.
As will be recalled, the continuation school maintains that
the coloni, as a result of their being bound to the soil,
were protected against such offenses as exorbitant taxation.
In respect to this issue Lot, Moss, Rostovtzeff and F. F.
Abbott contend that the opposite was true as the proprietors,
once they had gained control over the coloni, increased their

. 69
economic burdens. As the colonus became more and more

 

6Bark, pp. 92ff.; Rostovtzeff, pp. 969-87; Dill, p.
228; Lot, pp. 100-27; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 270ff.

67Abbott and Johnson, pp. 217—18.

68Ibid.

69Lot, pp. 120-27; Moss, p. 26; Rostovtzeff, pp. 969-

87; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 217-18.

136

oppressed by the State his courses of action became fewer and
fewer. He could join others in the same predicament who had
become bandits, or he could seek the protection of a man more
powerful than himself. According to the transitional school,
many of the harassed farmers accepted the latter of these
alternatives as they placed themselves under the protection
of potentates who were capable of defying the State, and
virtually sold themselves into bondage.70
At the same time the coloni were being reduced to the
ranks of serfdom, the curiales, the upper middle-class of the
towns, were experiencing the same end. According to Samuel
Dill, Michael Rostovtzeff, Frank F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson,
it was not Christianity which destroyed municipal life, but
the rigid reforms of Diocletian and Constantine.71 The bur-
dens which were imposed upon the curiales during the fourth
century were responsible for extinguishing the free civic
life which in an earlier period was the greatest glory of
Roman administration.72 The most devastating of the burdens
which the curiales had to bear was the collection of the tax.

This responsibility was slowly bringing ruination to the mid-

dle—class as they had to make good any deficiency in income.

 

70Lot, pp. 120-27; Moss, p. 26; Rostovtzeff, pp. 969—

87; Abbott and Johnson, pp. 217-18.

710111, p. 250; Rostovtzeff, p. 977; Abbott and John—
son, p. 222.

72Dill, p. 250; Rostovtzeff, p. 977; Abbott and John-
son, p. 222.

73Dill, p. 250; Rostovtzeff, p. 977; Abbott and John—
son, p. 222.

73

137

As Dill, Lot, Moss and Rostovtzeff have pointed out, in the
end the only recourse open to the oppressed curiales was the
same as that of the coloni: flight to the large estates.7H
Thus, the transitional school attributes the disruption of
city life to the harsh and rigid reforms of the fourth cen—
tury.75

With the disruption of the rural and urban life, the
oppressed citizenry turned to the wealthy lords for protec-
tion. As the adherents to the transitional thesis have
pointed out, the lords began to turn their estates into asy—
lums where they received anyone who had need or reason to

escape the burdens imposed on society by the State.76

By

the fifth century the lords had, in some cases, become judge
and jury in the life of their subjects.77 According to the
transitional school, more and more the citizens of the Empire
were turning to a powerful individual for those functions
which had once been provided by the State. No longer do the
cities stand as the centers of political, economic and judi-
cial activity in the lives of the people, as the landed aris-

tocracy was slowly assuming those responsibilities which had

previously been exercised by the State. The center of life

 

7”Lot, pp. 100-27; Dill, pp. 295ff.; Moss, pp. 29-30.

75Dill, pp. 250-51; Lot, pp. l2lff.; Bark, pp. 58-65;
Rostovtzeff, pp. 977—78; Moss, p. 29.
75

Abbott and Johnson, p. 203; Dill, p. 275; Moss, pp.
29-30.

77Bark, pp. 79-82; Dill, p. 275.

138

was gradually gravitating towards the estates and a landed
aristocracy which functioned independent of the central gov-
ernment.78

The transitional school is of the opinion that as a
result of the reforms introduced by Diocletian and Constan-
tine, there was a major change in the social order of the
ancient world. This change was characterized by the destruc-
tion of the middle class, the control of many small land
holders by the great proprietors and the resulting increase
in the powers of the landed aristocracy. These changes, ac-
cording to thisschool of thought, were the basic features
of the transition from late Roman to medieval society. The
Rome of old which had been built upon a federation of muni-
cipalities with each community enjoying liberty, self—govern—
ment, and social mobility was rapidly falling to the wayside.
While it is true the Romans had always been a class oriented
society and the barriers which separated these classes were
high, nevertheless, the barriers were not insurmountable.
Although the advances from one stratum to another were diffi-
cult, the hope of such advancement had always existed for the
citizen. Either by virtue of his wealth, education, or
military prowess, a father could leave to his son a position
superior to that which he had received from his father. Un-

fortunately, as a result of the reform measures instituted by

the emperors of the fourth and fifth centuries, not only was

 

78Bark, pp. 79-82; Lot, pp. 128-39; Abbott and John-
son, p. 203.

139

society reduced to an inferior legal position, but even the
hope for advancement, which had existed previously, was de-
stroyed. In an attempt to stabilize the Empire, which had
been visibly shaken by the anarchy of the third century, the
emperors instituted the primitive and fatal practice of en-
slaving a large portion of the pOpulation for the benefit of
a few. With the regimentation of society and the growth of
the landed aristocracy, many of the citizens lost all that
they possessed and in the process, lost all interest in main-

taining the system that had ruined them.79

According to the
transitional school, the Roman populace had been forced not
only to give up their material goods, but even worse, their
legal status as free men. As a result of these events there
developed a new social order from the ruins of classical

civilization. This change was from the highly developed,

but decadent, imperial order, to a more primitive, but work-

able, regime of the landed aristocracy. With the displace-

ment of the middle class and the ensuing division of society

into two unequal groups, society was already becoming medieval.

 

7gLot, pp. 186ff.; Bark, pp. 80-87; Moss, pp. 28ff.

No one can fail to be struck by the apathy of the Roman pop-
ulace by the fifth century. In 906 there was a general appeal

calling everyone to resist Radagaeus who had broken into Italy.

The appeal went unheeded.

801n regards to the variances which we have seen ex-
pressed above concerning the social transition of the late
Roman Empire, one of the contributing factors in these dif-
ferences lies in what can be called the two faces of Rome.
The imperial codes which exist from the reign of Constantine
to Honorius, repeatedly bear witness to the decay of the mid-
dle class, the aggrandizement of the aristocracy and the de-
fiant tyranny of the imperial regime. This view is also

80

190

According to the transitional school, if the Roman social
order continued, it was only in the striking phrase of Michael
Rostovtzeff, "as a vast prison for scores of millions of

men."81

 

supported by various Christian moralist such as Salvianus.

In contrast to this View is that produced by other contem-
porary writers such as Sidonius Apollinaris, Aurelius Symmachus,
and Ausonius who, representing the cultured upper class,
present a much more illustrious picture of Roman society.
Those scholars who present the social life of antiquity as
experiencing an early death rely, primarily, upon the imperial
codes and the Christian writers (Dill, Seeck, Lot, Bark, etc.)
while those who insist on a continuation of the social order
until it was destroyed by the barbarians, depend upon the
latter sources. What these latter works fail to take into
consideration, however, is that most of the problems which
plagued the late Roman society did not touch the upper class
so it is natural they would present a brighter and more
optimistic picture of the future.

81Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History Q: the Rp-
man Empire, p. 978.

 

 

CHAPTER V
CULTURAL TRANSITION (THIRD-SIXTH CENTURIES)

Although the problem of Rome's fall and the beginning
of the Middle Ages has been a subject of great interest for
centuries, there still does not exist any general consensus
among scholars concerning the particulars of this event. One
major reason for this lack of consensus is that the passing
of classical civilization was characterized as much by a
Spiritual change as by a physical. From the third to the
sixth century there occurred a significant alteration in the
cultural life of the West, the causes and effects of which
are not easily explained. Those aspects of classical culture
which had characterized the Roman world during its early
history were, by the sixth century, replaced by a number of
ideas and concepts which were alien to the classical tradi-
tion. The educational and intellectual traits of man in the
sixth century were no longer those of the time of Augustus
or Marcus Aurelius. The moods, traits, sentiments and views
of life were also quite different. The efforts of scholars
to account for the nature and significance of this spiritual
change within the Western portion of the Empire have led to
a number of controversies. Thus, the subject of this chapter
will involve a consideration of the various individuals and
problems involved in understanding the cultural transition

191

192

from antiquity to the Middle Ages.

For several generations the historiography of medieval
culture was dominated by two conventional school of thought.
Before turning to a detailed analysis of these two schools,
however, it will first be necessary to present a brief sum-
mary of their major theses in an effort to understand their
more general position concerning the nature of medieval cul-
ture. The first school, which may rightfully be labeled as
the continuation school, maintains that the culture of Europe

1 (It should be understood that

was the same as that of Rome.
the term culture is being used in this present work in its
older literary and intellectual connotation rather than in

the more recent sociological sense.) This particular school
interprets the years 900-1000 A. D., as a period when the
classical elements of culture were being preserved. Through-
out this age of disorder the saving school saw various learned

individuals present who were instrumental in salvaging cul-

ture from the throes of chaos. The adherents to this particular

 

1In regard to the saving school we will be examining
such works as, Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlesmagne; Christopher
Dawson, The Making of Europe (New York, 1932); Dill, Roman
Societ in the Last Century of the Roman Empire; Vogt, Der
Niedergang Roms; Dannenbauer, Die Entstehunnguropas vom der
Spatantike zum Mittelalter, 11; H. 0. Taylor, The Classical
Heritage of the Middle Ages (New York, 1901); David Knowles,
The Evolution of Medieval Thought (New York, 1962); R. R.
Bolgar, The Classical Heritage (New York, 1959). For those
who read German, a valuable supplement to this chapter is
Kulturbruch oder Kulturkontinuitat rr_Ubergang von der Antike
zum Mittelalter, by Paul E. Hubinger. This work contains a
selection of German writings dealing with the problems of
the cultural transition. Several of the selections will be
treated in this chapter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

193

school see the first saving effort coming in the fourth and
fifth centuries when the classical tradition passed into the
hands of the Church Fathers. Although a number of the intel—
lectuals of the Patristic Age were intimately associated with
the Church, they were also progenies of the upper class which
meant they had been schooled in the ancient tradition making
them classical authorities. The work of St. Augustine was
saturated with classical style and wording. St. Jerome re-
vealed in his Latin Vulgate a style which was definitely
classical while St. Ambrose was strongly influenced by the
classical ethical concepts which he conveyed in his work.2
As shall be more adequately demonstrated in the latter
portion of this chapter, the various members of the contin-
uation school maintain that in addition to the valuable ma-
terial retained by the Church Fathers, there were also other
geniuses engaged in the saving work as well. Donatus was a
grammarian who set down valuable grammatical rules for the
future in addition to preserving the texts of some of the
most polished classical scholars such as Cicero. Boethius,
who receives a near sacred position in the eyes of the con-

tinuation school, is credited both with keeping alive the

philosophical manner of thinking in a difficult age and with

 

2Dill, pp. 390-92; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 236-
37, 258-60; Taylor, p. 10; Knowles, pp. 30-31. As shall be
demonstrated, there were actually two approaches which the
saving school employed in their work. For example, Dill and
Vogt placed their emphasis on the fact that this was a class
phenomenon while Taylor and Knowles stress the continuation
of pagan ideas by way of Christian dogma.

 

199

contributing valuable translations of Plato and Aristotle.3
Another figure who played an important role in the preserva-
tion of the pagan sources was Cassiodorus who, in compiling

a reading program for the clergy, assimilated what was later
to become an important guide to the classical authorities.“
Also within it catalogue of scholars, the continuation

school cite a number of havens on the Western fringe of the
Empire where various enlightened individuals exerted a con-
scious effort to keep alive their cultural heritage.5 In the
monasteries of England and Ireland there were a number of
monks who, in addition to being spiritual leaders, revealed

a distinct appreciation of secular knowledge and as a result
adopted it as a part of their educational program.6 It was
through the efforts of such men as these, maintains the con-
tinuation school, that various elements of classical culture
were preserved. This process whereby classical culture was
being saved reached its zenith during the Carolingian renais-
sance when all that was going to be saved was brought tOge-
ther and this body of knowledge served as the raw material
out of which the medieval mind was shaped.

What this first conventional school is trying to

 

3Views such as these can be found in each of the works
above. For example, see Dannenbauer, II, p. 51; Laistner,
pp. 88, 90.

uDannenbauer, II, pp. 73—79; Taylor, pp. 95-57; Vogt,
p. 163.

5Dannenbauer, II, pp. 79—80; Bolgar, pp. 91-96.

6Dannenbauer, II, pp. 80-82; Knowles, p. 72; Taylor, p.
99; Vogt, pp. 236-37; Bolgar, pp. 91-96.

195

establish is that in two places along the fringe of the Empire,
southern Europe and the British Isles, there were men who ap-
preciated the classical past and exerted strenuous efforts

to preserve it. The conclusion of this school would then be
that the medieval mind of Western Europe was the outgrowth of
what was saved from the classical world and was marked by lit-
tle that was original.

The second conventional school can best be classified
as the barbarization school with its emphasis being placed
upon the deterioration of classical culture.7 Although the
barbarization school is by far the older of the two, it is
not widely accepted by authorities today. As will be recalled
from the first chapter, the barbarization thesis reached its
zenith during the eighteenth century "Age of Reason," and
since that time has come to hold less and less sway over me-
dieval scholarship. It is for this reason that the barbari-
zation school will receive only limited attention in the pre—
sent chapter.

Essentially, those works which continue to be influ—
enced by the barbarization thesis, e. g., Otto Seeck, J. B.
Bury, A. H. M. Jones, are the same which attribute the col-

lapse of the Western portion of the Empire to external causes.

 

7This is by far the older of the two schools as its
origin can be found as far back as the Renaissance. This
school is represented par excellence in the works of Voltaire
and Edward Gibbon. Fortunately, this school is not widely
accepted today, but as we shall see, its influence has car-
ried over into the works of such men as Ferdinand Lot, Otto
Seeck, J. B. Bury and A. H. M. Jones.

 

196

(One notable exception to this which will be dealt with in
greater detail later, is the work of Ferdinand Lot.) As shall
be demonstrated in greater detail in the following pages, the
general thesis of this school starts with the third century
where its adherents see the classical tradition undergoing a
profound debasement as a result of the introduction of a
foreign element into the mainstream of classical life.8 In
regards to the literary and intellectual standards of the an-
cient world, this foreign element, which had its origin in
the East, brought with it irrational religious practices
which proved to be detrimental to classical culture. When
this mode of thought became dominant it began to eat away at
the rational thinking of antiquity with decay being the ul—
timate result.g To this school of thought the Patristic Age
represented not renewed life for the classical tradition, but

debasement.10

The triumph of Christianity and barbarism marks
the end of the classical tradition as was attested by the

widespread superstition, fanaticism and ignorance

 

8Lot, Thg_Epd Q: the Ancient World and the Beginning
Q: the Middle Ages, pp. 136-91; A. H. M. Jones, The Decline
of the Ancient World (London, 1966), pp. 369-70; P. Boissonnade,
fife and Work in Medieval Europe (New York, 1927), pp. 29-25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9Gibbon, The Decline and Fall Q: the Roman Empire, 111,
329; Voltaire, Annals Q: the Empire, vol. XXI of The Works
2: Voltaire, ed., Dumont, pp. 85-87.

10Gibbon, III, 329; Voltaire, XXXI, 65-87; Lot, pp. 135-
91; Bury, The Later Roman Empire, I, 61; Jones, The Decline
Q: the Ancient World, pp. 369—70.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

11 The adherents of the barbarization thesis

that prevailed.
cite such works as the writings of Gregory of Tours to sup-
port their thesis of a barbarization of the literary standards
of antiquity and a general decline in intellectual activity.12
This particular school with its emphasis on the termination
of the classical tradition, portrays the early Middle Ages
as a period void of any cultural standards or achievements.
It would conclude that Western Europe had to forge a new set
of values out of the same ruins which brought destruction to
the classical.

In an effort to give substance to these brief comments
on the continuation and barbarization schools, we must now
turn to a consideration of some of the works which are repre-

sentative of these two schools. Beginning once more with the

classic of Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, we see

 

that he continues to advance the thesis that classical civi-
lization proceeded uninterrupted into the fifth and sixth
centuries. In a labored attempt to support his thesis of a
cultural continuity, Pirenne recalls the names of Theodoric's
two chief ministers, Boethius and Cassiodorus, and with two
perfunctory paragraphs given to these extraordinarily influ—

ential men, Pirenne tries to use them as props for his thesis.13

 

llGibbon, III, 329, Voltaire, XXXI, 65-87; Lot, pp.
136-91; Bury, I, 61; Jones, The Decline Q: the Ancient World,
pp. 269-70.

12Lot, p. 158.

 

 

l3Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, p. 119.

 

198

By stressing their use of pagan sources as well as their em-
ployment of classical literary devices, Pirenne places Boethius
and Cassiodorus in the mainstream of the classical tradition.lu
On the subject of Christianity, Pirenne agrees that it was
gaining converts within the Empire, but it was only with a
few ascetics and intellectuals that its hold was really com—
plete. Relying upon secondary sources and the writings of a
few members of the senatorial aristocracy, e. g., Sidonius
Apollinarius, Pirenne concludes that society was still pre-
dominantly secular.15
The implications which we find in Pirenne's work are
extremely misleading as he says nothing of the role which
Boethius and Cassiodorus playedin the theological contro-
versies of the day. He likewise says nothing of the decadent
state of classical rhetoric and literature, nor of the bitter
struggle against the profane classical tradition in which
the Church Fathers of the Patristic Age were so involved.
It is certainly deceptive to use Boethius and Cassiodorus as
mainstays for the view that society was still secular and
essentially unchanged. In his efforts to support the thesis
of a continuation of the classical order, Pirenne had been
blinded to the major cultural developments of the early Mid-

dle Ages and in turn has presented a distorted view of the

period.

 

ll'1bid., p. 120.

15Ibid., pp. 118—20.

199

Conclusions similar to those espoused by Pirenne can
be found in the works of Joseph Vogt, Samuel Dill, Christopher
Dawson, Heinrich Dannenbauer, H. 0. Taylor and numerous others.
While each of these works are in general agreement with regards
to the basic tenets of the "saving philosophy," there are
variances in their explanations as to how classical culture

15 and Samuel 511117

was preserved. To Joseph Vogt the pre-
servation of the pagan sources was essentially a class phe—
nomenon. As Vogt explains it, the ancient tradition had

long been prevalent in the provinces and the educational stan-
dards imposed by this tradition continued uninterrupted into

the fifth and sixth centuries.18

The exalted position of the
Roman aristocracy continued unimpaired throughout the dif—
ficult period which witnessed the triumph of Christianity and
barbarism, and along with the endurance of the upper class
went the endurance of the classical culture.19 Both Vogt and
Dill assert that the senatorial aristocracy continued to

exist as a separate community, bound together by a common

language, education, and cultural values.20 Not only did

 

16Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 236-37. "As long as
the senatorial ariStocracy lived on so did the old culture."

l7Dill, pp. 390-92. "It is important to realize in
this age of decadence, the powerful and unchanging character
of Graeco-Roman culture never relaxed its hold on the educa-
ted upper class."

18

 

Vogt, Der Niederganijoms, p. 236.

 

19Ibid., p. 295.

20Vogt, Der Niedergapijoms, p. 251; Dill, pp. 389—900.

 

150

this class remain as a reservoir of the classical order, but
as various Germans came to fill high political offices the
aristocracy also imparted to the intruders a knowledge and
appreciation of the Latin sources with the result that they
too became patrons of the ancient tradition. The prime ex-
ample of this, says Vogt, is the case of Theodoric who, under
the tutelage of Cassiodorus, became well versed in the pagan
tradition and in turn required the same of his family and
followers.21 Vogt asserts that while the upper class sup-
plied a considerable portion of those who filled high offices
of the Church, "...these men remained as wedded to the liter-
ary tradition of the past as did the pagan nobles."22
Another approach that is employed by the continuation
school, and which is by no means unrelated to that above, can
be seen in the works of Christopher Dawson and Heinrich Dan-
nenbauer. These two men are equally as vocal as the sources
previously discussed in asserting the indebtedness of Western
Europe to Athens for its cultural basis. According to Daw-
son, if Europe owes its political existence to the late Ro-
man Empire and its Spiritual unity to the Church, "...it is
indebted for its culture to a third factor, the classical

23

tradition." Dawson believes it is indeed difficult for us

to realize the extent of our debt, for the classical tradition

 

21Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 258-59.

 

22

 

Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 292-96; Dill, p. 292.

23Dawson, pp. 58-60.

151

has become so much a part of Western culture that we are no
longer fully conscious of its influence on our mind. "The
survival of classical literature," says Dawson, "not only
made possible the rise of the modern EurOpean literature; it
also formed the European habit of mind, and rendered possible
that rational and critical attitude to life and nature which

2” It survived the fall

is peculiar to Western civilization."
of Rome and remained through the Middle Ages as the integral
part of the intellectual heritage of the Christian Church

and it arose with renewed strength to become the inspiration

25

and model for the new European literature. "It is almost

impossible," says Dawson, "to overrate the cumulative influ-
ence of so ancient and continuous a tradition."26
In these words of Dawson we can see the subtle differ-
ence which distinguishes the works we are presently consi—
dering from those of Vogt and Dill. While the latter attri-
butes the preservation of the classical tradition to the en-
durance of a particular class, the former gives credit to

the Church by virtue of the union that was formulated between

Christianity and the classical tradition.27 According to

 

2”Ibid., p. 50.

25Ibid.

26Ibid.

 

27This division, as already stated, is somewhat arti-
ficial in that the two sometimes interact. However, the first
_group sees much of the saving efforts being exerted indepen-
dent of the Church and Christianity while the latter does not
separate the preservation of classical culture from the growth
of Christianity.

152

Dawson and Dannenbauer, during the period which witnessed
Rome's transformation from a Republic to Empire, classical
education was rapidly diffused throughout the provinces with
most of the cities becoming the centers of intense education-
al activity. The rhetorical ideal of education became domi-
nant and the rhetorician soon became the idol of society.28
In the fourth century however, the supremacy of the classical
tradition seemed to be greatly challenged by the victory of
a new religion.29 The Church acknowledged no debt to the an-
cient order as the Bible, the basis of Christian thought and
action, was so far removed in form and spirit from pagan li-
terature that there appeared to be no room for mutual exist-
ence. Nevertheless, there was going on a process whereby the
Church was preparing for the reception of the classical tra-
dition.30

What Dawson and Dannenbauer are describing at this
point is that period in the fourth and fifth centuries when
most of the literary activity had fallen into the hands of
the Church Fathers. According to Dawson, as early as the
second century educated converts were beginning to address
the cultivated public in their own language and trying to

show that the doctrines of the Church were in harmony with

the rational ideas of ancient philosophy.31 Dawson and

 

28Dawson, pp. 59—59.

29Dannenbauer, II, pp. 53-59; Dawson, pp. 59-60.

30Dawson, p. 62.

31Ibid.

153

Dannenbauer see as a result of this development a far reach-
ing synthesis of Christianity and Hellenic thought, or, in

32 The

other words, a bond between theology and philosophy.
Fathers, e. g., SS. Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, were es-
sentially Christian rhetoricians who shared the culture and

tradition of their pagan predecessors.33

With the emphasis
which Dawson and Dannenbauer place upon this union between
Christianity and the classical tradition, Athens is placed
on a pedestal equal to that of Jerusalem and viewed as having
played a comparable role in the shaping of the medieval mind.
Still another consideration of this problem which is
not unlike Dawson and Dannenbauer can be found in the work of
R. R. Bolgar. According to Bolgar, the continuation of clas—
sical culture is an inescapable fact. Because Latin was the
official and indispensable language of the Church, study of
the pagan sources could not be escaped.3u While it is true,
says Bolgar, that many of the early Christians showed a
great deal of mistrust for all things pagan, the use of an—

35 Even the moderate

cient literature could not be stopped.
position taken by St. Augustine, who advocated a regulated
use of pagan works, did not do much to hinder the study of

pagan sources.36 In support of his claim, Bolgar placed a

 

32Dawson, pp. 62-63; Dannenbauer, 1, 192—98.

 

33Dawson, p. 56.

3”Bolgar, The Classical Heritage, p. 58.
35Ibid.

36

Ibid.

 

15H

great deal of emphasis upon the Irish and British monks who,
he maintains, assimilated a considerable body cf ancient know—
ledge in pursuit of their missionary goals.37 In order that
.these monks could succeed in their efforts to convert and in—
doctrinate the barbarians, schools had to be started to facil—
itate the needs of both the teacher and student. In brief,
if Christianity was to survive, Latin had to be taught and to ‘
aid in this process the monks employed a considerable number
of classical works. Thus, according to Bolgar it was due to
the linguistic needs of the Church that classical culture
slowly became integrated into Western thought and became an
integral part of Western culture.38
In the works of H. 0. Taylor and David Knowles we find
this union between Christianity and classical culture taken
a step further. They maintain that pagan culture was actu—
ally essential in the shaping of Christian dogma.39 ’Many
pagan elements clothed in Christian terminology, say Taylor_
and Knowles, passed into the teachings of the Church and were

ultimately accepted as doctrine.”0 The writings of Ambrose

illustrate the use of Stoic reasoning as a basis of Christian. ‘«

 

37Ibid., pp. 91—96.

38Ibid., pp. 58, 91-95.

3gTaylor, p. 71.’ "Greek philosophy likewise supplied
the principles for the formation of Christian dogma." Knowles,
p. v: "The purpose of this book is an endeavor to present
medieval philosophy as a direct continuation of Greek thought."

uoTaylor, p. 71; Knowles, pp. 30-31.

155

”1 while the works of Synesius of Cyrene and Dionysius

ethics,
illustrate how Neoplatonism was influencing the development
of Christian doctrine.1+2 According to Taylor such basic fun—
damentals of the Christian faith as the Trinity--Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit—~are actually a transliteration of the Neo-

43 .
Even in areas

platonic trinity-—spirit, mind, and body.
where one would expect to find striking differences separating
the ChriStian ideology from that of the pagans, e. g., mono-
theism as opposed to polytheism, Taylor finds continuity. He
maintains the practice of polytheism, which was common in the
ancient world, passed over into the Christian religion in
the form of saints, angels and the Virgin Mary, who were used
to replace the gods and goddesses of old.”u Although both
Taylor and Knowles assign to Christianity a significant place
in the shaping of Western Europe, they also see the ancient
tradition as being equally significant in the shaping of
Christianity. To these two men Athens played a greater role
than Jerusalem in the development of the medieval mind.

In summary we find that while the various adherents
to the saving school may vary in their approach to the prob—

lem posed by the cultural transition, in their conclusions

there is unanimity. It is the belief of this school that the

 

”lTaylor, p. 71.

L”Knowles, pp. 30-31.

1+3Taylor, p. 79; Knowles, p. 39.

lMTaylor, p. 99.

156

thought which was to characterize the Middle Ages was the
outgrowth of what was saved from the classical world and was
marked by little that was original.

In contrast to the views expressed by this first con—
ventional school of thought stands the barbarization school.
To expand upon the brief description given earlier of this
school, we turn now to a consideration of the work of one of
its latest adherents, Ferdinand Lot. While in the past we
have been able to follow the work of Lot as a most accurate
and authoritative source on the early Middle Ages, when we
turn to the problem of the cultural transition his work must
be studied with extreme caution. The reason for this note
of caution is that Lot greatly minimizes the role of the
Church as a cultural agent in the development of the Middle
Ages and concludes that all culture, of any worth, came to
an end with the fall of Rome.”5

According to Lot, the most significant feature in the
shaping of the classical tradition was the fusion between
science and philosophy.”6 The Greek cosmologists, as a re-
sult of their speculative investigations, discovered a secret
harmony that traversed the universe and came to believe that
one might penetrate the secrets of nature and subject them

”7

to man's will. This concept of perfection which the Greeks

 

”SLot, pp. 135-70.

L"Swim, p. 167.

L”Ibid.

157

saw existing in the natural world suggested to them that man
was capable of duplicating this orderly procedure in his own
human world.”8 This concept of perfection was eminent in the
writings of Plato, who maintained that there was a connection
between the things of this world and perfection. Aristotle
added to this growing belief when he concluded that it was
within man's rational powers to duplicate the system of na-
ture.50 Man could inaugurate perfection by simply employing
those tools of logic which he possessed.51 Thus, the ideal
state could be created by simply cultivating and combining
man's physical and mental abilities.

According to Lot, this highly advanced classical mind
was subverted by the torrent of religiosity that swept across
the West in the first and second centuries. Science and phi-
losophy suffered from the mystical spirit which offered a
more attractive solution to man's problems at a smaller in-
tellectual cost.52 With the ultimate victory of Christianity
in the fourth century the subject matter of greatest concern

to man became his relationship with God. As a result of this

victory, maintains Lot, the literary achievements of the

 

ualbid., pp. 167-68.

ugIbid.

SOIbid.

51As can be seen in Plato's Republic, the ideal state
could be created by the cultivating and combining of man's
physical and mental abilities.

52Lot, p. 170.

158

Patristic Age became wholly encumbered with theology and in
the process failed to retain the high literary qualities of
the preceding age.53
One of the fallacies with Lot's analysis of the cul—
tural transition up to this point is that he has attempted to
judge the merits of an age independent of its historical set-
ting. What he has failed to see is that the ideas, institu-
tions and behavior set forth by the Church were in many re—
spects alternatives to an earlier program which had failed
to work. We need not reiterate the material of the previous
chapters to realize that the unbounded faith of the Graeco-
Roman world in the ability of man to create an earthly para-
dise by the exercising of his natural talents had ended in
failure. The result of this failure was that there emerged
a significant ideological conflict between the Christian and
pagan elements of society. "In simplified terms that conflict
might be described in this fashion: the humanistic ideology
of the Graeco—Roman world vied with the emotionally charged
ideology of the mystery religions which maintained that man
must accept the world that some deity had created, awaiting
perfection in the hereafter and living in the present only
su

in hope of catching a glimpse of the God whose thrall he was."

Thus, the preoccupation of the Church Fathers with theological

 

53Lot, p. 158.

5”Richard E. Sullivan, "Some Influences of Monasticism
on the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," in Studies in Medieval

Culture, II (Western Michigan University, 1966), 21.

159

matters was essentially the reaction to a Graeco-Roman exper-
iment that had failed to materialize. The fact that there

was a pronounced ideological difference between antiquity

and the Middle Ages is true, but to maintain one is superior
or inferior to the other, as does Lot, is to cloud the issue.
Both were essentially efforts to provide man with the "abso-
lutes" which he needs to give meaning, hope and tolerance to
his present existence. For the Graeco-Roman world this was
supplied by a faith in man and rationalism, while in the Mid—
dle Ages this was provided by a faith in God and the hereafter.
To ask if one is superior to the other is to miss the histori-
cal significance of both.

Although the conclusions of Lot with regard to the lit—
erary activity of the transitional period may be open to
question, it is not necessary to disregard his comments on
the cultural issue in total. For example, after referring to
his work concerning the quality of classical art following
the fourth century, it would be impossible to maintain, as
do Pirenne and other members of the saving school, that the
ancient tradition continued to function uncontaminated by out-
side impurities. As Lot has illustrated, the greatest of the
Roman arts, architecture, had already fallen into decay by
the reign of Diocletian. The Roman genius which had long been
evident in their highly skillful and decorative triumphal arch,
public baths and amphitheatres, was no longer visible. Ac-
cording to Lot, by the fourth century the Romans began to sac-

rifice skill for grandeur. Evidence of this can be seen in

160

the colossal edifices constructed during the reigns of Dio-
cletian and Constantine which tended to stress size rather
than the aestetic qualities of earlier periods.55
In regards to the architecture of the fourth century,

sucy authorities on the subject as Charles R. Morey, H. P.
L'Orange, J. M. C. Toynbee and Heinz Kahler reach conclusions
similar to those of Lot. According to these authorities, by
the fourth century Roman buildings, "lost their organic cor-
porality, the clear articulation of their parts, and the func—
tional relationship among them; they are gradually dissolved

into a system of plain, simple walls. The open villa—like

palace architecture of earlier times became enclosed in for—

57 L'Orange and Morey describe this change

tress—life blocks.
as development towards the fortified palace of the Middle Ages.
The fine arts also began to decay. According to Lot,
after the second century there was a visible change in the
style of the artists. This is evident from the inferior work
produced in the area of plastic arts. The statues that were

raised in this period lost all representational value in that

only the heads presented individual features, while the

 

55Lot, p. 136.

56The quote is from H. P. L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic
Life in the Late Roman Empire (Princeton, 1965), p. 9. Simi—
lar comments can be found in J. M. C. Toynbee, IE2.§E£.2£.EES
Romans (London, 1965), p. 79; Heinz Kahler, Rome and Her Em—
pire (Holland, 1963), p. 186; Charles R. Morey, Medieval Art
(New York, 19n2), pp. 21—38.

57

 

 

 

 

 

L'Orange, p. 73.

161

gestures and other details were all identical.58 From the
reign of Constantine on there was little of worth produced
within the Empire. Even of Constantine himself, we do not have
one reliable portrait as a result of the decline in plastic
arts. As the art historians H. P. L'Orange and Charles Morey
have pointed out, the various features of the subjects became

59 According to these

frozen in an expressive Medusa-like mask.
two authorities, there was a weakening of individualizing fa—
cial features as such features as wrinkles, furrows and locks
of hair became more and more symmetrized according to the ver-
tical axis of the face.60 There is no longer the emphasis on
individual features, but a mechanical and permanent expressive
mask.

The decorative arts were also experiencing significant
change during the third and fourth centuries. Lot has des—
cribed what happened to the decorative arts during this period
as a "recrudescence of the Oriental influence." This Oriental
influence was finding expression in the colorful ornaments
and style which was finding acceptance in the West during this

61 Evidence of this can be seen in the change from the

period.
long accepted laurel as the ceremonial head-dress of the Em-

perors to a jewelled crown copied from the models of the

 

58Lot, p. 137.

59Morey, pp. 38-39; L'Orange, pp. 100—11.

60L'Orange, p. 115.

61Lot, pp. luo-ul.

162

Persian kings. The monarch's raiment became covered with pre—
scious gems and the throne adorned with the colorful goldsmith's
work.62 Each of these changes. Lot interprets as being evi-
dence for the loss of a superior culture.

In contrast to Lot's contention that the change in clas-
sical art was due to a loss of skill, stands the conclusions
of Charles Morey. Morey believes it is a mistake to attribute
the artistic changes which occurred in late antiquity to a
decline in ability. According to this authority, "the cause
for the changes in the various areas of classical art is to
be sought in a shift in point of view from a materialism which
took a positive joy in nature to one that could find no peace
in physical experience and sought beatitude in a world to be."63
This change in attitude, which Morey believed to be expressing
itself in art, will be the subject of primary concern in the
following pages.

In a brief summary we find that both the barbarization
and saving schools are too rigid in their approach to present
an accurate analysis of the cultural conditions during the
transition period. While the barbarization school credits
the thinkers and writers of the Patristic Age with leading a
revolution against the pagan world, the saving school views
the same men as being responsible for the preservation of the

ancient tradition. It is true that most of the spokesmen of

 

62Lot, pp. luo-ul.

63Morey, p. 39.

163

this age had been trained in the methods of the ancient tra-
dition, i. e., rhetoric and grammar; however, the literature
which they produced bears evidence of being the result of a
spiritual experience which is not in accord with the classical
tradition.6u One need not be a theologian to examine the works
of SS. Augustine, Jerome or Ambrose and see that their inter—
est of greatest concern was theological and not classical.65
Essentially then, what the Patristic Age represents in
the broad scope of history is neither a period of barbariza-
tion nor saving, but an age of compromise. As Etienne Gilson,
E. K. Rank, Charles Norris Cochrane, M. L. W. Laistner and
Richard E. Sullivan have suggested, the Church Fathers were
able to expedite the cause of Christianity by using the lit-
erary devices at their disposal and frequently employing por-
tions of the pagan sources to support their views.66 In the
words of Gilson, "There was a basic harmony between Platonism
and Christianity which made it possible for the Fathers to use

the former to their established en "Plato," says Gilson,

 

6L'Kornemann, Gestalten und Reiche, pp. 39H-97; Bark,
Origins of the Medieval World, p. 100.

65The literature of the Patristic Age was concerned pri-
marily with dogmatic treatises, exegesis, homiletics and apo-
logetics. The heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries
served to stimulate a great deal of writing. See M. L. W.
Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe (Ithaca, 1931),
pp. 56-69.

66E. K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages (Cambridge,
1929), pp. 3H—37; Etienne Gilson,—Histor of Christian Philo-
sophy in the Middle Ages (New York, 1955;, p. 93; Sullivan,
p. 22; Laistner, p. 59.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67Gilson, p. 93; Rand, p. 36; Cochrane, Christianity
and Classical Culture, pp. 377, #32-36.

 

 

16H

"offered himself as an ally to Christianity on several impor—
tant points: the doctrine of a maker of the universe; of a
providential God; of the existence of an intelligible and di-

vine world; of the spirituality of the soul and of a life be-

68

yond the grave." Thus, the Fathers could at times use pagan

sources to pave the way for the acceptance of their message

which was based upon the doctrine of salvation by faith in

69

Jeasus Christ. As Cochrane has pointed out, the Christian

often used the same word for Trinity as the Greeks, but never
in the same secular sense.70 It was this flexibility of the
Christian writers and their ability to adapt pagan style and

techniques to spiritual ends which helped to hasten the Chris-

71

tian victory. Nevertheless, as Laistner has stated, this

compromise did not eliminate the basic differences between

72

the conflicting ideologies. In essence, what this compro—

mise did produce was a paradoxical situation in which man's

action became quite timorous as the fundamental concepts of

73

each system became rather obscure. Although the fundamental

 

68Gilson, pp. 93ff.

69Gilson, p. 93; Rand, pp. 3u—36; Sullivan, p. 22;
Cochrane, p. 377; Laistner, p. 5H.
70Sullivan, p. 22; Cochrane, pp. 361-62; Laistner, pp.
55-56.

71Laistner gives numerous examples of Christian adapta—
bility; see especially pp. ug-su. Sullivan, p. 22.

72Laistner, p. SH.

73Sullivan, p. 22.

165

contradition between the two conflicting ideologies was obvi-
ous, the Christian victory over the pagan world was not yet
complete. For this we must turn our attention to yet another
element of the Christian community.

As the saving school has so accurately pointed out, the
Patristic Age was a period when the great centers of learning
were still located in the major cities. This was important
in that it meant much of the intellectual activity of the
Church Fathers retained a strong classical bent. What the
saving school does not stress, however, is the great changes
that were being effected in Roman city life during the fourth
and fifth centuries. As we have seen in earlier chapters,
the political and economic order of Rome was already in the
throes of chaos. City life was becoming idle and lifeless.
The numerous reforms of the emperors, as will be recalled, did
not succeed in reviving city life, but actually served to sap
the remaining vitality and in the end brought to the forefront
a new agrarian community. As Pierre Riche has tried to dem-

onstrate in his work, Education g: culture dans 1' Occident

 

 

'
barbare (Kl—VIII siecles) the disruption of urban life and the

 

influx of barbarians into the West brought a significant a1—
teration in the established modes of education.

According to Riche, along with the abandonment of the
urban centers by students, there was also a general decline
in the level of competence and interest on the part of the

remaining intellectuals.71+ Evidence of this can be seen in

 

I
7”Pierre Riche, Education et Culture dan 1' Occident bar—

!I—VIII siecles (Paris, 1962), pp. H4-H9, 89.

 

 

 

{

 

166

the steadily declining number of scholars who were capable of

reading Greek or understanding the philosophical treatises of

the East. Although a few scholars, such as Boethius and Cas—
siodorus, did try to preserve an interest in Hellenism, their
efforts fell far short of the desired goals.75 The decline
which was beginning to effect the traditional educational
practices of Rome was complicated even more by the appearance
of the barbarians. Being composed primarily of peasant and
warrior classes there was little hope that this new element
within the West would be motivated or capable of continuing
such an illustrious tradition as Rome had once possessed. The
presence of the barbarians in the West had yet an even greater
influence upon the dislocation of the classical tradition.76
The Church, which in the fourth and fifth centuries had re-
tained a notable portion of the classical style and education—
al practices, i. e., rhetoric and dialectic, began to simplify
its educational procedures and make them more elementary with
hopes of converting the invaders to the orthodox faith.77 Al—
though more will be said concerning the education of the bar-
barians in the following chapter, we can conclude at this

point that due to internal and external pressures which plagued
the West in the fourth and fifth centuries, the intellectual

78

life was significantly altered. In brief, we can see that

 

751bid., pp. 83—86.

761bid., p. 50.

77Ibid., pp. llgff.

781bid., pp. 86—89.

167

the disruption of city life, the influx of barbarians and the
general decline in the interest of many of the scholars in the
traditional order all combined to produce a significant change
in the cultural life of the West. To understand what happened
in the wake of these changes, we turn now to a consideration
of the works of Richard E. Sullivan, Jean LeClercq and William
C. Bark.79
During the period in which the Church Fathers were ex-
ercising dominance over the intellectual activities, there
arose a new movement in Christendom which we know as monasti-
cism. It is with this movement that cultural life within the
West finally solidified and the new theocentric ideology
gained dominance over the classicalhumanistic ideology.8O
That the city-state stood at the pinnacle of classical
civilization is a fact which is accepted by most scholars. With
man in the ancient world being encouraged to function as an ac-
tive participant within society, the city provided him with the
greatest opportunity for achieving honor, rank, wealth and ser—
ving others which were the paramount objectives of the classical
world. In brief, the city—state represented the one arena in
which man could hope to find a materialization of what the clas—

sical world considered to be the good and virtuous life.

As was previously noted, (see Chapter IV) by the fourth

 

7gBark, Origins of the Medieval World, pp. 112— 14;
Sullivan, p. 22; Jean LeClercq, The Love of Learning and the
Desire for God (New York, 1961),— pp. 19— H3. Each of these
sources reveal a particular role which the monastery played
in the victory of the theocentric ideology over the humanistic
ideology.

80

 

 

 

Sullivan, p. 22; Bark, pp. 107-11.

168

century A. D. a large segment of Roman society no longer found
satisfaction in the pursuit of an active civic life. Many
citizens, such as the curiales, were actually trying to escape
some of the burdens of the city by establishing residence in
the rural countryside. With regard to this early movement
however, one should be careful to note that the exodus of these
individuals was fundamentally an effort to alleviate existing
imperial pressures and by no means represents a renunciation
of the institution itself. For the bulk of Roman society, the
city was such an integrated part of their social, political
and cultural life that few would have even entertained the
notion of a permanent and complete withdrawal. It was not
until the advent of monasticism in the West that man, for the
first time, willfully withdrew, both in body and spirit, from
the confines of the city. Without hesitation, reservation or
compromise, the monk was demonstrating his denunciation of the
classical values, ideas and institutions. Although a number
of the early Fathers had tried to regulate the interaction of
Christians with the pagan world, the monk's renunciation of the
key institution of the classical world possessed a note of
finality that far exceeded the views and actions of even the

81 The withdrawal of the monks from

most conservative Fathers.
the corporate life to the Cloister represents a willful re-
nunciation of the once actively sought benefits provided by

Roman citizenship.82 As Richard Sullivan has described it,

 

81Sullivan, p. 22.

82Ibid., pp. 22-23.

169

"Only the monk voluntarily and joyfully accepted what had long
been one of the most severe and degrading punishments that the
classical society could inflict-—ostricism or exile from one's

city."83

While the Patristic Age may be viewed as a period
of compromise and represent the efforts of the early Christians
to function within the ancient city-state structure, the action
of the monk was quite otherwise. As a result of his renuncia-
tion of the classical institution in deed and word, the monk
severed the tie between a meaningful human existence and the
city.81+ According to Sullivan, the major importance of this
act was that, "The stark simplicity of the ascetic image sapped
the humanistic ideal of its remaining vitality and oriented
society around a consistent view that again permitted creative
action."85
Turning now to a more constructive contribution of
monasticism we find that the monk also played a vital role in

the creation of medieval culture. Until the appearance of

Jean LeClercq's The Love of Learning and the Desire for God,

 

 

the role of monasticism in medieval cultural development was
usually viewed in a subordinate capacity. It was generally
assumed that the cultural transition was an event which was
dependent largely upon chance. Various elements of the clas—

sical heritage were said to have survived to influence medieval

 

83Ibid.

8”Ibid., p. 2n.

85Ibid., p. 22.

170

culture by virtue of an unexplainable chain of events which
permitted certain manuscripts to survive. Allowing for some
of this, as we examine the work of LeClercq we discover that
the survival of particular classical sources depended to a
major degree upon men conscious of their task and not simply
to fortune.86
Although the primary objective of the monastic order
created by St. Benedict was to draw men closer to God, there
was also a vital intellectual aspect to the monastic life as
well. With reading and meditation being one of the prescribed
methods whereby a monk could progress in his quest for God,
the monasteries possessed libraries and educational programs
to assist the monk in this endeavor.87 In contrast to the
Patristic Age, where there appears to have been little unity
concerning the quality or quantity of pagan works which could
be incorporated into theChristian tradition, the monks deve-
loped rigid standards by which the profane learning was judged.
Although the issue has not yet been fully researched, it ap-
pears that the monasteries created rather rigid standards
88

based upon the Scriptures to serve as their guidelines.

Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that the education

 

86LeClercq, pp. 19—u3.

I
87LeClercq, pp. 22-23; P.'Riche, "Les Foyers de Culture
en Gaul Franque de VIe au IXe Siecle," in Early Medieval So-
ciety, ed., Sylvia Thrupp (New York, 1967), 230-33.

88LeClercq, pp. 22—23; P. Riche, Early Medieval Socie—
ty, pp. 230-33.

 

 

171

of the monks was heavily oriented toward the Bible which in
turn colored their outlook toward classical learning. Need-
less to say, men seeking material that would assist in their
quest for God would discard much they found in classical
sources because it could not be supported by Scriptures.89
Thus, as a result of the rigid standards established by the
monks for judging the value of classical authorities, they
were to play a vital role in determining what survived to
affect medieval culture. As Sullivan has suggested, in con-
trast to the traditional picture of a monk working diligently
to salvage certain documents from the barbarians, "he is bet-
ter cast as a determined soul destroying much of classical
culture because it did not fit his ideas about the nature and
ends of cultural life."90
While we see in the work of Sullivan and LeClercq the
role which the monks played in the creation of this new way
of life, the investigations of William C. Bark carry us a
step further. Bark is concerned with the manner in which
these new Christian precepts were spread throughout the Wes—
tern world. To Bark, the role of the monk is best characterized

91 By the end of the fifth cen—

as that of a cultural pioneer.
tury the established order which had previously held the

Western provinces together had slowly fallen away. There

 

8gSullivan, p. 63.

90Ibid., p. an.

 

ngark, p. 107.

172

were new wildernesses to contend with, savages to tame and a
new way of life to create. With most of Europe assuming the
characteristics of an agrarian society, it obviously became
impossible for the old modes of prOpagating culture through
urban centers to continue to operate.92 Thus, the Church,
which was considerably more unified than the State, assumed
the responsibility for the cultural develOpment of the West.
According to Bark, due to the conditions existing in
Western Europe during the fifth and sixth centuries, there
was only one way to extend knowledge and establish a new cul—
ture and that was by sending agents out to live and work in
the agrarian communities. The problems that confronted these
cultural pioneers as they embarked upon the new frontier were
obvious. A small number of men had to contact a greater num-
ber of men scattered in rural communities and from their cen-
ters of worship and instruction give visible evidence of the
superiority of their way of life. According to Bark, this end
could be realized only by the monks living with the peasants

and sharing in their labors.93

It was by virtue of their
technical and intellectual abilities, says Bark, that the
pioneering monk was able to prove the superiority of his

way of life and in the process impart unto the West a unity

and uniqueness which set it apart from the rest of the world.

 

92Ibid., p. 110.

93Bark, p. 112; Riche, Early Medieval Society, pp. 230-

 

33.

173

While the sources which we have examined in the above
pages by no means represents a definitive coverage of the cul—
tural transition, they are sufficient for us to reach several
conclusions. First, it is obvious that the conventional views
which stress either a barbarization or a saving of classical
culture are no longer adequate to explain the actual conditions
that existed during the transition period. The way of life
that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries was in many
respects new and original. The old humanistic ideology which
had been propagated in a city—state atmosphere had now given
way to the theocentric ideology of the Church. It was a new
way of life and a new set of values to direct men living in
a new agrarian community. It was the beginning of a Western

European civilization.

CHAPTER VI
THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY

With the closing of the sixth century the omens which
warned of a changing world were clearly distinguishable with-
in the dismal life of the Empire. The once robust political,
economic, social and intellectual forces that had served to
motivate and regulate action in the classical period, now
lay dormant in this new and changing world order. Those ideas
and institutions which had once kindled a fiery patriotism
within the citizenry of antiquity were gradually yielding to
a new set of stimulants that were being inspired and prOpa-
gated under new leadership, namely the Roman Catholic Church.
No longer were the minds of men concerned with the same thoughts
and energies of men in the Graeco-Roman world.

While much of the material examined heretofore has
dealt primarily with the death of an old order which had pro-
ven to be no longer workable, this is not where the emphasis
should come to rest. The importance or significance of this
epoch—making age of transition is not to be found in death,
but life. As Michael Rostovtzeff has expressed it in his

work, The Social and Economic History 9: the Roman Empire, in

 

the formula, "the decay of ancient civilization," the empha-

sis is not to be placed upon "civilization," but upon the

171+

175

term "ancient."l Civilization did not come to a halt with the
fall of Rome, but was merely diverted into new channels which
ultimately resulted in the emergence of a set of institutions
and ideas so intimately interwoven and so unique in their ori—
entation to permit scholars to speak of the emergence of a
Western European civilization.

In the previous five chapters the subject of greatest
concern has been the later Roman Empire and the decline which
began to express itself in the institutions and ideas of that
age. As we have seen in the above material, the emphasis
which scholars have traditionally placed upon these events
range from a catastrophic interpretation which claims that all
life of any value came to an end during these barbaric years
to an opposite pole of analysis which asserts that the Graeco-
Roman tradition continued uninterrupted into the seventh and
eighth centuries. Although these two schools of thought,
with varying slants, of course, have tended to dominate medi-
eval historiography since the fifteenth century (see Chapter
I) there has developed in recent years a new school of thought
which has exerted extensive efforts to dispel the inaccurate,
but enduring, influence of the two previously mentioned schools.
Although we have already seen evidence of their efforts with
regard to the changes that were taking place in the late Em-

pire (Chapters II-V) as we extend our investigation of the

 

lRostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the
Roman Empire, p. 109.

 

 

176

early Middle Ages chronologically from the sixth into the
eighth century, the efforts of this modern school can be more
fully realized. Thus, the primary objective of this chapter
will be to examine the basic institutions of the Germanic
kingdoms, which had come to hold sway in the West, in an ef-
fort to test further whether or not this period represented
either a continuation of the classical tradition or a "dark
age" unworthy of scholarly attention. By focusing our atten-
tion upon these particular issues not only will it permit us
to see the approach employed by this new or modern school of
thought, but it will likewise permit us to see the true nature
of the heirs of the Roman Empire.

Repeatedly in the preceeding chapters we have seen the
early Middle Ages presented by such men as Henri Pirenne and
Alfons Dopsch as a continuation of the classical tradition.
These men could see a remaining vitality in the forces of
antiquity and an inherent genius in the Germanic peOple which
permitted the old order to continue long after the Germanic
invasions. If considerable doubt has already been cast upon
their theses, as we turn to a more detailed analysis of the
post-invasion period, the validity of their claims will be-
come even more questionable.

Looking once more at the works of some of the repre-
sentatives of this new or modern school of thought, e. g.,
Henrich Dannenbauer, Ferdinand Lot, Eugene Ewig, Marc Bloch,
William C. Bark, Richard E. Sullivan, and others, it soon be—

comes apparent that the most dismal aspect of Western European

177

life in the late sixth and early seventh centuries was the
decay of governmental institutions and the ensuing reign of
violence.2 By the end of the sixth century, four Germanic
groups had come to control Western EurOpe: the Anglo-Saxons
in Britain, the Franks in Gaul, the Visigoths in Spain, and
the Lombards in Italy. In the words of Richard E. Sullivan,
"The political history of these states in the early Middle
Ages presents a grim record of war, court intrigue, and grave
injustice."3 Although the developments within the various
kingdoms was by no means uniform, the Franks in Gaul under
the Merovingians might well serve to illustrate the fate of
the Germanic states within the territory of the now moribund
Empire.

Although the history of the Merovingians was filled
with such atrocities as to warrant the use of the appellation,
"the dark age," by some historians, there did occur in their
early history certain religious and political developments
that were essential in the shaping of Western Europe. It was
the rise of Clovis to the Merovingian throne, at the early

age of fifteen, that heralded the beginning of the one spot

 

2Moss, The Birth of the Middle Ages, p. 195. "The
second half of the sixth century was f1lled with pestilence
and famine, murder and sudden death." Richard E. Sullivan,
Heirs of the Roman Empire (Ithaca, 1960), p. 37: "The politi—
cal history of Western Europe in the early Middle Ages pre-
sents a grim record of war, court intrigue and grave injus-
tice. Dannenbauer, Die Entstehunnguropas vom der Spatantike

 

 

 

 

 

zum Mittelalter, I, 1u9- 50; Lot, The End of the Ancient World
and the Beginning of the Middle Ages, pp. 328-31.

 

 

 

 

3Sullivan, Heirs, p. 37.

178

of glory that was to be experienced by the Merovingians. While
Clovis proved to be a capable leader in a very difficult age,
his reign is remembered primarily by two events which have
inspired some scholars, such as Ferdinand Lot and R. H. C.
Davis, to label his kingship as one of the epoch-making reigns
in the history of Western Europe.

The first of these events, which proved to be immeasur—
ably significant for the Church, was the conversion of the
pagan king to the orthodox form of Christianity. As was noted
in an earlier chapter, one of the major problems plaguing the
embryonic Church in its newly acquired role as guardian of
the West was the widespread acceptance of Arianism among the
Germans. It was not until the conversion of Clovis that the
Church had the benefit of a strong political leader to cham-
pion the cause of the orthodox faith. So great were the prob—
lems encountered by the Roman Church prior to the conversion
of Clovis that the noted Catholic historian, Henri Daniel—Rops,

has proclaimed in his work, The Church ip_the Dark Ages, that,

 

 

"...apart from the conversion of Constantine, the baptism of

Clovis was the greatest event in the development of the Chris-
tian West."5

The actual conversion of Clovis to the orthodox faith

 

lJ'Lot, p. 317; R. H. C. Davis, A History pf Medieval
Europe from Constantine pp St. Louis (London, 1957), p. 109.

 

 

 

5Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church ip the Dark Ages (New
York, 1959), p. 180; There is general agreement among most
medievalists on this point. Lot, p. 317; "It is impossible
to overestimate the significance of this event."

 

179

has given rise in recent years to a notable debate among
scholars concerning the events which preceded this act. For
those scholars who accept the traditional account of this
event, as it is recorded in the writings of Gregory of Tours,
the scene for the conversion of Clovis is placed on the field
of combat.6 Being confronted by a numerically superior foe
and the definite possibility of being annihilated, Clovis
vowed that if the God of his Christian wife Clotilda would
deliver him victorious, he would accept the faith.7 Experi-
encing a sound victory over his foe, Clovis remained true to
his word as he, along with his followers, were lowered into
the waters of Christian baptism.

For those individuals who adhere to the account ren—
dered by Gregory, e. g., Joseph Vogt, Henri Daniel-Rops,
Christopher Dawson, Gustav Schnurer, the conversion of Clovis
was quite important to the Church as it provided an avenue
through which the Church could advance against the predomi-
nance of Arianism.8 The importance of this interpretation
lies in the fact that it subsequently affects the manner in

which one views the second important accomplishment of Clovis:

 

6Among the adherents to this interpretation are such
men as, Daniel-Rops, p. 189; Dawson, The Making pf Europe,
p. 99; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 266; Gustav Schnurer,
Church and Culture 12 the Middle Ages, pp. 238-H0.

 

 

 

 

 

7Daniel—Rops, p. 189; Dawson, p. 99; Vogt, p. 266;
Schnurer, pp. 238—MO.

8Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, p. 266; Dawson, p. 9”;
Schnurer, pp. 238-M0.

 

180

the unification of Gaul. For those who accept the account
as it is recorded in the work of Gregory, the numerous mili—
tary campaigns which were undertaken by Clovis following his
conversion and which ultimately ended in the unification of
Gaul are viewed as crusades directed at the annihilation of
Arianism in the West.9
Among those who refuse to accept Gregory's appraisal
of the conversion of Clovis stand such men as Ferdinand Lot,
J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Henrich Fichtenau and J. B. Bury. Each
of these men maintain that the victory of Clovis over the
Alemans had nothing to do with his conversion and Wallace—
Hadrill even asserts that Gregory placed the conversion of

10 The reason for

the pagan king about ten years too soon.
Gregory's predating of this event, says Wallace—Hadrill, was
his desire to present Clovis as a crusader diligently advan—

cing the goals of the Church.11

According to Lot and Wallace—
Hadrill, the conversion was the result of constant prodding
by his wife Clotilda, while Bury and Fichtenau conclude that

it was a shrewd political move and little more.12 As Bury

has stated it, the conversion of Clovis, "was the crown of a

 

gDaniel—Rops, p. 192; Dawson, p. 99; Vogt, Der Nieder-
‘gang Roms, pp. 266ff.

10J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West MOO—1000 A. 2.
(London, 1952), p. 69; Lot, p. 317; Heinrich Fichtenau, Th3
Carolingian Empire (Oxford, 1957), p. 2; J. B. Bury, 122,12‘
vasion pf Europe py_the Barbarians (London, 1927), pp. ZMO-ul.

11

 

 

 

 

Wallace-Hadrill, p. 69.

12Lot, p. 317; Wallace—Hadrill, p. 69; Bury, The Inva-
sion pf EurOpe, pp. 290—93; Fichtenau, p. 2.

181

consistent, calculated policy which displays Clovis' high

intelligence and statesmanlike perception."13 By attributing

the conversion to what could be termed as "Maciavellian pre-

cepts," Bury and Wallace-Hadrill conclude that the campaigns

of Clovis were not religiously inspired, but rather were a

manifestation of his desire for land and booty.lu
While the actual events leading up to the conversion

of Clovis may be open to dispute, the significance of this

act is not. On the other hand, however, if it is a fact

generally agreed upon that the baptism of Clovis represented

a major event in the history of the West, this agreement per-

tains primarily to the general event itself and not to the

specific results. Viewing the Works of Christopher Dawson

and Joseph Vogt, both of whom devote a great deal of attention

to the cultural transition and likewise tend to support the

philosophy of the saving school (see Chapter V) we find that

they view the conversion of Clovis as an important step in

15 As noted earlier,

the preservation of the classical culture.
the saving school attributes to the Church a central role in
both the preservation and transference of the classical tra—

dition to the medieval world. As Dawson has put it, "The

only obstacle to block the union between the Roman world and

 

13Bury, The Invasion pf Europe, p. 2H3.

 

1L'Wallace-Hadrill, p. 70. Lot does not agree with
Wallace-Hadrill on this point, only on the events leading up
to it.

15Dawson, p. 9H; Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 266ff.

 

 

182

16 With the

the barbarians was the difference in religion."
conversion of Clovis, not only was an alliance between the
Church and the Frankish kingdom inaugurated, but it ultimate—
ly gave rise to the restoration of the Empire under Charle-
magne.l7 What Dawson and Vogt assert is that with the con-
version of Clovis the preservation of the classical culture

18 Although it is true, says Vogt, that the

was‘guaranteed.
classical literary heritage was corrupted during the latter
days of the Merovingian dynasty, the union that was formed
between the Church and state provided for the maintenance of
the classical tradition.lg
While Dawson and Vogt see in the conversion of Clovis
important cultural repercussions, Ferdinand Lot, J. B. Bury,
and Henrich Fichtenau believe the political consequences of
this event were the most important.20 With his baptism the
Church came to look upon Clovis as a second Constantine which,

in the words of Lot, "...won for the cruel and cunning bar-

barian the sympathy and adoration of the episcopate."21 Having

 

16Dawson, p. 99.

17Ibid.

l8Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms, pp. 280—81: "Viewed as
a whole, these beginnings of Frankish culture confirmed that
the cultural heritage of antiquity was accepted and handed on."
Dawson, pp. 9Hff.

19

 

Vogt, Der Niederganngoms, pp. 280—81.

 

2OLot, p. 318; Bury, The Invasion 9: Europe, pp. 2H0-
u3; Fichtenau, pp. 2—3.

21

 

Lot, p. 318; Fichtenau, p. 2.

183

won the support and favor of the Church, Clovis was free to
advance upon his Arian neighbors with ease. As a result, say
Lot and Fichtenau, the Frankish king rapidly established him-

self as the most powerful monarch in the West.22

Following
his decisive victories over the Burgundians and Visigoths in
506 A. D., it was evident that the whole of Gaul was soon to
fall under the control of the Franks. Lot maintains this ul—
timate conquest of Gaul gave rise to a state more original in
its political orientation and more vigorous in stature than
any of the other barbaric kingdoms that arose out of the dis-
integration of the Roman world.23 Thus, to Lot, Bury and
Fichtenau, the most important result of the conversion of
Clovis was the ultimate unification of Gaul and the unique
political institutions that developed under the hegemony of
the Franks. It is to this political order that attention
must now be given.

The history of the Merovingian kingdom is not easily
reconstructed due to the fact that it does not fit into the
traditional concept of kingdom. Although a number of the
sources which have been examined in the preceeding chapters
have argued that the barbaric kingdoms were modeled after the

Roman government, only a cursory glance soon indicates that

the unsophisticated heirs were incapable of filling such an

 

22Lot, p. 318; Fichtenau, p. 2.

23Lot, p. 318; Fichtenau, p. 2.

184

21+

illustrious mold. As Richard Sullivan has pointed out in

his, Heirs p£_the Roman Empire, "The ambitious monarchical

 

 

regimes of the sixth century were little more than facades

hiding a wide variety of grave political ills."25

Although
the ambitious kings did incorporate into their regimes vari-
ous imperial methods and terminology, as shall soon be evident,

it was more than time alone which separated the Merovingian

kingdom from the period of the Pax Romana.26 Once the ancient

 

facade is rent, what remains is a political order which bears
little resemblance to that of Rome.27
While it is true that within the Germanic territories
of the West monarchy was universal, as Wallace—Hadrill, Moss,
Dannenbauer, Fichtenau, Davis, and others have tried to il-
ustrate, it is bordering on fantasy to equate Clovis and his
successors to a Diocletian or Constantine.28 In contrast to

the Roman order which rested on a rather sophisticated con-

cept of state, law and government, the Frankish rule was a

 

2”Evidence of this can be seen repeatedly in the work
of those who adhere to the continuation thesis. For a good
example see Bury, pp. 251—52.

25

Sullivan, Heirs, p. 39.
26Davis, pp. 111—17; Fichtenau, p. 9; Moss, p. 203.
27Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,

1n5-u7; Lot, pp. 316-22; Sullivan, Heirs, pp. 38-39; Moss,
p. 203; Fichtenau, p. 9; Davis, pp. 111-15.

 

28Dannenbauer, II, lHS-H7; Lot, pp. 316-22; Sullivan,

Heirs, pp. 38-39; Moss, p. 203; Fichtenau, p. 9; Davis, pp.
111—15.

185

personal lordship resting on a military basis.29 The highest
quality which a Frankish king could possess was military prow-
ess and the more ruthlessly he demonstrated this quality, the
more extensive was his authority. In light of this fact there
is some validity in the claims of such men as Wallace-Hadrill,
Davis and Moss, that the Frankish monarchs could more accurate-
ly be styled as "Chieftains" than as kings.30 Clovis actually
ruled over a united Gaul by virtue of conquest and those in-
dividuals who fell under his jurisdiction were treated as
"subjects" not as "citizens." As a number of authorities have
noted, the primary objective of the Merovingian government

was the personal satisfaction of the monarch and the kingdom
existed only for his exploitation.31 The kings treated the
kingdom as their private estate and the subjects, says Dannen—

bauer, "...as sheep to be sheared."32

The concept of public
welfare was not an inherent notion among the Merovingian
monarchs and as a result the kings seldom initiated any collec—
tive programs for the benefit of their subjects. This rather
primitive notion of kinship is in itself enough to suggest to

the cautious scholar that parallels between the late Roman poli-

tical order and the early medieval are, at best, quite tenuous.

 

29Davis, p. 111; Fichtenau, p. 8.

30Wallace—Hadrill, p. 68; Moss, p. 65.

lDannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
196; Sullivan, Heirs, p. H0; Lot, p. 3H7; Moss, p. 202; Davis,
p. 115.

 

32Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,

 

196.

186

Also in contrast to the Roman order stands the primi-
tive administrative machinery employed by the Germanic kings

"33 As Davis, Moss

in their efforts to "exploit the state.
and Lot have pointed out, the highly developed and specialized
bureaucracy which the Romans had used in their administration
of Gaul was replaced in the course of the sixth century by a
body of personal servants who surrounded the king in the form

3”

of chamberlains, seneschals and marshalls. The administra-

tion of the kingdom was thus centered around the king's per—
son and the kingdom itself was run as a personal household.3S
Even the local administration, while bearing some resemblance
to that of Rome, was in practice quite different. One notable
change can be seen in the duties of the count--the officer

in charge of the local affairs in Gaul. In contrast to the
Roman order, the counts did not govern the land by any single

36

law He was charged to judge every subject according to

his own law, Franks by Frankish law, Romans by Roman law, and

Burgundians by Burgundian law.37

This inevitably led to a
considerable amount of confusion in mixed cases. Also in the

imperial administration, military power was always separated

 

33This, of course, is in contrast to those sources
which maintain that the Germans continued to use the Roman in-
stitutions. For examples see, Dawson, p. 95; Vogt, p. 271.

3”Lot, p. 350; Moss, p. 203; Davis, pp. 115—16.

35Davis, p. 116.

36Ibid., p. 117.

37Ibid.

187

from civil lest the military should become abusive. Under the
Merovingians, the count united both in his own person.38 He
functioned as tax collector, judge and commander of the troops
all at the same time. Although a number of the individuals
employed in the local posts were Roman in origin and used
Roman terminology to describe their positions, the nature and
function of the Frankish administration was as alien to the
Roman political order as was their concept of kingship.

While the conquest of Gaul gave birth to a state which
was more original in its political orientation than any of
the other barbaric kingdoms, its policy was too primitive and
administration too tenuous to permit any lasting success.
Strangely enough, it was the reign of Clovis that witnessed
both the origin and zenith of the Merovingian dynasty. The
inherent weaknesses of the Merovingian kingdom were too sub-
stantial to permit an orderly continuation by the frail suc-
cessors of the more capable Clovis. As most of the adherents
to the transitional thesis have pointed out, with the excep-
tion of an occasional capable leader, such as Dagobert (629-
39), the history of the Merovingians is quite bloody.39 In
the words of Moss, "The period immediately following the death
of Clovis was one marred by murder, court intrigues and re-

HO

volt." While Clovis had reigned with absolute authority,

 

38Ibid.

39Davis, p. 111; Moss, p. 193; Sullivan, Heirs, p. 38;
Lot, p. 329; Bark, Origins g: the Medieval World, p. 1n.

quoss, p. 193.

 

 

188

by the end of the seventh century the power of the Merovin—
gian kings had dwindled to nothing.”1
The causes of this decline were certainly numerous,
but primarily the Merovingian kings proved to be incapable of
jettisoning their primitive concept of state. Perpetuating
an ancient Germanic custom, they treated the state as private
property to be divided among the male heirs which in turn led

to constant fraternal wars.’42

As Heinrich Fichtenau has noted,
the century following the death of Clovis witnessed no less
than twenty-nine major feuds among the royal family.”3 Any
hope of stability could be little more than an idle dream as
long as the ruling family was feuding. From the death of
Clovis in 511 A. D. to the reign of Dagobert in 629 A. D., the
kingdom was united only twice and even then it was due more

to fortune than to enlightened leadership.uu As a result of
this barbaric Spirit which continued to prevail among the
Merovingians in the seventh century, it is futile to argue,

as does the continuation school, that there was any signifi-

cant continuation of the Roman political order.”5

 

ulSullivan, Heirs, p. 39; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spgtan-

tike zum Mittelalter, II, 1u7.
uzFichtenau, p. 8; Davis, p. 111; Lot, p. 396; Dannen-
bauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II, 172-75.
”3

 

 

 

Fichtenau, p. 8.

qut was united briefly under Lothar I in 558 A. D. and
under Lothar II in 613; Davis, p. 111.

usDavis, p. 115.

189

The same primitive concepts which saturated the politi-
cal views of the Merovingians can also be found prevailing in
their economic outlook. As was previously demonstrated, the
continuation school believes that the maintenance and admin-
istration of an effective economic order never posed any real
problem for the extremely capable Germans. Yet examining the
facts of the period, it becomes evident that not only were
there little economic resources inherited by the barbarians,
but that which they did inherit soon slipped away as a re-
sult of their inability.”6 To the Franks a treasury was the
personal possession of the monarch and was used for such pur-
poses as to avoid immediate danger or to take revenge.

Such a use of finances as this does not suggest in any form
a high understanding of economic principles.

According to such authorities as Wallace—Hadrill, Bark,
Lot, Moss and others, not only did the Franks illustrate a
profound misconception of the uses of a treasury, but when it
was being rampantly exhausted they showed even less knowledge

of how to replenish it.”8

Within an agrarian society such as
that which existed in the late sixth and seventh centuries,
the land tax constituted the chief source of income. Yet, in
spite of their inheritance of a well organized land tax sys-

tem, the Merovingians proved incapable of maintaining it.”9

 

L"5Moss, p. 65; Lot, p. 351.

”7Bark, p. I”.

l'BBark, p. 1n; Lot, p. 351; Moss, p. 203.
H9

Bark, p. 1H; Lot, p. 351; Moss, p. 203.

190

They made little use of this major source of income and let

it slip away. Wallace—Hadrill maintains that one should not

be surprised by this development. According to this authority,
the barbaric chieftains did not continue the Roman tax be—
cause it was not their customary way of replenishing a trea-

50 The fail—

sury. They much preferred plunder to taxation.
ure of the Merovingians to maintain the tax system proved to
be a fatal blunder, both politically and economically, for it
led inevitably to the impoverishment of the monarchy and a
breakdown of its power.

In addition to the loss of revenue from the land tax,
the Merovingians also suffered economically from the lack of
commercial activity in the seventh century. As was previously
noted (see Chapter III), by the sixth century Western Europe
suffered from a desperate economic depression which had its
origin in the fourth century. As a number of adherents to
the transitional thesis have tried to point out, "While Dio—
cletian and Constantine had been able to restore a sound coin—
age and fix prices, they had been unable, in the midst of
their reforms, to retain an active commercial program."51
In contrast to this view, however, stand the conclusions of
such men as Henri Pirenne and Heinrich Dannenbauer who credit

the Arabs with being responsible for the disruption of East-

West trade. According to Dannenbauer, the commercial exchange

 

SOWallace-Hadrill, p. 81.

51Moss, p. 205.

191

between the Eastern and Western portions of the Mediterranean
continued to thrive throughout the sixth century and it was
not until the Arabs effected their triumph over the East that

52

the trade was ended. Dannenbauer sees in the Arabic victory

an event of vital significance as he maintains it marked the

53 He maintains that it was not

beginning of the Middle Ages.
until the East—West trade was destroyed by the Arabs that the
monarch's last source of revenue was destroyed and in the pro—
cess the nobility was vaulted into a political position super—
ior to the impoverished king.5u While there may not be unani-
mous agreement concerning the cause of the economic duress of
the seventh century, there is a general concensus that it
tended to alter the political order in Gaul as royal authority
began to wane.

The history of the Merovingians in the seventh century
was characterized by a steady decline of royal authority and
a corresponding increase in the power of the aristocracy.5
The results of this transition of power was that there emerged
in Western Europe a unique political and social organization

which sharpely distinguished it from the rest of the Medi—

terranean world. While the details of this transition are

 

52Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
luo-uu; see especially p. luu.

53

 

 

Ibid.

5L'Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
luo-uu.

55Lot, p. 359; Wallace—Hadrill, p. 8”; Sullivan, Heirs,

pp. HO—ul; Fichtenau, pp. lO-ll; Davis, p. 122.

 

 

192

not easily discerned, it can basically be attributed to the
primitive political and economic views of the Merovingians.
For an absolute form of government such as that fostered by
the Merovingians to exist, it must offset its absolutism by
providing society with some measure of constructive programs.
Needless to say, the Frankish kings provided no such services.56
As a result of their failure to provide society with any pub—
lic services there never developed among the general populace
any sense of civic responsibility or national duty. This in
turn meant that the kings had to depend upon fear and rewards
as a means of attracting individuals into the service of the
state. By resorting to measures such as these to maintain
their unstable positions, the kings slowly undermined their
own authority and at the same time enhanced that of the no-
bility.57
The fact of a rising aristocracy, which we have already
seen_gaining prestige in the late Roman Empire, was acceler-
ated under the Germanic kings primarily because the kings
lacked sufficient revenue and political finesse to maintain

58

themselves securely in office. The century of fraternal

 

56Sullivan, Heirs, p. HO; Lot, p. 35H; Davis, p. 122.

7Davis, p. 122; Fichtenau, p. 8; Sullivan, Heirs, p.
u1; Bark, p. 15; Lot, p. 356; Dannenbauer, II, lHO—HZ.

58Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
lHO—M2; Sullivan, Heirs, p. 41; Alexander Bergengruen, Adel
und Grundherrschaft im Merowingerreich (Wiesbaden, 1958), pp.
179—75.

 

 

 

 

 

 

193

wars which had raged in Gaul from the death of Clovis to the
reign of Dagobert had been a tremendous economic burden for
the impoverished monarchs. To maintain an effective army
during this period, especially a cavalry, was a financial in-
vestment which few individuals, including the kings, could

afford.59

With the monetary surplus in Western EurOpe being
almost nil, there was only two ways that a person could main—
tain a core of knights. He could either support them in his
own household, providing them with food, clothing and equip-
ment, or he could give them a landed estate and have them
maintain themselves.60 The latter of the two was the most
popular and is best described as feudal.61 As a result of
the financial hardship involved in maintaining an army, the
kings had but one recourse open to them and that was to turn
to the nobility for assistance. In return for their service
to the monarchs, the nobility was awarded additional grants

of land from the king's personal holdings and the right to

govern its estates in an autonomous fashion.62 Thus, the

 

59Davis, p. 12”.

601bid., pp. 123-2u.

61This particular use of the word "feudal" reveals pri-
marily the legal aspects of the term and is covered in great
detail in the work of the late Marc Bloch. Marc Bloch, Egg—
dal Society, trans., L. A. Manyon (Chicago, 1961). For a
less technical use of the term see F. L. Ganshof's Feudalism
(New York, 1961) which treats feudalism in a political and
social sense.

62Lot, p. 56; Sullivan, Heirs, p. Ml; Fichtenau, p.
10; Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatant1ke zum Mittelalter, II, 152.

 

 

19M

royal authority, once so powerful, was slowly being dissipated.
The kings were no longer the sole source of authority as the
various regions of the kingdome developed their own circle of
powerful magnates to Whom they turned for protection and secur—
ity. As Heinrich Dannenbauer has expressed it, "Was der Konig
verloren hatte, hatte der Adelgewonnen."63
Although the kings took precautions to try and ensure
the loyalty of the nobility, i. e., through the process of
commendation, they were not successful in arresting the am-
bitions of the local lords. Evidence of this can be seen in
the dissipation of royal authority within the various regions
of Gaul. As the power of the kings began to wane, the counts,
who were the royal representatives in the provinces, came more

6” This

and more under the influence of the landed magnates.
develOpment moved with such rapidity in the seventh century
that by 61% A. D., the nobility had come to control these of—
fices altogether. Lothar II, upon his rise to office, agreed
that in the future no count would be appointed without the
approval of the local magnates.65 Thus, the Merovingian kings

had become little more than a faithful servant of their power-

ful followers.

 

 

63Dannenbauer, Vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II,
152.

BuDavis, p. 122; Fichtenau, p. 9; Wallace—Hadrill, pp.
8uff; Lot, p. 358; Bergengruen, pp. 179—75.

65

Fichtenau, p. 9; Davis, p. 122; Lot, p. 358; Bergen-
gruen, pp. l7M—75.

195

The course of Frankish history in the second half of
the seventh century revolved around local politics which
found nobles pitted against nobles and provinces against pro-
vinces. The three areas of greatest activity during this
period were those of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy as they

66 These lo-

each tried to gain dominance over the other two.
cal conflicts have a dual interest for the present work be—
cause it is here that the power of the aristocracy can be
fully realized and it is also here that the final acts of
Merovingian dominance in the West were played out. Strangely
enough, in both cases a leading role was assumed by the kings
highest officials in the West, the mayors of the palace.67 The
position of the mayors had become one of paramount importance
in the seventh century primarily because of the economic fac—
tors that came to surround the post. With the mayors being
entrusted with the supervision of the royal lands and society
resting upon a natural economy, it was only natural for the
power and prestige of this office to mushroom. To fully under—
stand however, how the mayors came to surpass even the kings

in power and authority, their rise must be viewed in light of

the bond which developed between the aristocracy and the mayors.

Throughout the second half of the seventh century there

 

66Fichtenau, p. 11; Wallace—Hadrill, p. 85; Davis, pp.
122-23; Sullivan, Heirs, p. 57; Lot, p. 360; Bergengruen, pp.
180—81.

67Lot, p. 360; Fichtenau, p. 11; Davis, p. 122, Wallace-
Hadrill, p. 89; Sullivan, Heirs, p.57.

196

tvas a perpetual state of war between the nobles of Neustria,
lAustrasia, and Burgundy.68 These were not national wars, but
:rather encounters between associations of nobles. For example,
‘the nobles of Austrasia who had associated themselves with

‘the mayor of the palace of Austrasia were pitted against those
Inobles in Neustria who had associated themselves with the
Jnayor in Neustria. The chief reason for the bond between the
rubbles and the mayors was because at this early date the no—
Iale's rank and position were not yet hereditary and thus the
:support of the mayor was needed to protect their interest.69
'Fhe best way to ensure the support of this important royal
<3fficia1 was to commend oneself to him and become his vassal.
It was through their use of feudal practices that the mayors
soon commanded the loyalty of a large body of knights and in
the process even outstripped the king in power.70 By the be-
ginning of the eighth century the Austrasian mayors had been
so successful in their systematic exploitation of royal lands
and in battle against the other mayors that they were on the
threshold of assuming the crown from the weak Merovingian dyn—
asty. While the bond between the aristocrats and the mayors

played a large part in weakening the authority of the Mero—

vingian kings, these feudal ties would not have been possible

 

68Davis, p. 123; Fichtenau, p. 11; Wallace-Hadrill, p.
84; Lot, pp. 360—63.

69Davis, p. 123.

70Sullivan, Heirs, p. 57; Davis, p. 123; Fichtenau, p.
11; Wallace-Hadrill, p. 85; Bergengruen, pp. 80—81.

 

197

if the Merovingian government had not proved itself inefficient,
unjust and unscrupulous.

With the breakdown of central authority and the stag-
nation of the economy, the populace turned to the country
villa as their means of livelihood and protection.71 Accord—
ing to Marc Bloch, in the early Middle Ages Frankish Gaul was
divided into a large number of villas which he defines as

H

being, ...estates so organized that a large part of the pro-

fits from the soil accrue directly or indirectly to a single

master...."72

Looking briefly at the composition of the villa,
it seems that the land was divided into two distinct parts
which were linked together by close ties of interdependence.

On the one hand there was the "demense" which constituted the
lord's personal holdings and on the other was the mgppi which
were made-up of small plots held by the lord's tenants.73 Al—
though the "demense" was composed of houses, farm-buildings,
forests and arable land, one should be careful not to create

a too compact picture of the lord's holdings. Although there
are no maps to illustrate the exact layout of the "demense,"

it appears that the lord's portion of the estate was usually

divided into several fields which were intermixed with the

 

7lMarc Bloch, Les caracteres originaux de l'histoire

"rurale'francaise (Oslo, 1931), p. 67; LatoucheT—The B1rtfi pf
western—Economy, p. 100; Sullivan, Heirs, p. #2; Dannenbauer,
V6m der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, II, lMu-MS; Moss, p. 205.

7zBloch, p. 67.

 

 

 

 

73Ibid., pp. 67-72.

198

tenant's holdings.7u This arrangement was to assist the ten-
ants who were responsible for tilling the lord's land. Scho-
lars are not altogether certain as to what percentage of the
total estate was given over to the "demense," but it probably
consisted of about one quarter to a half of the arable land.
In dealing with the large estates we are concerned
with some sizeable tracts of land which obviously required a
large labor force. When the need for laborers is viewed in
light of the conditions which existed during the seventh cen-
tury, it is not difficult to understand how it was acquired.
As Marc Bloch has stated, "The unrest, the habitual use of
force, the insecurity which compelled everyone to seek a pro-
tector more powerful than himself and the abuse of power fos-
tered by the absence of government served to draw an ever-in—
creasing throng of peasants into the bonds of the villa."75
In return for his service, the peasant was given protection,
a means of livelihood, and justice.76
As a result of the disruptive elements that were pre-
sent in Gaul during the sixth and seventh centuries, there
emerged a social order which was composed primarily of only
two classes, the landlord and serf. By the end of the seventh

century, life in Western Europe, politically, socially and

economically, was intimately tied to the Private estates.

 

7u1bid.

75Ibid., p. 80.

76Ibid., p. 81.

199

While no one could deny that in comparison to the city—state
structure of the Graeco—Roman world this system was primitive,
it did have a few redeeming features. What the state under

the weak Merovingian kings had been unable to provide for so-
ciety, the more powerful nobles could. In the words of Richard
E. Sullivan, "The powerful nobles, each entrenched in a small
area, could protect and control the population in their imme-

77 Primitive, disunified, and unsophistica-

diate localities."
ted though this new system may have been, it did provide a
basis for the restoration of order.

While the medievalist is justified in presenting early
medieval society as being predominantly agrarian, he must be
careful in the process of not painting too black a picture of
the cities. Although it is true that the cities suffered an
eclipse from the fourth to the seventh century and no longer
held the same significance for society, they did not vanish
altogether. To understand the status of the cities during
the period of Germanic dominance in the West, attention will
be given to the works of Eugene Ewig and Robert Latouche.

Looking first at the work of Ewig, we find that he at-
tributes the survival of the towns to two important factors:

the presence of royal officials and the continuation of reli-

gious activity.78 Concerning the first factor, Ewig maintains

 

77Sullivan, Heirs, p. 92.

78Eugene Ewig, Trier ivaerowingerreich (Trier, 1959),
pp. 80-83; Ewig, "Residence et Capitale dans le haut Moyen
Age," in Early Medieval Society, ed., Sylvia Thrupp (New York,
1967), p. 16%.

 

 

200

that, "...the kings of the early Middle Ages were not nomads
and to present it as a period of itinerant courts is too crude

a formula."79

In developing his thesis that the Germanic
kingdoms were not lacking in royal centers, he asserts that in
the formation of a capital the presence of a royal administra-
tion is more important than the king's presence. Although the
kings spent a great deal of time in their rustic villas, the
presence of the royal representatives was sufficient to main-
tain the royal capital and preserve the political significance
of the cities.80 The second factor which Ewig maintains
helped preserve the cities was the fact that they remained
centers of ecclesiastical activity. The bishops continued
during the seventh century, as in the Empire, to conduct a
rgreat deal of official business from the city. Thus, to Ewig,
the presence of the counts and bishops within the cities pro—
hibited the total annihilation of urban life.81
Robert Latouche would agree with Ewig that the Church
was an important factor in the preservation of the cities,
but he does not see the same importance in the royal adminis—
tration. In his own words, Latouche maintains that, "Religion

and ecclesiastical activity saved the life of a host of cities,

the existence of Which was threatened by Merovingian apathy

 

7gEwig, "Residence et Capitale dans le haut Moyen Age,"
p. 163; Trier im Merowingerreich, p.ffi.

80

 

Ewig, Trier im_Merowingerreich, p. 80.

 

81Ibid., pp. 80—83, 31u—15.

201

and the general stagnation of the economy."82 The reason
Latouche does not attach a great deal of significance to the
Germanic occupation of the cities, is because he believes their
interest was more military than political. "If the barbarians
held on to the cities," says Latouche, "it was because they

‘were strongholds."83

By inheriting the palaces built by the
Roman governors in the capital cities of the provinces, the
barbarians acquired a fortress in times of attack and a store—
'house for the booty taken in wars. According to this authority,
it was not political interest on the part of the kings that
preserved the city, but rather, "...the establishing of bish—
oprics, the building of cathedrals and the exhibition of vener-
albe relics in a sanctuary, which provided the spark that assured

8” Thus, while Latouche is not in

the continuity of the city."
complete agreement with Ewig, it is apparent that the cities
did manage to linger on in the West until the revival of eco—
nomic activity in the tenth and eleventh centuries gave them
a new lease on life. Had this preservation not occurred, the
development of Western Europe would have perhaps been much
slower.

In addition to the role which the Church played in the

preservation of urban life, it also had a major role in the

 

82Latouche, p. 105.

83Ibid.

8L'Ibic1., p. 108.

202

developing of cultural life in the West. As Europe began to
assume an identity unique unto itself, it was obvious from its
agrarian orientation that it was impossible for the old mode
of propagating culture through the cities to continue to func—
tion. With the breakdown of the central government, the re-
sponsibility for this task, as was demonstrated in the pre-
ceding chapter, passed to the more powerful and better organ-
.ized Roman Catholic Church.85 Because of the magnitude of the
‘task, it is beyond the scope of this present work to present
either a detailed analysis of the role which Christianity
‘played in the development of Western Europe or to examine the
vast amount of literature which has been devoted to the issue.
It can be demonstrated, however, in a more general analysis
that the role which the Church assumed in this historical pro—
cess went even further in giving to the West an orientation
and identity which clearly distinguishes it from the rest of
the world. Thus, the primary aim in dealing with the Church
will be to illustrate further that the rise of Western Europe
was neither a continuation of the classical tradition nor the
result of a catastrophic event which brought an end to civi—
lization, but rather an original and uniquely oriented society
which evolved out of an older order which had ceased to func-
tion.

Being confronted with the onerous task of preserving

and stimulating civilization, the Church in the West, during

 

85Bark, p. 110.

203

the seventh century, found itself in a position quite unlike
that of other periods. From the end of the fifth century the
Church in the West could no longer depend upon the support of
a strong government. Thus, the task which befell Christianity
had to be undertaken with the bishops assuming an active role
within the secular life of the West and in the process running

the risk of becoming worldly themselves.86

The clergy was
able to involve itself with political and economic duties only
by neglecting religious responsibilities. The office of the
clergy soon came to possess so much secular authority and
wealth that vicious struggles erupted over the episcopal sees.
The results of these developments were that there emerged a
group of Church officials in the West who were not overly
concerned with Spiritual matters, who were ignorant of the
doctrine's of the Church, and whose personal life was not in
keeping with the expected habits of a priest.87

During this period in which the clergy became secular-
ized as a result of its all too frequent contact with the
world, there were positive developments taking place that
were of extreme importance. As was illustrated earlier in
the above material, the sixth and seventh centuries was a
period in which the kings had little interest in the welfare
of their subjects. Had it not been for the Church, the weak

and helpless would have been totally neglected. The sick

 

86Latouche, p. 89; Sullivan, Heirs, p. nu.

87Sullivan, Heirs, p. H5.

204

would have been uncared for and education practically non-
existent. Without the Church, the conscious of Europe would
have been much slower in awakening to the benevolent duties

of man.88

In addition to the concern which the Church expressed
for the physical welfare of society, it likewise continued
with its spiritual activities among the pagans. As Pierre
Riche and Rolf Sprandel have tried to demonstrate in their
works, it was the missionary efforts of the Irish and Anglo—
Saxon monks that finally civilized the barbarians and estab-
lished in Western Europe what these men call a "religious cul-

89

ture." According to Riche, by the seventh century the Me-

rovingian court had become a center of this religious culture.
The development of this phenomenon in the West, says Riche,

was initiated through the efforts of St. Columban.90

As a
result of St. Columban's spirituality, the Franks were easily

won over by his message and, "...the court then served as a

 

88Daniel-Rops, p. 203; Dawson, p. 180.

89Rolf Sprandel Der merovingische Adel (Freiburg, 1957),
pp. 14-19; Pierre Rich , "Les Foyers de culture en Gaule
franeque du VIe au IXe siecle," in Early Medieval Society,
ed., Sylvia Thrupp (New York, 1967), p. 230; Dafiiel-Rops, p.
230; Dawson, p. 174; Bark, p. 110. Bark advances a thesis
which presents the missionary endeavors of the Church as a
pioneering adventure. While the technique employed by Bark
does point-up the superior technological abilities of the
monks, this desire to create frontiers for the monks to con-
quer tends to diminish their most important task, that of con-
verting the pagans and improving spiritual life.

 

90Riche, p. 230; sprandel, pp. 14—22.

205

relay station to spread the ideas of the Irish monks."91 It
was through the efforts of these men that a spiritual revival
spread to the whole of Gaul. By 640 A. D., there had emerged
in the Merovingian kingdom, a network of monasteries based up-
on the Benedictine Rule and aimed at developing a religious
culture. Riche stresses the point that what emerged in Europe
during the seventh century was a religious culture and not

humanistic.92

The monasteries created by the Irish monks were
instructing their followers in spiritual matters and asceticism,
not the liberal arts. In the second half of the seventh cen—
tury the Irish monks were joined in their missionary efforts
by the Anglo-Saxons and the two working jointly made possible
the creation of new cultural centers throughout Europe. So
significant were the efforts of these missionaries that Riche
maintains by the end of the seventh century, Europe was al—
ready approaching the "Carolingian Renaissance."g3
Although the missionary endeavors of the Church pro-
duced fruitful results in the seventh century, they have often
been criticized by Protestant historians for the methods which

were employed.9u Using the conversion of Clovis as a guide,

the missionaries would concentrate their energies upon the

 

91Riche, p. 230; Sprandel, pp. 1u—22.

'
92Riche, pp. 230—32.

931bid., pp. 232—33.

9”Philip Schaff, History pf the Christian Church, IV,
(New York, 1894), p. 18.

206

leaders of the various pagan groups which in turn meant if
'the leader could be converted his followers would join him in
the waters of baptism. While it is true that the methods em-
jployed by the Church could be termed as "Wholesale conversion"
and that the conversion usually resulted in little change of
life, such a criticism tends to overlook a more significant
factor.95 It was these missionaries working in remote areas
that were able to breakdown the barbarism of the invaders and
provide Western Europe with a common element around which it
could rally. It was primarily through the efforts of the
missionaries that Western Europe began to spread and develop.
The presence of a common, unifying element which had been lost
in the disruption of the Roman city-state was being restored
in the form of Christianity and the Roman Church.

While the material presented above has only touched
upon the major trends of the Merovingian period, it is siffi-
cient for us to conclude that those schools of thought which
present the early Middle Ages as either a continuation of the
classical order or as a "dark age" unworthy of scholarly at—
tention are not sufficient to describe the true conditions of
the age. It is true that monarchy was universal in the West
during the post invasion period, but it was not of the Roman
variety. It was so weak, disorganized and primitive that any

comparison to Rome is futile. The most vital element of po—

litical authority during this period rested not with a king

 

gsSchaff, p. 18.

207

and his court, but rather with the more powerful nobility.

It was only at the hands of the nobles that society received
the peace and protection which the state could no longer pro-
vide. Economically, the story is the same. With the disrup-
tion of trade and the breakdown of direct taxation, the West
came to depend for its material existence upon the self-suffi—
cient manor. While there may have existed a very limited
traffic in luxury items, for the basic necessities of life
man had to rely upon his own resources and individual ability.
Even in the intellectual life, as was demonstrated in Chapter
Five, there was a significant alteration. While there did
remain a residue of classical culture in the intellectual
activity of the West, the Church and monastic scholars had
inevitably selected those aspects of classical culture that
suited their religious and moral convictions. Yet, even with-
in this politically disorganized, economically impoverished
and culturally barbaric world there developed a newly oriented
way of life that provided a basis for unity and action. As

we have seen illustrated above, there was developing during
this period a Christian culture that served to influence and
direct both the physical and spiritual needs of society. As

a result of the multifarious duties assumed by the Church
during the seventh century, there developed a way of life in
the West which provided the hope, meaning and possibility for
individual action and participation which had been lost in the

decline of the Roman Empire.

In closing there is one additional comment which should

208

be made concerning the methodology of this particular chapter.
'Ehe careful reader has probably been able to detect that the
‘treatment of the sources in this chapter has not been in keep-
ing with the basic organization of the work as a whole. The
reason for this alteration in methodology is because there

do not exist any works which offer a definitive study of
Merovingian history. Neither the catastrophic, continuation
nor transitional schools have been really interested in the
Merovingian age and this lack of interest has been reflected
in the fact that there still does not exist an adequate syn—
thesis of the period. Although a great deal has been written
on the Merovingians, it has been devoted primarily to specific
problems and not to total coverage. Thus, a history of the
Merovingians which looks at the period in its own right in—
stead of from the perspective of the fall of classical civi-

lization is yet to be written.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION

As we come to the end of this project which has touched
upon six centuries of historiography and six centuries of
actual historical events, perhaps the most valuable conclu—
sion that can be derived from such a study as this is that
the present should not worship nor be dominated by the shrines
of past history. True historical study involves a double op—
eration of both raising questions and seeking answers. The
success and usefulness of history rests with the historian
who seeks his answers by a systematic method, carefully pro—
bing and free from blinding prejudices. The dangers that are
engendered when a scholar is dominated by the past can be
seen in the works of both the "barbarization" and "continua—
tion" schools. As the preceeding pages have tried to demon—
strate, the "barbarization" school, having succumbed to the
brillance of classical civilizations, was incapable of ren-
dering an impartial evaluation of the early Middle Ages, while
the "continuation" school, operating under a linear concept
of history, was primarily concerned with discovering the vari—
ous links which connected the Middle Ages to the late Empire.

The beginning of the Middle Ages to a scholar who has

lost the ability to probe carefully his material and has

209

210

succumbed to the forces of blind prejudices, was a catastro-
phic event heralded by the onslaught of external forces, 1. e.,
barbarism and Christianity, and characterized by the destruc-
tion and replacement of a superior civilization by an inferior
way of life. As the present work has tried to demonstrate,
individuals who adhere to such an interpretation stand as a
man who, "...sees through a glass darkly..." failing to con—
ceive the fatal internal maladies plaguing the ancient world.
The magnitude of the political, social and economic problems
which confronted the Empire passed unnoticed by the "barbari—
zation" school and without recognition of these internal weak-
nesses it is impossible to render an adequate analysis of the
nature and significance of the early Middle Ages.

While the "barbarization" school was concerned pri—
marily with showing the vastness of the chasm which separated
the rational world of antiquity from the ignorance and super-
stition of the Middle Ages, the "continuation" school main-
tains that no break occurred between late antiquity and the
Middle Ages and as a result of this view expended a great deal
of time and energy constructing threads of unity between the
two periods. For the members of the "continuation" school,
the garment ofClio is truly a seamless webb. It is not dif-
ficult to understand how the theory of continuity became so
popular for it links the present in a chain with the great
men of the past. It makes us partakers in the greatness of
Rome and Athens; defendants, so to speak, of the Hellenic cul—

ture and the Roman Empire. Thus, to the "continuation" school

211

the Middle Ages stand as the key link between the classical
and western culture. Such an analysis as this raises the
Middle Ages to a new dignity, providing the highest justifi—
cation for their intensive study through the sense of unbro-
ken purpose which it engenders.

One of the underlying assumptions of the "continuation"
school and one which is basic to its thought, involves the
notion that the torch of civilization is constantly passed
from one cultural group to another. Consider for example
the idea that the foundation of Western thought and letters
has been handed down in unbroken succession from Rome. While
at first glance such a theory as this seems possible, a closer
examination of the late Empire will prove otherwise. As has
been illustrated in the text of this work, by the third cen—
tury what is known as the classical tradition had fallen into
decay. The once admirable spirit of rational inquiry, so
vigorous six centuries earlier, had given way to superstition
and mystery cults. The creative literary activity was lost
and the arts were in a state of decline. Even the city-state,
which can be termed as the physical embodiment of the classi—
cal spirit, was vanishing. The cosmopolitan society of the
ancient world with its sophisticated political structure and
diverse economic system, was yielding, at least in the Western
portion of the Empire, to small agrarian communities bound by
local horizons, governed by local lords and dependent for
their existence upon a couple inches of top—soil and a regu—

lar rain fall. The ancient world, by the third century, was

212

falling into decay and with it the classical tradition was be—
coming extinct.

One of the primary points which this present work has
tried to demonstrate is that the external stimulus exerted
upon one civilization by another does not mean there was a
passing on of an inheritance. The driving force in any civ-
ilization comes from within that particular civilization; the
spirit is within. It is the contention of this work that
each civilization is inspired by a different spirit and each
pursues different goals. It is for this reason that the his—
torian who is concerned primarily with constructing lines of
continuity or comparing one civilization to another may soon
find himself in perilous waters. In the final analysis the
historian may find it much more profitable to seek to deter-
mine what a particular civilization set out to achieve, how
they tried to achieve it, and why they failed than to view
the past as unbroken chain of events. It is only through
such an approach as this that an adequate analysis of the na-

ture and significance of a particular age can be rendered.

BIBLIOGRAPHY,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

A number of works are available which deal with the
development of historiography in general, but few are distinc—

tively better than Harry Elmer Barnes, A History p£_Historical

 

Writing (Norman, 1938); Eduard Feuter, Geschichte der neuren

 

Historioghraphie (Munchen, 1911); or The Develppment g: Histori-

 

 

ography (Port Washington, 1954) by Matthew A. Fitzsimon, Alfred
G. Pundt and Charles E. Nowell. More specialized work, how—
ever, can be found in J. B. Black, Thg_App_p£_History (New
York, 1926) which deals with eighteenth century historiography,

and G. P. Gooch, Histopy and Historians ip the Nineteenth

 

 

 

Century (New York, 1913). In regards to the nineteenth cen-
tury scholarship, the student may also find Emory Neff, The
Poetry gf_History (New York, 1947) helpful.

Still unsurpassed in English on "humanism and histori-

cal writing" is W. K. Ferguson, The Renaissance ip Historical

 

 

Thought (New York, 1948). This work can be supplemented,

however, by Myron P. Gilmore, The World pleumanism (New York,

 

1952); Federico Chabod, Machiavelli and the Renaissance (Lon-

 

don, 1958) and Ferdinand Schevill, A_History 9: Florence (New
York, 1936). Karl F. Strohecker, Germanetum und Spatantike

(Zurich, 1965) also presents some interesting comments on the
humanist's view of the Middle Ages. A more specialized anal—

ysis of the subject can be found in Paul Joachimsen,

213

214

Geschichtsauffassung und Geschichtsschreibung im Deutschland

 

 

unter der Einfluss des Humanismus (Berlin, 1910) and A. A.

 

Tilley, The Literature pf the French Renaissance (New York,

 

 

1904).
For ecclesiastical historical writing during the Re—
formation and Counter—Reformation, Preserved Smith, The Age

pf_the Reformation (New York, 1920); Emil Menke-Gluckert, Die

 

Geschichtsshreibung der Reformation und Gegenreformation

 

(Leipzig, 1912); J. M. Headley, Luther's View p£_Church His-

 

 

tory (Cambridge, 1963); and A. C. McGiffert, Protestant

 

Thought before Kant (New York, 1915) are good supplements to

 

the general works on historiography listed above. The student

will also find quite helpful, Martin Luther, Luther's Work,

 

Vol. XLI; ed., James Atkinson (55 vols.; Philadelphia, 1955-

67); Philip Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine, ed., Clyde

 

Manschreck (Oxford, 1965); Flacius, Correspondence pf Matthew

 

Parker, eds., John Bruce and Thomas Perowne (Cambridge, 1883),

and Hippolyte Delehaye, S. J., The Works p£_the Bollandists,

 

 

trans., V. M. Crawford (New York, 1907) in understanding both
the Protestant and Catholic views of the Middle Ages.
From the vast number of scholars writing in the eight—

eenth century, Voltaire's, Annals pf the Empire and General

 

History, Vols. XXIV and XXXI of The Works pf Voltaire, ed.,

 

E. L. Dumont (58 vols.; New York, 1801) along with Edward

Gibbon, The Decline and Fall 2: the Roman Empire, ed., J. B.

 

 

Bury (5th ed.; London, 1923); Montesquieu, Esprit d3 Lois

ed., J. P. Prichard (London, 1914); and Jean—Jacques Rousseau,

215

Emile 93 d3 1'Education (Paris, 1939) are excellent represen-
tatives of the age. In understanding the significance of
these four men in the development of historiography, the
reader will be greatly assisted by Ferdinand Schevill, Six
Historians (Chicago, 1956); F. E. Manuel, Thp_Agg 9: Reason

(New York, 1951); Romain Rolland, French Thought ip_the Eight—

 

 

eenth Century (New York, 1953); J. M. Brumfitt, Voltaire:

Historian (Oxford, 1957) and F. C. Green, Jean-Jacques Rous—

 

§ggg (Cambridge, 1955).

The historical literature of the nineteenth century
was dominated by the romanticists and nationalists. In ad—
dition to the general works on historiography already cited
evidence of the style and thought employed by these two schools
of thought can be found in Jules Michelet, History pf France,
trans., G. H. Smith (2 vols.; New York, 1857) and E. A. Free—
man's, History pf the Norman Copquest 9: England (Oxford,
1867—69). Also from the nineteenth century there emerged a
number of historical works which had been influenced by con-
temporary scientific advancement. W. E. H. Lecky, History

pf European Morals (New York, 1894) and Otto Seeck, Geschichte

 

des Untergang der antiker Welt (6 vols.; Berlin, 1891-1920)

 

reveal the influence which the biological theory of evolution
had upon sociological writing. In addition to the advance-
ments listed above, the nineteenth century also holds an im—
portant place in the development of critical historical
scholarship. At the pinnacle of this development stands,

Leopold von Ranke's, History pf the Latin and Teutonic Nations,

 

 

216

1494-1514 (London, 1915).

 

The medieval literature of the twentieth century can
be divided into two general classifications. The first group,
which maintains that the early Middle Ages were characterized
primarily by a continuation of the classical tradition, is

represented by such works as, Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and

 

Charlemagne (New York, 1939); Heinrich Dannenbauer, Die Ent-

 

stehung Europas vom der Spatantike zum Mittelalter (2 vols;

Stuttgart, 1959); Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Welt

 

(Stuttgart, 1958); Alphons Dopsch, Economic and Social Foun—

 

dations pbeuropean Civilization (New York, 1937) and Joseph

 

Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms (Zurich, 1965). In opposition to

 

this view of the continuation of the classical tradition are

such works as Ferdinand Lot, The End prthe Ancient World and

 

the Beginning pf the Middle Ages (New York, 1931); H. St. L.

 

 

B. Moss, The Birth pf the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1935); Otto

 

 

 

Seeck, Geschchte des Untergangs der antiker Welt (Berlin,

 

1910); Kurt Pfister, Der Untepgang der antiker Welt (Leipzig,

 

1941) and William C. Bark, Origins p: the Medieval World

 

(Stanford, 1958). On the question of the transition from
antiquity to the Middle Ages in general, Paul E. Hubinger's
Zur Frage der Periodergrenze zwischen Altrtum und Mittelalter
(Darmstadt, 1968) which covers the major schools of thought
in Germany from the late nineteenth century to the present,
is exceptionally valuable.

In developing the "transitional" thesis for the early

Middle Ages, the twentieth century writers deliberate at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217

(nonsiderable length upon the various institutions of antiquity
aand the Middle Ages. Concerning the economic institutions,
in addition to the six previously listed works, valuable in-

ssight is to be_gained from M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and

 

iEconomic History pf the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926); Robert
Latouche, The Birth p£_Western Economy, trans., E. M. Wilkin-

son (New York, 1961); Gunnar Mickwitz, Geld und Wirtschaft im

 

romischen Reich des vierten Jahrhundert (Helsungfers, 1923);
Johannes Sundwall, Westromische Studien (Berlin, 1915), and
Solomon Katz, IE§.£EE§ ip the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms
g£_Spain and Gaul (Cambridge, 1937). For detailed information
concerning the role of the merchants in the early Middle Ages,
the works of Norman H. Baynes, "The Decline of Roman Power in

Western EurOpe," The Journal 9: Roman Studies, XXXIII (1943)

 

pp. 29-35; H. St. L. B. Moss, "Economic Consequences of the
Barbarian Invasions," Economic History Review, VII (1937),
206-16; and Archibald Lewis, Naval Power and Trade 12,322
Mediterranean, A. D. 500—1100 (Princeton, 1951) are excellent.
Concerning the social transition, Samuel Dill, Rpmgp

Society ip the Last Century p£_the Roman Empire (London, 1905)

 

is dated, but still useful. Also quite useful on this subject

are F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration

 

ip the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926); A. H. M. Jones, The

Late Roman Empire, 1, (Oxford, 1964); A. E. R. Boak, Manpower

Shortage and the Fall p£_the Empire (Ann Arbor, 1955); Moses

 

I. Finley, "Manpower Shortage," The Journal pf Roman Studies,

 

 

XLVIII (1958) 156-64; M. Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte

 

218

(has romischer Kolonates (Berlin, 1910); and J. S. Reid, Mppif
<3ipalities pf the Roman Empire (New York, 1913).

A comprehensive treatment of the intellectual and cul—
‘tural history of the transition period can be found in H. 0.

‘Taylor, The Classical Heritage pf the Middle Ages (New York,

 

1901); David Knowles, The Evolution p£_Medieva1 Thought (New

 

'York, 1962); R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage (New York,

1954); Christopher Dawson, The Making pf Europe (New York,

 

1932); Joseph Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms (Zurich, 1965); Richard
E. Sullivan, "Some Influences of Monasticism on the Fourth
and Fifth Centuries," Studies ip_Medieva1 Culture, II, (Western
Michigan University, 1966), 19-34; and E. K. Rand, Founders
2f the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1929).

In reference to the general conditions prevailing in
Western Europe after the Germanic invasions, Richard E. Sulli-

van presents in his Heirs pf the Roman Empire (Ithaca, 1960)

 

a very lucid account. For additional detail on the post—in-
vasion period, this work can be supplemented by, R. H. C.
Davis, A History g£_Medieval Europe from Constantine £3 Sp.

Louis (London, 1957); J. M. Wallace—Hadrill, The Barbarian

 

West, 400—1000 A, 2. (London, 1952); Marc Bloch, Les caracteres

 

originaux g3 l'historie rurale Francaise (Oslo, 1931); Marc
Bloch, Feudal Society, trans., L. A. Manyon (Chicago, 1961);

Eugen Ewig, Trier im Merowingerreich (Trier, 1954); Eugen

 

Ewig, "Residence et Capitale dans le haut Moyen Age," in
Early Medieval Society, ed. Sylvia Thrupp (New York, 1967),

163—73; Pierre Riche, Education g: Culture dans l'Occident

 

 

219

barbare, VIe—VIIIe siecles (Paris, 1962); Pierre Riche, "Les
Foyers de culture en Gaule franque du VIe au IXe siecle," in
EaIJy'Medieval Society, ed. Sylvia Thrupp (New York, 1967),

221—236; Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical

Culture (New York, 1957); Etienne Gilson, History pf_Christian

 

Philosophy ip_the Middle Ages (New York, 1955); M. L. W.
Laistner, Thought and Letters ip_Western Europe (Ithaca, 1931);
Rolf Sprandel, Der Merovingische Adel (Freiburg, 1951); and
.Alexander Bergengruen, Adel und Grundherrschaft im’Merowin-
gerreich (Wiesbaden, 1958).

Since the ecclesastical affairs loom so large in the
history of the early Middle Ages, they should be carefully
noted by the student. The writings of Henri Daniel—Rops, Th3
Church ip the Dark Ages (New York, 1959); Philip Schaff,
History p£_the Christian Church, IV (New York, 1894); Philip

Hughes, A History pf the Church (3 vols.; New York, 1935-47)

 

Vols., II—IIIgive an interesting synthesis of the importance
of the Church in the Middle Ages. Also helpful is the more

Specialized work of Cuthbert Butler, Benedictine Monachism

 

(New York, 1962).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, F. F. Roman Political Institutions. Boston, 1911.

Abbott, F. F. and A. C. Johnson. Municipal Administration ip
the Roman Empire. Princeton, 1926.

 

 

.Artz, F. B. The Mind 9: the Middle Ages. 3rd ed., New York,
1962.

 

 

Aubin, Hermann. "Die Frage nach der Scheide zwischen Altertum
und Mittelalter," Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXII
(1951) 245—63.

 

Vom Altertum zum Mittelalter. Munchen, 1949.
Auchmuty, James Johnston. Lecky. London, 1945.

Bark, William C. Origins 9§_the Medieval World. Stanford,
1958.

 

Baynes, Norman H. "The Decline of Roman Power in Western

Europe." The Journal p£_Roman Studies, XXXIII (1943),
29—35.

 

 

Beloch, J. "Der Verfall der antiken Cultur," Historische Zeit-
Schrift, LXXXIV (1900), 1-38.

 

Bergengruen, Alexander. Adel und Grundherrschaft im
Merrowingerreich. Wiesbaden, 1958.

 

Black, J. B. The Art 9: History. New York, 1962.

Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society, trans., L. A. Manyon. Chicago,
1961.

 

Les caracteres originaux d3 l'histoire rurale
FrancaiSe. Oslo, 1931.

 

 

"The Rise of the Dependent Cultivation and Seignorial
Institutions," Cambridge Economic History, I (1914)
235—89.

 

Boak, Arthur E. R. Manpower Shortage and the Fall pf the
Empire. Ann Arbor, 1955.

 

Bolgar, R. R. The Classical Heritage. New York, 1954.

 

221

Brumfitt, J. M. Voltaire: Historian. Oxford, 1957.

 

Burr, G. L. "How the Middle Ages Got Their Name," American
Historical Review, XX (1915), 813-14.

 

Bury, J. B. The Invasion pf Europe by the Barbarians. London,
1927.

 

 

The Late Roman Empire from the Death pf_Theodosius
I £p_the Death pf Justinian (A. D. 395 to A. D. 565).
2 vols.; London, 1923.

 

 

 

Butler, Cuthbert. Benedictine Monachism. New York, 1962.

 

Chabod, Federico. Machiavelli and the Renaissance. London,
1958.

 

Cochrane, Charles N. Christianity and Classical Culture: A
Study pf Thought and Action from Augustus pp Augustine.
Toronto, 1942.

 

 

Collingwood, R. G. The Idea pf History. Oxford, 1946.

Coulton, G. G. The Medieval Scene. New York, 1931.

 

Crombie. A. C. Augustine pp Galileo: The History pf Science
400-1650. London, 1952.

 

 

Daniel—Rops, Henri. The Church ip the Dark Ages. New York,
1959.

 

 

 

Dannenbauer, Heinrich. Die Entstehung Europas vom der
Spatantiker zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1959.

 

 

 

. Die Entstehung Europas: Grundlagen der Mitter—
alterlichen Welt. Stuttgart, 1958.

 

 

Davis, R. H. C. A_History pf_Medieval Europe. New York, 1957.

Davis, William S. The Influence 9£_Wealth in Imperial Rome.
New York, 1910.

 

 

Dawson, Christopher. The Making pf Europe. New York, 1957.

 

Delehaye, Hippolyte, S. J. The Works pf the Bollandists,
trans., V. M. Crawford. New York, 1907.

 

 

Dill, Samuel. Roman Society ip the Last Century pf the Roman
Empire. London, 1905.

 

 

 

Dopsch, Alphons. "Agrarian Institutions of the Germanic King-
dom from the Fifth to the Ninth Century," Cambridge
Economic History, I (1941), 171-200.

 

 

222

Economic and Social Foundations pf European Civili—
zation. New York, 1937.

 

 

"Vom Altertum zum Mittelalter: Das Kontinuitats,"
Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, XVI (1926), 159—82.

 

Emerton, E. Introduction to the Middle Ages 375—814. Boston,
1888. _—

 

 

"The Periodization of History," Massachusetts
Historical Society Proceeding (Oct. 1918), 55-69.

"The Religious Environment of Early Christianity,"
Harvard Theological Review, III (1910), 181-208.

Ewig, Eugen, "Residence et Capitale daus 1e haut Moyen Age,"
in Early Medieval Society, ed., Sylvia Thrupp. New
York, 1967, pp. 163-173.

Trier im_Merowingerreich. Trier, 1954.

 

Ferguson, W. K. The Renaissance in Historical Thought. New
York, 1948.

 

 

Ferrero, G. The Ruin p£_the Ancient World and the Triumph p:
Christ1an1ty. New York, 1921.

 

Fichteanu, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire, trans., Peter
Munz. Oxford, 1957.

 

Finley, Moses I. "Manpower Shortage," The Journal pf Roman
Studies, XLVIII (1958), 154—64.

 

Fitzsimon, Matthew H.; Pundt, Alfred; and Charles E. Nowell.

The Development g£_Historiography. Port Washington,
1959.

 

Flacius. Correspondence p£_Matthew Parker, eds., John Bruce
and Thomas Perowne. Cambridge, 1883.

 

 

Freeman, E. A. History p£_the Norman Conquest pf England.
Oxford, 1867.

 

Fueter, Eduard. Geschichte der Neueren Historiographie.
Munchen, 1911.

 

Ganshof, F. S. Feudalism, trans., Philip Grierson. New York,
1961.

 

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed.,

J. B. Bury. 5th ed.; 7 vols.; London, 1897-1902.

 

 

Gilmore, Myron P. The World pf Humanism. New York, 1952.

 

223

Gilson, Etienne. History pf Christian Philosophy ip_the
Middle Ages. New York, 1955.

 

Gooch, G. P. History and Historians ip the Nineteenth Century.
New York, 1913.

 

Grabar, Andre and Carl Nordenfalk. Earlnyedieval Painting,
trans., Stuart Gilbert. New York, 1957.

 

Green, F. C. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Cambridge, 1955.

Gutschmid, Alfred von. Die Grenze zwischen Altertum und
Mittelalter. Berlin, 1863.

Hardy, Edward R. The Largprstates pf Byzantine Egypt. New
York, 1931.

 

Headley, J. M. Luther's View 9£_Church History. Cambridge,
1963.

 

Hodgkin, Thomas. "The Fall of Rome," Contemporary Review,
LXXIII (1898), 51-71.

 

Italy and Her Invaders. 8 vols.; Oxford, 1885—99.

Hofbauer, Sylvester. Die Ausbuildung der grossen Groundherr-
schafter i3 ReiChe der Merowinger. Vienna, 1927.

 

Hughes, Philip. A_History pf the Church. 3 vols.; New York,
1935~47. Vols., II-III.

 

Joachimsen, Paul. Geschichtsauffassung und Geschichtsschreibung
im_DeutSchland unter der Einfluss des Humanismus.
Berlin, 1910.

 

Jones, A. H. M. The Decline p: the Ancient World. London,
1966.

 

The Late Roman Empire, 284—602. 3 vols.; Oxford,
1964.

Katz, Solomon. The Decline 9: Rome and the Rise pf Medieval
Europe. Ithaca, 1955.

 

The Jews i2 the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms
9: Spain and Gaul. Cambridge, 1937.

Knowles, David. The Evolution 9: Medieval Thought. New York,
1962.

 

 

 

Kornemann, Ernst. Romische Geschichte. 2 vols.; Stuttgart,
1963.

 

224

Gestalten und Reiche. Leipzig, 1943.

 

 

Laistner, M. L. W. Thought and Letters ip_Western Europe.
Ithaca, 1931.

 

 

Latouche, Robert. The Birth gf_Western Economy, trans., E.
M. Wilkinson. New York, 1961.

 

 

Lecky, William Edward Hartpole. History p£_European Morals.
New York, 1894.

 

LeClercq, Jean. The Love 9£_Learning and the Desire for God.
New York, 1960.

 

Lewis, Archibald. Naval Power and Trade ip_the Mediterranean
A. D. 500—1000. Princeton, 1951.

 

 

LOpez, Robert S. "Mohammed and Charlemagne: A Revision,"
Speculum, XVIII (1943), 14—38.

Lot, Ferdinand. The End pf the Ancient World and the Beginning
9: the Middle Ages. New York, 1931.

 

 

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, ed., James Atkinson. 55 vols.;
Philadelphia, 1966. V01. XLI.

 

Machiavelli, Nicole. Florentine History, trans., W. K.
Marriott. London, 1909.

 

Marrazino, Santo. The End pf the Ancient World. London,
1966.

 

Manuel, F. E. The Age 2: Reason. New York, 1951.

McGiffert, A. C. Protestant Thought before Kant. New York,
1915.

 

Mcllwain, C. H. "The Historian's Part in a Changing World,"
American Historical Review, XLII (1937), 207—24.

 

Melanchthon, Philip. Op Christign Doctrine, ed., Clyde
Manschreck. Oxford, 1965.

 

Menke—Gluckert, Emil. Die Geschichtsschreibung der Reformation

 

und Gegenreformation. Leipzig, 1912.

 

Meyer, Eduard. Geschichte des Altertum. 5 vols.; Stuttgart,
1884. Vol. I.

 

. Die Wiertschaftliche Entwickelung des Altertum.
Jena, 1895.

 

 

225

Michelet, Jules. History pf France, trans., G. H. Smith.
2 vols.; New York, 1857.

Mickwitz, Gunnar. Geld und Wirtschaft im romischen Reich des
vierten Jahrhundert. Helsungfers, 1932.

 

 

 

Momigliano, A. Cassiodorus and Italian Culture pf His Time.
London, 1955.

 

 

Mommensen, Theodor. "St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of
Progress," Journal p£_the Historypf Ideas, XII
(1951), 346-74.

 

Montesquieu. Considerations on the Causes pf the Greatness
p£_the Romans and their Decline, trans., David
Lowenthal. New York, 1965.

 

 

 

 

Esprit d3 Lois, ed., J. P. Prichard. London, 1914.

Moss, H. St. L. B. The Birth pf the Middle Ages. Oxford,
1935.

 

 

"The Economic Consequences of the Barbaric Inva—
Sions," Economic History Review, VIII (1936), 209—17.

 

Neff, Emory. The Poetry pf History. New York, 1947.

 

Ostrogorsky, Georg. "Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine
Empire in the Middle Ages," Cambridge Economic History,
I (1941). 205-34.

 

Parker, Matthew. Correspondence 9: Matthew Parker, ed., John
Bruce and Thomas Perowne. Cambridge, 1853.

 

 

Perowne, Stewart. The End 9: the Roman World. New York,

 

 

1967.

Pfister, Kurt. Der Unterggng der antiken Welt. Leipzig,
1941.

Pirenne, Henri. Economic and Social History 9: Medieval

 

Europe. New York, 1937.

Medieval Cities. Princeton, 1925.

 

Mohammed and Charlemagne. New York, 1939.

 

Powers, Eilen. "Review of Pirenne's Mohammed and Charlemagne,"
Economic History Review, X (1939), 60-62.

 

Rand, E. K. Founders p£_the Middle Ages. Cambridge, 1929.

 

Ranke, Leopold von. History pf the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
1494-1514, trans., G. R. Dennis. London, 1915.

 

 

226

History pi the Pppes, trans., Sarah Austin. 3 vols.;
London, 18u0. Vol. II.

 

. Universal History, ed., G. W. Prothero. New York,
1885.

 

Reid, J. S. Municipalities pi the Roman Empire. New York,
1913.

 

 

Riche, Pierre. Education pi Culture dans l'Occident barbare,
VIe—VIIIe siecles. Paris, 1962.

 

 

Riising, Ann. "The Fate of Henri Pirenne's Thesis," Classica
pi Medievalia, XIII (1952), 87-130.

 

Rolland, Romain. French Thought ip the Eighteenth Century.
New York, 1953.

 

 

Rostovtzeff, M. "The Decay of the Ancient World and its
Economic Explanation," Economic History Review, II
(1929), 200—07.

 

The Social and Economic History pi the Roman ig—
pire. Oxford, 1926.

 

 

Studien zur Geschichte des Romicher Kolonates.
Leipzig,*I910.

 

 

 

Rousseau, Jean—Jacques. Correspondence Generale, ed.,
Theophile Dufour. 19 vols.; Paris, 192H-3H. Vol. XIX.

 

Emile pp pp 1'Education. Paris, 1939.

 

 

Schaff, Philip. History pi the Christian Church. 8 vols.;
New York, 1868-1895. Vol. IV.

 

Schevill, Ferdinand. A History pi Florence. New York, 1936.

Six Historians. Chicago, 1956.

 

Schnurer, Gustave. Church and Culture ip the Middle Ages,
trans., George J. Undreiner. Paterson, 1956.

 

 

Seeck, Otto. Geschichte des Untergangs der antiker Welt. 6
vols.; Berlin, 1891-1920.

 

Sellery, G. C. and A. C. Brey. Medieval Foundations pi West—
ern Civilization. New York, 1929.

 

 

Stein, Ernst. Geschichte des Spatromischei Reiches. 2 vols.;
Wien, 1928.

 

Simlovitch, V. G. "Rome's Fall Reconsidered," Political
Science Quarterly, XXXI (1916), 201—H3.

 

 

227

Smith, Preserved. The Age of the Reformation. New York,
1920.

Sombart, Werner. "Economic Theory and Economic History,"
Economic History Review, II (1929), 1-9.

 

Sprandel, Rolf. Der Merovingische Adel. Freiburg, 1957.

 

Sullivan, Richard E. "The Carolingian Missionary and the
Pagan," Speculum, XXVIII (1953), 705—H0.

. "Early Medieval Missionary Activity: A Comparative
Study of Eastern and Western Methods," Church History,
XXIII (195”), 17-35.

 

Heirs pi the Roman Empire. Ithaca, 1960.

 

 

"Some Influences of Monasticism on the Fourth and
Fifth Centuries," Studies ip_Medieval Culture, II,
Western Michigan UniverSity, 1966, pp. 19—34.

 

Sundwall, Johannes. Westromische Studies. Berlin, 1915.

 

Taylor, H. O. The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages.
New York, 1901.

Thorndike, Lynn. .A History pi Medieval Europe. New York,
1917.

Tilley, A. A. The Literature pi the French Renaissance. New
York, 1909.

 

Thrupp, Sylvia, ed., Early Medieval Society. New York, 1967.

Vinogradoff, Paul. "Social and Economic Conditions of the
Roman Empire in the Fourth Century," in Cambirdge
Medieval Histppy, I (1929), 592-66.

 

 

Vogt, Joseph. Constantin der Grosse. Munchen, 1960.

 

Der Niedergang Roms. Zurich, 1965.

 

Voltaire. Annals of the Empire, Vol. XXI of The Works pi
Voltaire, 33., E. R. Dumont. 58 vols.; New York,
1901.

 

General History, Vol. XXIV of The Works pi Voltaire,
ed., E. R. Dumont. 58 vols.; New York, 1901.

 

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West MOO—1000. London,
1952.

The Long Haired Kings. London, 1962.

 

228

White, Lynn. "Technology and Inventions in the Middle Ages,"
Speculum, XV (19u0), 1&1-59.

Wood, Clement. The Substance pi History pi European Morals.
New York, 1926.

 

 

   

RIES

"‘argil‘glllllll‘llll