Merovingian letters--in the sense of epistolography as opposed to learning--is not a topic that has received a great deal of past study, and certainly not in any comprehensive manner. That hole in the scholarly tradition now has been filled by this ambitious volume by Alice Tyrrell. It grew out of a Toronto dissertation and proposes to provide a catalogue, discussion, and survey of "over 600" (xiv) extant "Merovingian letters" dated to between 481, the beginning of the reign of Clovis, and 751, the deposition of the last Merovingian king Childeric III. Tyrrell suggests that Merovingian letter writers just have not gotten any respect: "Sandwiched between the overachieving fifth and ninth centuries, the Merovingians have been relegated, at best, to the role of place-holders in the history of epistolography" (xv). In contrast, this volume provides a comprehensive and generally sympathetic portrayal of epistolography in the Merovingian period.
The book commences with an "Introduction" (xiii-xxxi) that considers issues such as what qualifies for inclusion: what is Merovingian, and what is a letter. Also included here is an "outline of the letter collections used in this study" (xxii-xxx), a list of fourteen alphabetically listed "letter collections," ranging from the "Additimenta e codice formularum Senonensium" to the "Venantii Fortunati opera poetica." The volume concludes with much more extensive "Summaries of Individual Merovingian Letters" (227-356) presented in the same order as in the "outline of the letter collections," with the addition of sixteen letters that appear in saints' lives, Gregory of Tours, and four manuscripts.
For Tyrrell, a letter qualifies as "Merovingian" if "the sender and/or the recipient was resident in the Frankish kingdom during the Merovingian era [481-751]" (xiii). This includes letters written by non-Gauls/Franks such as popes, Irish or Anglo-Saxon missionaries, or the Visigothic Count Bulgar (160-161). The chronological limit of 481 on the early end, however, is full of exceptions. On the one hand, letters from the "Epistulae Arelatenses" going back to 417 are included. But on the other hand, the much more germane "collections of Sidonius Apollinaris and his fifth-century contemporaries Ruricius of Limoges and Avitus of Vienne" (xv) are nearly totally excluded from the corpus even though they are extensively discussed in the narrative. An especially egregious inconsistency is the inclusion of Auspicius of Toul's letter to Arbogast of Trier of ca. 475 (241, Epist.Aust. 23), but the exclusion the letters of Sidonius to the same Arbogast and Auspicius (Epist. 4/17. 7.11[10]).
Tyrrell also adopts some rather idiosyncratic definitions of what qualifies as a "letter." For
example, she omits many letters of kings, such as Clovis' crucially significant letter to the Aquitanian bishops in 507 (MGH Leges 2.1 = Capit. reg.Franc. 1.1-2), on the grounds of being a "political directive rather than an act of correspondence" (xiv), and because "Royal charters are also cast as letters to officials although they are directives of an administrative nature" (xiv n.1). But if charters are "cast as letters," how, then, do they not count as acts of correspondence? And how are the letters of other kings that are included (e.g., 240-244), not to mention papal letters to Gaul, any less "political directives"? In a like manner, invitation letters to church councils also are omitted, as are epistolary formulae, such as those of Marculfus (MGH Leges 5; briefly mentioned on 169, 361). Likewise, "letters that function solely as dedicatory prefaces" (xiv) also are omitted, although Tyrrell makes an exception for the verse prefaces of Venantius Fortunatus. But literary works cast in epistolary form, such as Anthimus' treatise, theEpistola Anthimi viri inlustris comitis et legatarii ad gloriosissimum Theudericum regem Francorum de observatione ciborum (356, missing from index), or Evantius' tract, the Epistula Evanti abbatis contra eos qui sanguinem animalium immundum esse iudicant(CodexSangallensis 190, pp. 348-353), are included. These seemingly random principles of inclusion and exclusion create an eccentric taxonomy in which documents that have all the form and function of letters are omitted, meaning ipso facto that Tyrrell's corpus of Merovingian letters is incomplete.
Tyrrell privileges what she calls "the Merovingian collections" (89). Some of these are bona fide late-antique letter collections, of which some, such as the Epistulae Arelatenses, the Epistulae Austrasicae, and letters of Desiderius of Cahors, are included in the study in full, and others, such as the letters of Gregory the Great, are only excerpted. Others of these "collections," however, are modern compilations, such as the so-called "Epistulae Merowingicae," a selection of disjecta membra published by Gundlach in MGH Epistulae 3 (1892), and the "Letters of Caesarius of Arles," an assemblage of letters from varied sources published by Morin in 1942. Although Tyrrell does note that the EpistulaeMerovingicae is "a collection of unrelated letters from various manuscripts" (xxiv), throughout the volume (e.g., xxxi, 2, 12, 51, 129) she cites this random farrago as if it were a coherent, homogeneous medieval collection like the Epistulae Austrasicae. This cannot but mislead the unwary into supposing that it is a genuine medieval collection. Likewise, Morin's "Epistolae Caesarii Arelatensis" is treated like a bona fide ancient collection (xxv).
Collections are important. The bulk of our surviving letters come from contemporary collections. But collections also tell us a lot about the same thing--the same period, the same people, the same events. The focus on "collections," however defined, leads to a marginalization of the role played by individual survivals, which are essentially ignored. Only four singletons, and these apparently late additions, are individually cited in either catalogue as being from manuscripts: the letter to Lovocatus and Catihern, that to Polychronius of Verdun, and those of Evantius and of Venerandus. Other singletons are submerged in the "Epistulae Merowingicae," perpetuating the misconception that this is a discrete medieval collection, rather than a random group of odds and ends. These stray letters need greater attention: they broaden the scope of the coverage and can provide valuable contextualization for the "collections."
Following the introduction come seven topical chapters. The first three discuss the role of "amicitia" as manifested in the letters; Tyrrell suggests that "amicitia-driven correspondence of upper-class Gallic persons...constitutes the vast majority of what we are calling the Merovingian collections" (89). She also opines, "Gallic amicitia networks were a culture of upper-class males only. Women and the lower classes were excluded, as were popes and royalty" (2).
Chapter 1, "Sidonius to Nicetius of Trier" (1-18), focuses on the role of "literary circles" and amicitia in the letter collections of Sidonius Apollinaris, Ruricius of Limoges, and Avitus of Vienne. Tyrrell suggests that these writers "mourned the 'decline' of Latin literary culture and believed it was their duty to shore it up" (xv).
In Chapter 2, "Venantius Fortunatus and the Later Sixth Century" (19-49), Tyrrell observes that the poetic epistles of Venantius Fortunatus, who arrived in Gaul in 566 CE, "reproduce exactly the elevated language...of the Gallo-Roman leisured classes of the previous century" (19). She concludes, "these texts shine light on Gallic elite literary culture of the last half of the sixth century...very little had changed since the days of Sidonius Apollinaris and friends" (30). But one must be careful not to generalize about late sixth-century Gallic literary culture based on an analysis of Venantius, who, after all, was not a product of Gallic educational institutions, society, or culture. One must ask how representative Venantius is of the writing of Merovingian elites. Tyrrell does not make the same observations about the virtually contemporary Epistulae Austrasicae, which, curiously, are covered in Chapter 1 and barely mentioned (24, 26, 28) in Chapter 2, and never in a comparative way.
In the third "amicitia" chapter, "Columbanus to Boniface and Lull" (51-91), Tyrrell moves to the seventh and eighth centuries. The letters of Columban, Tyrrell avers, manifest "a distasteful mix of haranguing aggression and oily obsequiousness" (53), and certainly are not part of the Gallic "amicitia' tradition, although Tyrrell also is quick to point out that Columban was not Gallic (something he shared with Venantius). Turning to the collection of Desiderius of Cahors, Tyrrell observes it is "the single more or less complete surviving collection of a Merovingian bishop" (57). The collection contains an equal number of letters written to Desiderius, thus presenting chains of correspondence. The preservation of the letters of Ruricius in the same manuscript, the Codex Sangallensis 190, "represents the accomplishment of 150 years of archiving and preservation" (57). The pattern of Desiderius' correspondence demonstrates "the continuity of Gallic amicitia-driven epistolary networks into the seventh century" (59).
There follow four chapters based on different ways of organizing the content of the letters. Chapter 4, "Kings and Popes" (93-138), looks at letters sent to or from the most influential secular and ecclesiastical administrators. Tyrrell suggests that kings "were excluded from the amicitia-style epistolary networks," reasoning that because "kings were at the top of the social hierarchy, the connection was vertical rather than horizontal." This model, however, is perhaps not quite as prescriptive or rigid as Tyrrell supposes, as demonstrated by the Desiderius collection, in which kings are both the authors and recipients of letters. Yes, kings are treated rather differently from run-of-the-mill elites, but they certainly were part of the network. Tyrrell also describes Childebert I (511-558) as "a prolific letter writer" even though "all his communications are nowdeperdita" (95). Not quite. One of Childebert's letters, "Credimus hoc," with a superscription "Epistola clementissimi et beati regis nostri Childeberti data per ecclesias sacerdotum vel omni populo," in fact survives at the end of quaternion 23(fol. 162r-v) of the nearly contemporary Parisinus 12097. Here Tyrrell's overly prescriptive criteria for what qualifies as a letter led her to a significant omission.
With respect to papal letters, Tyrrell states (106) that "none...can be said to be part of a Gallic amicitia network." Fair enough. But this probably was less a result of "deference to the pope's spiritual overlordship" (106) than to the consideration that the pope was in Italy, and not in any real way a part of Gallic social circles; in addition, Gauls only consulted the pope when they wanted something from him (as seen especially in theEpistulae Arelatenses).
Chapter 5, "Women's Letters" (129-162), reprises the observation that "women were not part of Late Antique amicitia networks." Tyrrell organizes women's letters based on their emotional content, separating out twelve of the twenty letters, such as those of Herchenefreda, mother of Desiderius of Cahors (136-137), as being "striking for their highly-coloured emotional tone" (130). Tyrrell suggests that "far from being neurotic, the women appear to have adopted the stance and emotions of helplessness in order to...increase the odds that their petitions would be granted" (130). Tyrrell then turns to "Women Writing Unemotional Letters" (140), such as Radegund, and concludes that "Merovingian elite women were not 'friends' in the sense we find in the male amicitianetworks" (161). Tyrrell suggests that letters written by women were excluded from letter collections because "Late Antique culture abhorred nothing so much as an educated, forceful woman who expressed her opinions, emotions, and knowledge in a public setting" (162).
The sixth chapter, "Bearers and Gifts" (163-195), notes that "in Late Antiquity epistolography was triangular, that is, written communication between two individuals always required a third whose task it was to convey it" (163). Tyrrell stresses that letters sometimes were accompanied by verbal messages that contained sensitive information and required "skill, knowledge, and tact" (166) on the part of the carrier. Tyrrell also suggests that the exchange of gifts could complicate a letter carrier's task, "especially if the gift was large and/or valuable" (177). In general, Tyrrell concludes, "When given the chance to personally bestow a gift on a correspondent almost every letter writer chose not to do so" (195). Although Tyrrell limits membership in "amicitia" networks to elites, letter carriers, regardless of their social status, also were part of the process, operating on the fringe of the "amicitia" network. As a consequence, they were able to share in the exchange of favors, and be given a good word by the writer of a letter.
The final chapter, "Letter Writers and the Bible" (197-217), discusses the use of scripture in Merovingian letters, which "are almost entirely lacking in references to pagan works" and "where Scripture takes the form of embellishment" (197). Following the "Conclusion" come an "Appendix of Biblical Quotations" (221-225), the long list of summaries, and an index of personal names.
The discussion focuses mostly on description, what the letters are about, both in the narrative chapters and in the collection of summaries. Several relevant synthetic topics, in addition to the issue of singletons, could have benefited from expansion. For example, more attention might have been given to the creation of epistolary collections, discussion of which is limited only to half a paragraph (xviii). Tyrrell perhaps is a bit too prescriptive regarding how collections were "assembled," supposing that the existence of a "collection" implies "some methodology of letter selection and preservation...a register of copies...was a necessity for a later collection" (xviii). Not necessarily. Some letters, such as those of Ruricius, morphed into "collections" only after being stored as individual copies in an archive and then copied, centuries later, often just as is, rather than with any reorganization or the imposition of some kind of structure. Other collections, such as that of Jerome, grew by accretion. One also must distinguish between a "compiler" who collects and organizes letters according to some kind of plan, and a scribe, who merely copies what happens to be found in an archive. On these points, see now R. W. Mathisen, "The 'Publication' of Latin Letter Collections in Late Antiquity," in Gernot Müller, ed., Zwischen Alltagskommunikation und literarischer Identitätsbildung. Kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte lateinischer Epistolographie in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2018), 63-84.
Tyrrell also is sometimes too ready to accept the analytic model of secondary writers, and only later realizes, on the basis of her own observations, that the model does not fit. Thus, under the influence of Barbara Rosenwein (Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages [Ithaca, 2006]), Tyrrell initially sees "changes in emotional vocabulary" in the letters of Desiderius, with the adoption of a "restrained emotional palette" and a "subdued emotional style" (59). But she then backtracks, observing, "The letters in Desiderius' collection often convey an abundance of emotion" (59). Rightly so. Any apparent lack of emotional affect in the letters most probably comes not from some kind of sea change in forms of emotional expression resulting from Columbanian monasticism (55), but from their being mostly business correspondence rather than letters of leisure, like those of Ruricius. As Tyrrell notes, "Of the thirty-six letters in the collection, fifteen [actually closer to twenty] have to do with ecclesiastical and civic business" (63).
This is an important point. Tyrrell observes that some letter collections, such as those of Sidonius and Venantius, place a high premium on the pursuit of amicitia; others, however, do not. Thus, she sees in the letters of Avitus of Vienne "the relatively small percentage authored for the sole purpose of maintaining the bonds of amicitia" (8). One of the reasons for this dichotomy can be sought in the difference between friendship letters and business letters. Some letters, such as the Epistulae Arelatenses, the Epistulae Austrasicae, and to a large extent the collection of Desiderius of Cahors, preserve primarily business letters. Not as much room for expressing emotion there as inamicitia letters, and one therefore cannot assess these two types of letters on the same terms. Indeed, authors also could change their style based on the kind of letter they were writing. As Tyrrell observes, elements of the "amicitia" type of letters could creep even into business correspondence. Faustus of Riez, known for his uncompromising ascetisicm, nonetheless could ask Sidonius for a letter "that was elegant, polished, and entertaining" (16). And the letters of the equally ascetic Avitus of Vienne still could contain "high good humour" (8).
Finally, the study is admirably free of factual or stylistic infelicities, although one does note references throughout to Hilarius of Arles as Hilarus (9, 16), and to St. Amantius as "Amatius" (136).
In sum, this is an admirable undertaking, and assembles a very useful catalogue of material that readers will find very helpful when looking for a particular letter on a particular topic or for an overview of the kind of information that is included in Merovingian letters. As such it is a most welcome addition to Merovingian scholarship.