THE MEROVINGIANS Clovis.—Clovis was the king of only one of the tribes of Salian Franks who, under his father Childeric, had come in search of new lands to cultivate in the rich valleys of the Somme and the Oise. When the victory of Soissons (486) over the Syagrius, who represented the Roman power in the west, had brought the power of Clovis to the Seine and then to the Loire, Remigius, archbishop of Rheims, made a swift decision. To Syagrius, now a fugitive among the Visigoths, he preferred Clovis, who as an ally could be as useful as he would certainly be dangerous as an enemy. For his part Clovis well understood that he would never bring Gaul beneath his sceptre without the support of the Church, and the Catholic Gallo-Romans who were tired of anarchy. Clovis laid the foundations of the French state by his conversion to Christianity, due to his wife, Clotilde, and to Remigius, rather than by his victory over the Alemanni at Tolbiac (496) . From that time forth his conquests took on the character of holy wars; by the victory of Dijon in zoo, Burgundy became subject to him; in 507, by his victory at Vouille, he set free the whole valley of the Garonne from the Arian Visigoths and forced them back into Spain. In order to prevent a possible coalition of the Frankish tribes that had remained heathen, Clovis deposed and assassinated their kings. In these murders the Church saw only the divine reward to a faithful soldier and a convert from pa ganism, and gave her consecration to his triumph by appointing him to preside over the Council of Orleans (51i). Clovis, like the Christian emperors before him, became for the Church a new David. Finally, the Eastern emperor, Anastasius, by sending him the consular emblems gave a legal sanction to his rule, even as the Church had sanctified his military conquests. Thus the Merovingian dynasty was enabled to hold sway for two centuries and a half.
Af ter the death of Clovis, his house produced no monarchs worthy to rank with him. Neither the Roman law nor the influence of Christianity was strong enough to preserve the unity of the state. The custom among the Franks of partitioning the royal domains at the death of each king to the exclusion of the female line, as though the kingdom were a private estate, coupled with the avariciousness of the princes, occasioned constant civil wars. Thus, at the death of Clovis (5 r r) his domains were divided into four king doms. For 5o years, indeed, his heirs sought to continue his work and to add to his dominions. From 523 to 532 they subdued Aquitaine, Burgundy and Provence, and love of booty brought their armies into Italy and Spain. Two centuries before Charle magne they even attempted the conquest of Germany. Owing to the accident of Clotaire I. surviving his three brothers the dominions of Clovis were re-united from 558 to 561. But on the death of Clotaire, his kingdom was once more divided among his f our sons, and during the years 567-613, domestic tragedies checked the progress of the Merovingian power, and took the place of wars of aggrandizement and pillage. No trace is to be found of any political ideal in the wars between Chilperic and Sigebert. Chilperic's murder of his Visigothic wife Galswintha, may have caused her sister Brunhild, wife of Sigebert, to urge her husband to make war, though ambition was urge enough. After Sigebert's death Brunhild carried on the strife. Her bitter rivalry with Fredegund, Chilperic's widow, is the thread on which the history of continuous war is hung. The central authority grew steadily weaker. It was further threatened by the growing power of the bishops and great nobles against whose aggressions Brunhild strove all her life. Two landmarks in this struggle are the treaty of Andelot in 587 and the edict of Clotaire II. in 614 by which benefices granted to the aristocracy of high officials were made tenable only for life. But these exhibitions of strength were but momentary and could do little to arrest the steady development towards the feudal days (see FEUDALISM). The ordinary freeman, unprotected owing to the weakness of royal power, was driven to commend himself to the local bishop or great noble.
From the 7th century onwards, the mayor of the palace (q.v.: see also MAYOR), seriously weak ened the already failing authority of the kings. The palace in those days, as in the time of the empire, and in mediaeval times was the court of the king and the seat of his government. The mayors controlled this ambulatory court and in effect, controlled the State ; they sought, not only to be independent, but also to establish over the rest of the Frankish kingdom the supremacy of that division over which they ruled. Some tried to re-establish a unified Frankish monarchy and the rule of the State over the Church ; others, who were distrustful of the idea of a single king dom, sought above all to assure their own independence. For a century (613-714) these two opposing tendencies can be traced. After a brief revival of the royal power under Dagobert (628 638) there ensued its long decadence with meaningless partitions, perpetual minorities, the ever-increasing power of the mayors over the rois fainéants, and, finally, the duel between the Neustri ans of the West and the Austrasians of the East, and the great conflict between Ebroin, mayor of Neustria, and archbishop Leger, who was all-powerful in Burgundy. The battle of Tertry (687) finally decided the struggle in favour of the Austrasians under Pippin of Heristal; but the death agony of the degenerate descend ants of Clovis was prolonged until 752.
