Murphy (Francis X.) - Julian of Toledo and The Fall of The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain (Speculum 27:1, 1952, 1-27)

Medieval Academy of America
Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain

Author(s): Francis X. Murphy
Source: Speculum, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1952), pp. 1-27
Published by: Medieval Academy of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2855291
Accessed: 13-08-2014 15:59 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Speculum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:59:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SPECU
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
VOL.XXVII
JANUARY 1952
No. 1
JULIAN OF TOLEDO AND THE FALL OF THE

VISIGOTHIC KINGDOM IN SPAIN
BY FRANCIS X. MURPHY, C.SS.R.
FORTYyears before the fall of the Visigothic kingdom in Spain, two men rose to
prominence, and proved themselves perhaps the most astute of all the rulers and
churchmen in Visigothic Spain: King Wamba, who ruled from 679 to 680, and
Julian, archbishop of Toledo from 680 to 690.1 Their paths crossed early in
Wamba's reign, with Julian pouring forth fulsome praise upon the monarch,2
and recrossed shortly after Julian's accession to the archbishopric, when we find
the churchman involved in and apparently condoning the king's dethronement.
Their intervening relationships form an interesting section of Visigothic history;
but the unravelling proves an exasperating task, due as much to the bias that has
hitherto accompanied attempts at historical reconstruction as to the meager and
faulty evidence we possess for the period.
The problem involved in the archbishop's dealings with the king, and in the
latter's dethronement, is an important detail in the relations between church and
state in Visigothic Spain. It has been assessed as one of the main events leading
to the downfall of the Visigothic kingdom and to the Arabic invasions. Heretofore
the problem seems to have suffered from a lack of close, detailed scrutiny of the
evidence, as well as from an inclination on the part of each historian to fit it in
with the pattern of his particular Tendenz. Thus, there appears to be need for a
re-presentation of the facts, just as we possess them, with a critical analysis of
the situation.
I
THE PROBLEM
In 672, by popular consent, but against his own wishes, the Gothic noble
Wamba was chosen king of the Visigothic state in Spain. A man of military abilities, a builder and a good legislator, he proved an efficient ruler. But on 14 October
680 - a Sunday evening - he suddenly fell unconscious in his palace at Toledo.
The archbishop of Toledo was called by a group of gravely agitated courtiers.
He immediately put upon the king the penitential discipline: his hair was shorn
and he was clothed in a monastic habit, in accordance with the then current
practice of having everyone take on the discipline of penance before death.3
The king awoke from the coma to find himself clothed in penitential garments,
1
Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdam

and in consequence forbidden to resume his royal office or to return to the world.
Whereupon, he was induced to sign several papers attesting to his acceptance of
the discipline of penance, naming one of the attending nobles, Erwig, as the new
ruler, and instructing Julian, the archbishop of Toledo, to anoint the new king
without delay.4 Wamba then retired to a nearby monastery and lived out his days
as a monk.
Three months later, in January 681, the new king summoned a national council
of bishops and noblemen, which met in the church of Saints Peter and Paul in
Toledo and was presided over by the archbishop. This council confirmed Erwig
as king, loosing the people from their oath to the former king, and anathematizing
any attempt at insurrection.5At Erwig's request, the council went on with legislation against the Jews6and in favor of those who had been deprived of citizenship
as deserters under the laws of King Wamba.7 For the sake of clerical discipline,
it increased the powers of the metropolitan in the appointment of bishops for the
whole of Spain.8 The assembled prelates likewise condemned the action of the
former king in constituting military dioceses and having bishops consecrated for
them.9 Two years later, in 683, a second council (Toledo XIII) was summoned by
the new king. It helped strengthen his hold upon the throne; but it was achieved
at the price of granting various civil rights to the people as a guarantee against
future royal whims.10
This is the story in barest outline, as recorded in the acts of Toledo XII. The
affair is given a sinister twist in two chronicles dating from the end of the ninth
century. The first says laconically that Wamba was deprived of his throne by
Erwig;11the second, attributed to King Alphonsus III, fills in the details.12 Giving us Erwig's background- he was the son of a daughter of King Receswinth
(649-67g) - it mentions a potion he had prepared for the king compounded from
an herb called spartus. Upon taking the drink, Wamba fell unconscious. The archbishop was called, and put the discipline of penance upon him, rendering him
incapable of returning to the world. Hence, when the king regained consciousness,
Erwig had himself nominated for the throne by the now disqualified King Wamba.
The Chronicle does not tell us whether Erwig's ingenuity had been equal to
planning the whole affair as it actually happened. It does, however, furnish details
that seem to justify suspicions arising from an analysis of the acts of Toledo
councils XII and XIII. But in the historical world, the archbishop of Toledo has
been made the central figure in the case. He has been roundly condemned as a
scheming adventurer and traitor by several of the earlier scholars: Dahn,13
Even Gams suscribes in part to the accusation.17
Helfferich,l4Wengen,15Goirres.16
All this is done upon circumstantial evidence. Erwig, of course, comes in for
his share of the blame; but the archbishop is cast as the villain in the piece. Earlier historians had hardly conceived of such an interpretation of the fact, though
they had been repelled by Julian's apparent arrogance in dealing with Rome in a
matter having to do with the third council of Constantinople.'8 More recently
attempts have been made to exculpate the archbishop; thus, Tailhan,19Leclerq,20
Villada,21Torres.22The reliability of the story concerning the poisoning of King
Wamba has been called into question. Even King Erwig has come in for his
share of rehabilitation.
Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom
II
THE SOURCES
The question of sources is paramount. For the period from 672 (beginning
Wamba's reign) to the death of Julian in 690, we possess, besides the Life of
Julian and the latter's History of King Wamba, several chronicles and the acts
of four councils held in the intervening eighteen years (Toledo XI to XV). The
acts of Toledo XII (9 to 26 January 681) are the most important for our purpose.
They have been edited in Mansi (Vol. xi), and repeated in Migne (PL, LXXXIV).
As for the chronicles, they are four in number, though we have four recensions
of the last of them. The oldest chronicle is the Laterculus Regum Visigothorum,
edited by Th. Mommsen in MGH, ChronicaMinora, II, 461-469. It can be dated
as of 710 A.D., though it appears that certain sections were written as early as
672.23It is a brief enumeration of the Visigothic kings in Spain and of their dates,
intended as an identification piece added to the Leges Visigothorum, as was the
LaterculusImperatorumto the Corpus Theodosianum.24
The next chronicle is a curious medley of Byzantine, Arabic, and Spanish
material, edited in the MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, xI, 334-369,26 of which the
Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana of 754, concentrates on Spanish matters both
before and after the conquest.26The first section is the more trustworthy part,
depending on the ChronicaIsidoriana for the period from the death of Reccared
(610) to that of Leo the Isaurian in 741.27
The second section deals with events in Spain from 610 to 754. It appears to
have been written in this latter year.28For the section in which we are particularly interested the author shows an assuring familiarity with both local events
and personages. He makes use of the canons of the councils, referring to them as
such.29He is acquainted with the great churchmen of the period: he cites Helladius Toletanus (c. 16), Isidore Hisp. (c. 16), Braulio (c. 20), Taius of Saragossa
(cc. 28-33) from whose work the account of Wamba's expedition against the
Basques is taken (c. 36), Ildefonsus (c. 48), Julian, and Felix of Toledo (cc. 50,
55, 60). In an epilogue, excerpts are given from one of Julian's works, the 'liber
quem contra Judeos... scripsit.'30The author seems to have visited Toledo,
for he cites several of the Epigrammata Wambae,inscriptions placed by that king
on the monuments he erected in Toledo.3' This chronicle has also been edited by
J. Tailhan as the Anonime de Cordoue(Paris, 1885), but the edition is deficient,
having missed the best of the manuscripts, the Alcobaca.32
As to the author and place of composition, the historians disagree. Florez
edited it originally as the Chroniconde Isidoro Pacense.33Dozy, enumerating the
inconsistencies in Florez, supposes it to have been written in Cordova; and Tailhan accepts Dozy's contentions.34But, after discussing the theories of a number of
other more recent editors, Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz concludes that the author
was a Mozarab, writing at the beginning of the second half of the eighth century
and, on the whole, quite trustworthy.36
Concerning the next two chronicles there is even greater uncertainty. Both
appear to have been written in 883 A.D., and are of particular interest to us in
that they make the first suggestion of something sinister in connection with the
deposition of King Wamba. The Epitome Ovietense(also called the Albeldense or

Aemelianense) comes down to us in a version made about 976 by Vergilius, a
monk of the monastery of Albelda, near Logrono, and now preserved in the Escorial (D.1.2).36 There is another version made in 992, once in the monastery of
San Millan de Cogollo, and now also in the Escorial (D.1.1). The Epitome has
been edited by Mommsen in the MGH, Chronica Minora, II, 370-375, and has
recently been re-edited by M. Gomez-Moreno in connection with his discussion
of the Chronicleof Alphonsus III. Moreno maintains a completely separate origin
for the Ovietenseand the Chronicleof Alphonsus III, despite numerous parallelisms
in the arrangement of material, even of sentence structure,37
The second of these chronciles, the Chronicleof Alphonsus III (or of Sebastian
of Salamanca, as Florez edited it38)comes down to us in four versions. As edited
by Z. Garcia Villada in 1918, the first of these is attributed to King Alphonsus
III of Asturias.39The second version Villada believes to be the work of a later,
barbarizing contemporary; the third and fourth are redactions of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. They give unmistakable evidence of interpolation.40
L. Barrau-Dihigo contests Villada's theories.41Besides offering some valuable
textual suggestions, later accepted by Villada,42Barrau-Dihigo maintains that
the chronicle can be attributed neither to Sebastian of Salamanca nor to Alphonsus III.43In particular he feels that the obvious falsity of a letter that heads the
longer recension, supposedly from King Alphonsus to Bishop Sebastian, takes all
the worth out of Villada's assumptions.44
Turning to the shorter recension, the Rodense, Barrau-Dihigo then points
out the naturalness and simplicity of its exactness of detail. He discovers in the
Rodense an abundance of variations common to two distinct families of manuscripts which contain the longer redaction. He concludes that the Rodense is the
product of a careful selection from the two.46
Two further opinions in the matter have been offered by C. Cabal and R.
Blasquez. Cabal insists that the chronicle was not written by either Bishop
Sebastian or King Alphonsus, but by Sisnand, bishop of Iris. For Sisnand seems to
him the only man to fit the requirements indicated in the author of the chronicle:
he was born in Liebana, had been chaplain to King Alphonsus III, and later, became bishop of Compostella when Portugal was being repopulated.46Blasquez, on
the other hand, holds that the two redactions are of separate origin: the Rodense
by Sebastian, bishop of Arcabica and Orense, and the Pseudo-Alfonso by Dulcidio, bishop of Salamanca.47
M. Gomez-Moreno48and C. Snchez-Albornoz49 have come to the conclusion
that the Rodense, being much simpler in style and more trustworthy in narrative
detail, is the first and original chronicle, and most probably the work of the king
himself. The second redaction they attribute to Sebastian, bishop of Orense.
For the present, then, there is little hope of reaching a satisfactory conclusion
as to the authorship, place of origin, and even the order of dependence of the two
recensions. For our purposes, however, it will be sufficient to take into account
the probable sources for the material having to do with Wamba, Julian, and
Erwig. By dint of constant checking with other sources we possess, some sort of
answer is possible to the original problem here raised.

III
JULIAN'S CAREER
Julian, the future archbishop of Toledo, was born in that city of Christian
parents of Jewish stock, sometime before 642, and was baptized almost immediately in the cathedral church.60For most of this information we are indebted to
the Vita Juliani, written by Felix, Julian's second successor in the see of Toledo
(693-700).61That he was of Jewish stock - ex traduce ludeorum should cause
no particular difficulty, even though the chronicle supplying that information
was not written until at least sixty years after his death.62 There was a large
Jewish population then in Spain; and there was a very definite Jewish problem,
involving in particular conversions from Judaism.3 In 694, a plot was discovered,
involving both baptized and non-baptized Jews, who were accused of having
made plans to deliver Spain to the Moors.64Hence Felix, composing the biographical notice before 700 - and consequently before the end of the Visigothic
regime - would have been loath to mention the fact of Julian's Judaic ancestry;
whereas a chronicler in 754 would probably have felt perfectly free to do so.66
The date of Julian's birth, as of the few other happenings of which we are
aware in his early career, is a matter of conjecture. Felix writes that 'after the
death of his predecessor, Ildefonsus of holy memory, from about the seventh
year of the reign of Receswinth, through the whole of Wamba's reign, and down
to the third year of the most glorious Egica, he [Julian] achieved a wide-spread
fame, being honored with the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate.'56The death
of Ildefonsus and the seventeenth year of King Receswinth coincide in 667. On
normal canonical procedure, if Julian was at least a deacon at that time, he must
have been twenty-five years of age. The fourth council of Toledo had prescribed
that age as canonical for the ordination of deacons.67Hence Julian must have been
born in or before 642.
Felix also mentions Julian's early association with the young deacon Cudila.
The two shared ascetical aspirations and had some thought of entering the monastic state. But they failed to achieve that ambition. It seems that as youngsters
they were brought up in a school attached to the bishop's residence and that they
later taught there. Both Julian himself and Felix tell us explicitly that Julian
was a pupil of Eugenius II (646-657), his third predecessor in the see of Toledo.68
Provision had been made for just such a school in the first canon of the second
council of Toledo.69From the way Felix describes the early life of the two young
men, they must have been part of the episcopal household.60
Cudila, it appears, eventually became an archdeacon.61He died 8 September
679, and was buried in the monastery of St Felix in Cabensi.62A short while
thereafter, Julian was raised to the episcopate on 30 January 680.63He was
hardly well settled in the metropolitan see when the deposition of King Wamba
took place on 14 October 680.
Julian presided over the twelfth council of Toledo (January 681). In November
683 another national council assembled at Toledo and again Julian presided.
It was immediately after the close of this council (Toledo XIII) that a notary
arrived from Rome bearing letters from Pope Leo II (682-683). They were ad-
dressed to all the bishops (praesulibus) of Spain: to Julian's predecessor Quiricus,

who had died in January 680; to King Erwig; and to the comes Simplicius. They
requested the adhesion of the Spanish church to the decision of the sixth general
council (Constantinople III, 680-681) in which Monothelitism was condemned.6
Not wishing to reassemble the bishops because of travel difficulties, the king
and the archbishop decided that provinical councils should be held instead, commencing with that of the province of Carthage at Toledo in 684.65Julian presided,
presenting the assembled prelates with an abstract of Catholic belief in the matter, approving the findings of the sixth general council as in accord with the traditions of the Church.66This so-called Apologeticum was circulated in Spain, and
forwarded to Rome.67There, it was received unfavorably, Pope Benedict II taking exception among other things to Julian's phrase 'Voluntas genuit voluntatem
sicut sapientia sapientiam.'68Julian thereupon wrote a second response or Apologeticum to the Roman pontiff justifying his terminology and the statement in
question as referring to an operation of the divine essence.69He closed with a
remark bordering on defiance.70Unfortunately, the full text of this Apologeticum
has not come down to us, extracts only being preserved in the acts of the fifteenth
council of Toledo.71
Unfortunately, too, because of ambiguous reporting in both the fourteenth
(686) and fifteenth (688) Toledan councils, both the sequence of events and the
sequel are most difficult to decipher.72Julian's conduct has received the most
various interpretations. Gams and Gorres speak of him as practically in rebellion
against the Holy See.73 Tailhan and Men6ndez y Pelayo exculpate the archbishop entirely, maintaining that the strictures he passes in his Apologeticum
were not directed at the pope and his curia at all, but to other unknown Spanish
critics.74
Both E. Magnin and G. Villada take a more balanced view of the matter.76
Villada points to the fact that Spanish bishops were hurt at the apparent slur
upon their orthodoxy and theological competence. As in the case of St Braulio
and Pope Honorius I after the sixth council of Toledo (638), they gave way to a
rather strong manner of expression.76
It is more than likely that the abstract of the Apologeticum inserted in the
proceedings of Toledo XV does not represent the final draft of the document sent
to Rome. In particular, there seems to be an omission in the account of the third
and fourth points to which the pope had taken exception. Again, it is probable
that, as Father Tailhan suggests, there was a certain opposition to Julian even
in Spain. But it can hardly be doubted that the main animus of the document,
such as it was, is directed towards Rome.77
We have no further knowledge of Julian's career beyond the fact that he died
6 March 690. Thus Felix wrote in the Vita:
'Having achieved the honor and dignity of the priesthood, he held sway for
ten years, one month, and seven days. Being faced with the inevitable approach
of death, he passed away on the 6th of March, in the third year of Egica, in the
Era of Spain 726, and thus, was buried in the sepulcher of the most glbrious St
Leocadia, Virgin.'78
His death is commemorated in the modern martyrologies on 8 March. The

error is due to the editors of the Missale Mixtum and the Breviarium GothicoMozarabicum which Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros had published in 1500 and
1502 respectively.79 The date is given properly, however, as 6 March in two of
the calendars published by Ferotin as of the years 1059 and 1079,80in the martyrology of Usuard,81and in the list of the relics held in veneration at the monastery
of San Millan de la Cogolla in the thirteenth century.82
Following in the patristic tradition, Julian was a prolific writer. Among his
extant works are a number of theological treatises, including Prognosticonfuturi
seculi, a treatise on death, judgment and the resurrection, that is most competently handled;3 De sextae aetatis comprobationein answer to the Jewish claims
that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not yet come;84and Antikeimenon or
Book of Contraries.86The last is a series of harmonizations of apparently contradictory passages in the Scriptures, and is not an unworthy forerunner of Abelard's Sic et Non. To his two Apologetica, defending himself and the Spanish
bishops against the charge of inexactness in their theological expressions before
the court of Rome, are to be added a Liber carminum, epistolarum et sermonum
as well as at least two liturgical texts (a missal for the whole year, and a collection
of collects), none of which, unfortunately, has been preserved.86
Felix, his biographer, also mentions several other treatises which have apparently perished: a Liber Responsionum arguing against the right of Jews to keep
Christians as slaves, a Libellum de remediis blasphemiae: a Libellum de judiciis
divinis ex sacris voluminibus;a Libellum responsium contra eos, qui confugientes ad
ecclesiampersequuntur.87
As a younger man he had written the Historia rebellionis Pauli adversus WarnbarnGothorumregem- referred to usually as the Historia Wambaeregis - whose
literary affinities, particularly in the imitation of Sallust, Ovid, and Vergil,
Manitius discusses at length.88 He likewise wrote a brief Vita Sancti Ildefonsi,
continuing the De viris illustribus.89Finally, he composed an Ars Grammatica,
evidently the result of his years teaching grammar, rhetoric and metrics in
Toledo. It has been given considerable attention by Manitius, and has been made
the object of a special study by Charles H. Beeson.90 While based on the Artes
of Donatus, and utilizing Maximus Victorinus and Isidore, it shows a decided
preference for Prudentius, Dracontius, and Eugenius of Toledo in citing examples - a rather clear indication that the work is Julian's, though it is not mentioned by Felix.91
IV
JULIANAND KING WAMBA
To Julian's Historia Wambaeregis we are indebted for an intimate insight into
a precious bit of Visigothic political theory and practice. For Julian states in the
very beginning of his Historia that on 1 September 679, while occupied with the
obsequies of King Receswinth, a Gothic noble named Wamba was suddenly
sought out from among the royal retinue and publicly acclaimed king. Much to
the general surprise, Wamba refused that great dignity. It was only when threat-
ened with death by one of his fellow noblemen that Wamba, 'influenced more
by their threats than by their entreaties,' finally accepted the office. But he put
off his coronation until his return to Toledo.
The burial of Receswinth had taken place at Gerticos, in the territory of
Salamanca, some 190 miles to the northwest of the royal city. Wamba felt it
only fitting that he receive his kingly consecration on the site of the rulers of old.
He was likewise a bit wary concerning the manner of his election, desiring to
obtain the consent of the rest of the people, lest he later be accused of ambition
and usurpation.92
As for the election itself, it appears to have been in keeping with the decisions
of the eighth council of Toledo (654), which had specified that the new king was
to be elected by the higher nobles of the palace and the bishops, in the royal
city or in the place where his predecessor had died.93Behind this legislation seems
to have been the desire to reaffirm the ancient Gothic custom of electing the
sovereign, which had been set aside to permit Receswinth's accession to the throne
in 659. The bishops and nobles taking part in that monarch's funeral in 672 were
intent upon reaffirming their rights.94Hence, the hasty selection of Wambathough the choice was in accord with popular sentiment.
Wamba entered Toledo on 20 September and proceeded to the church of
Saints Peter and Paul, where he pledged his faith to the people and received
their oath of allegiance.95He was then anointed by Bishop Quiricus. It was in the
midst of this ceremony that, as Julian reports, a column of vapor-like smoke
stood over the king's head, whence a bee was seen to spring. This was naturally
interpreted as a presage of felicity and success for the new king.96
Several months later, in March or April of 673, Hilderic, count of Nimes, and
Gumildus, bishop of Maguelonne, together with Abbot Ranimirus, who had
usurped the see of Nimes, stirred Narbonne to revolt against Wamba, who was
in Cantabria preparing an expedition against the Basques. Wamba sent a duke
named Paul to put down the uprising, but Paul turned traitor, joined Wanosindus, duke of Tarragona, and proclaimed himself king of Narbonne.97
Wamba had penetrated into the Basque country when news reached him of
Paul's treachery. In seven days, he conquered that territory, subjecting it to a
methodical devastation. Then he marched toward Narbonne, arriving at Calahorra, where he held a court-martial for all soldiers caught in moral offenses.
Those convicted were circumcised. Dividing his army into three corps, Wamba
crossed the Pyrenees. Having rapidly subdued Barcelona, Girn, Cluse, etc., he
won a decisive victory over the rebels at Nimes.98 Paul and his associates were
subjected to various humiliations, being finally exhibited to the city of Toledo
in a sort of triumphal march, with head and beards shorn, barefoot and clothed
in rags. They were declared infamous and deprived of their possessions. With that
description, Julian's Historia ends.99
Assured of control, Wamba turned his attention to the city of Toledo, reconstructing public monuments and rebuilding the city walls, which he decorated
with monumental gates, each surmounted by a tower in which was a chapel
dedicated to the martyr-patrons of the city. The inscriptions thereon were in
verse,100and it has been suggested that Julian composed them. He certainly was
an intimate of the king, and his biographer, Felix, mentions the fact that he
wrote numerous carmina. Judging from the scope of his Ars grammatica,he must
have been the most accomplished man of letters in Toledo at the time. Hence
it seems natural that the king should have turned to him. But this is mere conjecture.l10
It was about this time, too, that Wamba destroyed a Saracen flotilla of two
hundred and seventy vessels in the waters of Algeciras.102At his instance in 675,
two provincial councils were assembled, one in Toledo in November, the other in
Braga. These councils had to do with ecclesiastical discipline, neither touching
upon civil law nor the kingship.103
Two laws found in the Leges Visigothorumseem to have had a much more farreaching effect. Probably as a result of the several Basque and Navarese rebellions
Wamba had become painfully aware of the weakness of his military forces. Accordingly, he decreed that in time of invasion military service was obligatory on
all in the vicinity, not excluding the clergy - and this under severe penalty.'04
It seems to have been a bold move, bound to prove unpopular with the bishops.
But the second law was directed even more pointedly at the church. It struck at
a real abuse, forbidding bishops to take from the churches of their dioceses offerings made by the faithful, or to presume to retain such offerings for their own
personal use even on plea of prescription after holding them for thirty years.105
We have no indication of the effect of these laws on the relations between the
king and the bishops. F. Dahn makes much of the 'obligatory military service'
placed upon the clergy, finding therein a conscious effort on the part of the king
to do away with the simple liberties of the Visigothic kingdom.'06But Torres
rejects Dahn's hypothesis. He believes the law a mere restatement of the Germanic custom of defense against external enemies. He points to the fact that
Toledo XII (681), while relaxing the excessive strictures placed upon the violation of the law, did not repeal the law itself.107Likewise, the law restraining the
avarice of certain bishops need not have caused much stir. Similar regulations
were passed in many of the church councils of the period.
Wamba was certainly on good terms with the bishops towards the end of 675.
For in November of that year the eleventh council of Toledo and the third of
Braga were held at his instance. Both the preface and the conclusion of the respective conciliar acts are highly laudatory of Wamba's efforts at reform.108
It is a bit strange, however, that despite the regulation of the fifteenth canon of
the Toledan council in prescribing a yearly meeting of the bishops in synod, no
further councils seem to have been held until after Wamba's deposition.
What does afford grounds for Dahn's contention regarding a split between
king and hierarchy is the matter introduced in the fourth canon of Toledo XII,
held in 681 a few months after Erwig succeeded Wamba.109Wamba is severely
criticized for his interference in the institution of ecclesiastical dioceses and in
the consecration of new bishops without proper ecclesiastical authorization. In
particular, Stephen, bishop of Merida, complains that he had been compelled to
consecrate a certain Cunildus bishop in the monastery of Aquis in Lusitania -
10
a proceedure entirely opposed to the ecclesiastical canons and traditions. Wamba

is likewise charged with having 'commanded, in accordance with his customary
obstinacy, that here in this Toledan suburb, in the pretorian church of Saints
Peter and Paul, he [Bishop Stephen] should ordain a bishop, and that he should
do likewise in other towns and villages. ... ' Citing decisions of previous councils
held in various parts of Christendom, which strongly condemn the institution of
new dioceses, the synod decided that the episcopal see be removed from the town
of Aquis; but that Cunildus, since he had been forced into the bishopric by the
king, be given another see. It went on to anathematize any similar future usurpation.
The council is really a bit violent in attacking the former king. 'To contravene
the customs of our forebears, and to confound the decrees of the Fathers - what
else is this than to destroy the end of the society of Christ, and by the license of
usurpation, to weaken the state of the whole church?' Thus the opening sentence
of the canon. It speaks of the violence of the prince, and of the 'unjust commands
of King Wamba' as well as the fact that 'communiter noveramus predictum
principem concilio levitatis agentem."' Thus, by November 681 there are indications of a definite break between the bishops and the king. But there is no supporting evidence proving previous animosity. And the tone may be due to pressure from the new king, Erwig.
As for Julian, he certainly was in the king's good graces as late as 30 January
680, when he was advanced to the see of Toledo, for the kings of Visigothic
Spain had much to do with the election of bishops. Of actual data, all that is
known concerning Julian's promotion is the little that Felix vouches us: 'A short
while after his [Cudila's] death, this same outstanding Julian was anointed in the
primacy of the above mentioned city [Toledo] following Quiricus of happy
memory. He was to attain as great a fame as was due to one endowed with such
diverse virtues; and thus in our time, he controlled the Church of God in a wonderful manner."'l
In view of his growing reputation as a theologian and man of letters, then, as
well as of his intimacy with the king owing to the Historia, Julian was a natural
choice for the see of Toledo when Quiricus died. The fact that he did actually
obtain the post indicates that his intimacy with the king had continued. Perhaps
the affair mentioned in the fourth canon of Toledo XII caused some trouble
between the two; but at best this is a conjecture. We simply have no further indication that such was the case. And whenever Wamba is mentioned in other
canons of this and succeeding councils there is no hint of ill will or resentment."2
V
JULIANAND KINGERWIG
The Visigothic monarchy was an elective institution. As such, it lay open to
various attempts on the part of successive sovereigns to do away with the elective
element, and to secure the crown for their offspring. This was likewise the source
of continual party warfare, often terminating in what has been called the morbo
g6tico-regicide. Up to the reign of Witteric (d. 610), ten kings had been assassi-
11
nated; only eight died in bed or battle. Thereafter, to the end of the seventh
century, three kings were deposed, though by non-violent means: Swinthila
(621-631), Tulga (640-642) and Wamba (672-680).
The Visigothic state itself was composed of three main elements, by now
fairly well (though not perfectly) fused: the Visigoths, the older Roman families,
and the Byzantines. These last had come to Spain in the army sent by Justinian
in 550 at the request of Athanagild, and had settled there. It was only under
Swinthila (621-631) that they had been finally conquered, and either expelled
or brought under Visigothic domination. Meanwhile, they had retained contact
with the Eastern Empire. It even appears that they had been a source of conflict
among the Goths. Such at least is the tenor of the Chronicleof Alphonsus III in
providing a background for its narrative on the deposition of King Wamba:
'In order that we may inform you the more fully concerning the reason for the
entrance of the Saracens into Spain, we here set down the origin of King Erwig.
For in the time of King Chindaswinth (642-653) a certain Ardabastus, expelled
from Greece by the Emperor, arrived in the course of his journey (peregrinaturus)
in Spain. Chindaswinth received him honorably, giving him a close relative in
marriage. And from her, Erwig was born. It was this Erwig, brought up in the
113
courtly tradition and elevated to the rank of a count....
The author of this particular version of the Chronicle sees some causal connection between Erwig's oriental background and the Arabic invasion, though there
is no way of knowing whether he is referring to an internal weakening of the
Visigothic state, or to something more sinister."4
Erwig thus apparently belonged to the house of Chindaswinth and Receswinth. Of his father, Ardobast, there appears to be no record in the Byzantine
history of the time. However, it was natural that he should have sought refuge
among the remnants of his fellow nationals in Spain upon being expelled from his
native land. Another small shred of evidence is furnished by the almost certainly
Byzantine style of the edict presented by Chindaswinth's son, Receswinth, to
the eighth council of Toledo."5Erwig's suggestions to the twelfth council of Toledo,
concerning a revision of the Visgothic Code, seem to be modeled on Receswinth's.ll1 In fact, Helfferich has suggested that Toledo XII in date and detail
was modeled on Toledo VIII.117
It has been contended that Wamba represented a more Visigothic faction. And
although we are not at all certain that the Byzantine influence was really an
issue of the day, there was a definite divergence between the party of Wamba and
that of Erwig. Originally, Chindaswinth had obtained the throne by violence in
642. In order to secure the kingship for his son, he had associated Receswinth
in that office as early as 648.118Although the eighth council of Toledo, held after
the death of Chindaswinth (652), confirmed Receswinth's possession of the
throne, it reaffirmedthe right of the nobles and bishops to elect their sovereign.19
As has been seen above, Wamba's fears in taking over the kingship were justified by the rebellion of the Basques, as well as by that of Duke Paul and the
Septimanians. Attempts have been made to connect the latter with the reaction
of the Byzantine faction to Wamba's election. But Julian fails to mention this in
12
his Historia; and there is no other evidence for such a contention. Julian is likewise silent about an insurrection supposed to have broken out even before
Paul's. Theories have been built up in this regard upon the evidence of certain
coins suggesting the names Gunifredo, Jajito, and Judila. But M. Torres considers
Julian's silence as final in the matter.120
Our only record of a connection between Julian and Erwig before the latter's
kingship is the mention by Felix of a letter appended to a work of Julian's now
lost, originally directed to 'lord Erwig, at the time of his countship (comitatus).'121
They are next mentioned together in connection with the deposition of King
Wamba; and finally in the Toledan councils held under Erwig with Julian presiding. But there is no indication of a close co-operation of the two in regard to
ecclesiastical or political policies; though, since Julian was primate of the royal
city, such may easily have been the case.
Erwig convoked the twelfth council of Toledo in January 681. His object
evidently was to obtain conciliar saction for his occupation of the royal throne.
He was also anxious to reorganize certain phrases of social and civil legislation.
As already noted, he called the assembly's attention to a proposed revision of the
Visigothic Code. In particular, he centered attention on the Jewish problem, and
on the case of those Spaniards penalized with civil disabilities by the rather harsh
laws of King Wamba against insubordination and rebellion.
At Erwig's request, the twelfth council of Toledo issued an official statement
regarding the deposition of Wamba and the coronation of the new king. In his
tomus to the council, Erwig charged the assembled prelates and noblemen:
... I invoke the testimonyof your paternityas an assistanceto our welfare;that thus,
as we believeourselvesto have receivedthis reignby God'sfavorfor the salvationof this
land, and the assistanceof the people,we may be aided by the counselof your Sanctity.
Thusit is, that althoughthe originsof ourelevationarenot unknownto yourExcellencies
throughcommonreport (opinabilirelatione),as to how, assistedby a cleardispositionof
divine judgment,I ascendedthe royal throne and receivedthe sacrosanctanointingof
the realm,still you may now be the better able both to know of this from written testimonyandto publishit abroadthroughdecreesby yourpromulgation.Andas this gathering of your Sanctity may have found these same beginningsof our rulershipdivinely
ordained,so it may bringthe assistanceof your prayersto these affairs,and may render
them the encouragementof your salutarycounsel.Thus, this reign, as I hold it already
favoredby your good pleasure,may enjoy the stamp of your blessing;and this majority
of yourOrderheregathered,may seem in somemannera renewalof our imperium.l22
In acknowledging Erwig's accession, the prelates and noblemen speak of
written testimony placed before them: 'For with what peace and order the most
serene Prince Erwig ascended the highest office in the kingdom, and received the
power of reigning through the sacroscant unction, written testimony [here]
produced teaches us. In this, both the penance received by the former king,
Wamba, is published, and the transference of the regal honor to this our new
prince is revealed.' The council then gives a summary of events: 'For this same
Wamba, since he was constrained by an instance of inevitable fate (inevitabilis
necessitudinis eventu), having received the necessary religious rite and the venerable sign of the sacred tonsure, selected this outstanding prince, Erwig, by an
13
order of his own decision, to reign after him and to be anointed with the priestly
blessing.l23
In stressing the authenticity of the documents placed before it, the members
of the council say expressly that they have both seen and carefully examined:
Writingsestablishingthis new order:that is, the letter attested in the handof the princes
of the palace in whose presencethe formerking receivedboth the religiousrite and the
venerablesign of the holy tonsure; likewise the notice written by the same [Wamba]
wherehe expressesthe desirethat Erwigshouldrule after him; and also anotherinstruction of the above-mentionedman, favoringthe honorableand saintly brotherof ours,
Julian,bishopof the see of Toledo,whichsingleshim out and instructshim, that with all
diligence,he shouldanointthe above-mentionedlordErwigin the realm.In these notices
- the council continues- the signatureof Wamba is both unmistakableand certified
by the evident confirmationof these same writings.
In the light of this evidence the prelates and nobles gave their approbation
to the whole proceedings, acknowledging therein, the hand of God. The council
then released the people from the oath of subjection to Wamba, transferring their
allegiance and obedience to the new king, Erwig. The canon closes, declaring
anathema and divine judgment against anyone attempting an insurrection or in
any way trying to harm the new king.
Turning to the Jewish question, the council embodied in its ninth canon the
twenty-eight laws presented to it by Erwig. In his instruction to the council,
the king stipulates clearly that he is returning to the legislation of his predecessors,
and in particular to the laws of Sisebut in this matter; though, as a matter of
fact, he is a bit more lenient than most of them, for he has done away with the
death penalty.l24
Julian has been accused of being the chief instigator of this anti-Jewish outbreak. Paul a Wengen in his monograph, Julianus Erzbischofvon Toledo,points to
various passages in the Historia Wambae regis, to the De comprobationeaetatis
sextae, and the lost Liber responsionis as certain indications of Julian's antiSemitic bias. He concludes that as chief prelate in the Spanish church, Julian must
have dictated Erwig's policy in the matter.'26 In this he follows Graetz and
Helfferich; but admits that the evidence upon which he bases his conclusions is
purely circumstantial.'26
It must be admitted that Julian could easily have been the instigator of this
legislation. However, too much must not be read into his writings against the
Jews. In the Historia, for example, he is writing of a particular rebellion in which
certain Jews played a definite part; and although the particular phrase he uses in
referring to the Jewish participants is far from elegant, he is no more violent
against them than he is against the others involved in the insurrection.127
In his De comprobatione,his preoccupation is with history and dogma; while
at times his expressions are strongly worded, stressing the manifestissima caecitas
of the Jews, he sticks quite faithfully to his argument. His manner of approaching
the subject is in the patristic tradition.'28Likewise, in the letter to Erwig prefacing the work, he mentions explicitly that he has written it on Erwig's request.
Hence the king seems rather to have inspired it, than to have been motivated by
it. Finally, if we can judge from its title, the Liber responsionis was merely de-
14
fending a principle which Julian as archbishop simply could not ignore - the
obligation he had of protecting the faith of his subjects, even slaves, against
contamination.129
Erwig's second charge to the council was made in an effort to soften the harsh
effects of Wamba's laws on military service. The latter had disbarred a large
proportion of the nobles and freemen from the use of their civil rights, and in
particular from the right to testify.'30 The council decreed that those penalized
by the law should now be restored to their titles of nobility and to their right to
give testimony.l31
Some of the older historians, following Dahn, have read into this law a definite
play on Erwig's part for the favor of the clergy. Dahn declares explicitly that it
was a lightening of the burden on the clerical party. He cites it as a principal
cause in the weakening and downfall of the Visigothic State.132But, as M. Torres
points out, an original bias leads Dahn into a total misunderstanding of the canon. Its primary purpose is civil in character, not military, in as far as it looks to
the rehabilitation of almost 'half of the people' disqualified from giving testimony and from holding property - a serious situation, fraught with the possibility of all manner of civil disturbance.'3
As for the military significance of the law, there is no mention of a relaxation
of its enforcement under Erwig. In fact, Erwig strengthened the application
of the law, rendering it more definite. He decreed that in time of military need all
slave owners should bring a tenth of their slaves equipped with weapons into the
army. Certainly no special favor is shown to the clergy. Hence, it is hard to see
how this necessary bit of civil legislation had any effect on the weakening of the
kingdom. It would seem rather to have restored a certain civil stability.34 The
canon itself reads:
In mutual conference,it occurredto us that in certaincities when at the death of the
bishopa long delay intervenesbeforethe ordinationof a successor,no small disturbance
of the divineserviceis caused,and a harmfulloss accruesto ecclesiasticalaffairs.For since
the messengersare preventedfrommakingspeedin reachinglengthy and widely diffused
sectorsof land, newsof the passingof a bishopcannotbe madeknownto the royalhearing,
and thus the freeelectionof the successorof a dyingbishopby the king is longput off - a
difficultyoften arisesfor us in the handlingof such affairs,and for the royalpower, while
a harmfulnecessity postponesour consultationsfor the selection of bishops. Therefore
it is pleasingto all the bishopsof Spainand Gaulthat, saving the privilegeof each provwhomsoeverthe
ince, it be licit henceforthfor the bishopof Toledoto install (praeficere)
royal authorityhas elected- and whomthe judgmentof the selfsamebishopof Toledo
has proven to be worthy- as bishopsover the diocesesin any provinceat all, and to
select successorsfor deceasedbishops;in such a way, however,that each one who has
been ordainedmust present himselfwithin three months after his ordinationbeforehis
own propermetropolitan,in order that, informedas to their authority and discipline,
they may worthilymaintainthe governmentof the acceptedsee.185
Now, while the canon is ambiguous, speaking of both the king and the archbishop
as selecting or electing the bishops, its general sense is clear enough. Its purpose
is to do away with the long delay caused by a going back and forth between the
king and the various metropolitans: it amounts to a surrender of the right of
approval and of consecration by the other metropolitans in favor of the primate
15
of Toledo. And this becomes quite apparent in the light of the following council
(Toledo XIII, A.D. 683), whose ninth canon in confirming the acts of this council
prescribes merely: 'Item concerning the power conceded to the bishop of Toledo
by the general synod, whereby bishops of other provinces may be ordained in the
royal city with the placet (conniventia) of the king (principum).'
What is quite obvious about the whole affair is the fact that the power given
to the metropolitan of Toledo was surrendered not by the king, but by the other
bishops. Hence the charge that the affair involved a bartering between the archbishop and the king is out of place.'36Likewise, the theory regarding Julian's
ambition, as based upon his striving after the power of appointing bishops, must
be ruled out. The appointment of bishops seems to have been in the hands of the
king; and as far as this canon is concerned it remained there.
So much, then, for the testimony of the council. It accepted the evidence placed
before it as genuine and authentic. It gives no hint of intrigue, or of anything extraordinary connected with the affair. Unfortunately for us, it takes the facts
just a little too much for granted, covering up the most important detail under
the phrase inevitabilis necessitudinis eventu.
Judging the first canon from a purely objective point of view, there is nothing
to make one suspect that it is an endeavor at glossing over an unpleasant situation. Even taking into consideration the decisions in the second canon declaring
for the validity of the penance put upon one unwilling, and the obvious play on
the part of the new king for the support of the clergy and of the freemen disenfranchised under King Wamba, there is still no call for more than a suspicion
of foul play in the matter of Wamba's dethronement. It seems that there should
have been a certain amount of opposition on the part of Wamba's adherents to the
summary way in which the penance was put upon the king. But there is no ground
for postulating this, merely upon the data offered by this council.
Before the end of Erwig's reign, the story is thus recorded in the Laterculus
Visigothorum:
'This same gloriousWambareignedeight years, one month and fourteendays. He receivedthe penanceon Sundayevening,aboutthe firsthourof the night, it beingthe fourteenth of October,the sixteenthmoon,the Era 718 [680].On the followingday, Monday,
ourgloriouslordErwigreceivedthe kingly scepter,it beingthe Ides of October,sixteenth
moon, Era 718 [the fifteenthof October].He put off the solemnityof his anointinguntil
the following Sunday .... 137
Again there is no hint at foul play or intrigue, But, of course, this negative
evidence can be somewhat discounted by the fact that this royal list was probably
contemporary with Erwig's reign.
Seventy years after the event, in 754, the Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana
records the event. As has been seen in section II, above, it is the work of one well
acquainted with the Toledan scene, who is conversant with the Byzantine and
Arab history of his day, and who devotes considerable space to the activities of
Wamba, Julian, and Erwig. Yet it makes no special note of the death or deposition of Wamba, nor of the accession of Erwig. It states quite simply that Wamba
ruled for eight years;'38that 'Erwig was consecrated in the kingdom of the Goths'
in 680,139in the same matter of fact way that it treats of the other kings all down
16
the line. It does mention the tyrannical usurpation of the throne by Chindaswinth in 642.140
A full two hundred years after the event, in 883, there appear the two chronicles usually referredto as the Chronicleof Alphonsus III and the Epitome Ovietense.
The latter contains the terse statement: 'Afterwards, he (Wamba) was deprived
of his throne by Erwig, under the new emperor Constantine.'l41 The Chronicleof
Alphonsus III, on the other hand, gives a detailed story of the event having, as
noted above, given an account of Erwig's oriental background as well as of his
relation to the house of Chindaswinth, it continues:
This Erwig, althoughhe was educatedin the palatineaccomplishmentsand elevated to
the honor of a countship,proudlyand craftily plotting against the king, mixed a drink
for him containinga herb called spartus:whereuponthe king immediatelylost consciousness.And when the bishop of the city and the optimatesof the palace, who were
faithfulto the king, and who were quite ignorantof the natureof the drink,saw the king
lying there unconscious,motivated by piety, lest the king should die without the order
[of penance],they immediatelygave him the orderof confessionand of penance.
When,then, the king recoveredfromthe effects of the drink,and recognizedthe order
placedupon him, he entereda monastery;and there, as long as he lived, he remainedin
religion.He reignedeight years, and one month; and lived in the monasteryfor seven
yearsand three months.He died in peace.142
As indicated above, the two chronicles just cited are in some way mutually
dependent, and though written in separate localities, they might easily represent
but one tradition. Again, they were composed some two hundred years after the
events they here relate, and in a territory separated from the original scene, not
only by geographical distance, but by a whole new political ordering of things.
For the Visigothic kingdom had come to an end in 711. These histories are the
product of the Christian kingdom in the Asturias.
There is a possibility that the ninth-century chronicles had older written sources.143And it is not impossible, of course, that a vivid impression of the incident
had remained in the popular consciousness and in popular legend, even after the
people had been transferred to new rulers and a new locality. It could even be
that the story continued among the Toledan peoples, who remained there as
subjects of the Arabian invaders, and was then brought to the Asturian chronicler(s) by travellers. But the lack of all contemporary evidence calls for at least
some caution in using the story.
All that we know of Julian' later relations with King Erwig and of his connections with Egica must be conjectured from Toledo XIV and XV, councils held
under these respective kings and having to do with Julian's theological difficulties
and skirmishes with Rome. As we know, Julian died in 690. His successor in the
archbishopricwas a certain Sisebut, who in 693 led an insurrection against King
Egica. It was readily put down and the bishop deposed. M. Torres sees in this
rebellion of Sisebut a refutation of the argument that the later Visigothic state
was a theocracy, run, for all practical purposes, by the bishops.44 For Sisebut
played a lone hand, though he was primate of Toledo. In fact, looking back over
the list of the Spanish bishops, there does not seem to be any concerted action
for or against particular kings. Here and there an individual stands out: Isidore,
Braulio, Julian, but it is as individuals that they play their parts.
17
Despite the ease with which Sisebut's rebellion was foiled, the kingdom under
Egica showed definite signs of decay, signified most pertinently perhaps by the
terse notice in the Chronicleof Alphonsus III: 'cum Francis ter prelium gessit, sed
triumphum nullum cepit.'145 Reflecting on Erwig's law remitting the tribute,
Torres points to a terrible lack of discipline that infected the people of the later
Visigothic kingdom. He sees it in the need Wamba had for enacting such harsh
laws concerning military service in time of invasion. He claims that such a law
should not have needed promulgation; it was in the customs of the people.
Finally, he believes that the famine under Erwig and an epidemic mentioned
under Egica led to an almost complete demoralization of the civil allegiance of
the people. To these social and political causes he attributes the downfall of the
Visigothic state.146
Whereas Wamba has been generally considered a strong and energetic kingaccording to Gams,'47perhaps the greatest of the Visigothic rulers - Erwig has
been looked upon as a weakling, the tool of a clerical faction, to whose enervating
influence may be traced the disintegration of the later kingdom and a proximate
preparation for the debacle under the Arabic invasion. Dahn has even gone so
far as to accuse him of rank superstition and cowardice. Following what Villada
considers the first redaction of the Chronicleof Alphonsus III, he has also accused
him of corrupting the salutary laws passed by Wamba.148 But the second redaction (the Rodense) of the same chronicle gives a story apparently more in keeping
with the facts; for in reality Erwig seems simply to have incorporated Wamba's
laws into his reissue of the Visigothic Code. Thus the Rodense: 'He [Erwig]
held many synods; he corrected in part the laws enacted by his predecessors
and ordered others to be published in his own name.' It adds: 'He was modest
and full of respect towards his subjects.'49
It is true, of course, that there was a certain weakening of the royal power
under Erwig- and part of the blame probably rests on his shoulders. But the
causes of the breakdown of discipline were instinct in the Visigothic regime when
he took over. The rebellions under Wamba and the need for stringent legislation
concerning military services are cases in point. This internal anarchy appears to
have continued under a king whose right to rule must have been questioned.
But that Erwig was a despicable character is not evident from the canonical
evidence handed down to us. Even his rather harsh legislation against the
Jews is not quite as brutal as that of his predecessors. That he was ambitious may
be conceded, if we are to accept the Chronicleof Alphonsus III at its face value.
But beyond that we have little proof that he was any worse than any of his
predecessors on the Visigothic throne. His work in reediting the Visigothic laws
remains a monument to his credit. And it is not at all certain that the deposition
of Wamba is to be cited to his discredit as violently as has been done in the past
VI
JULIAN, ERWIG AND THE DEPOSITION
By way of reaching a conclusion regarding the part played by Erwig and

Julian in the actual deposition of the king, it is necessary to decide - no easy
task - just how much trust can be placed in the pertinent data offered by the
18
Chronicleof Alphonsus III. As has been seen, Villada, in editing the Chronicle,
has offered as a guide the supposition that 'in general, the statements of the
Chronicle of Alphonsus III cannot be disavowed or admitted without a serious
comparison with other archaeological or historic documents.150Applying this as
a rule of thumb, we find:
1) The author of the Chronicle bases his story of the death of Receswinth,
the election of Wamba, and of the rebellion of the Basques and of Duke Paul upon
Julian's Historia, adding but one incidental detail--that
concerning the
of
Paul.15'
blinding
2) He next records the destruction of a Saracen fleet of two hundred and
seventy ships off the coast of Spain. It is an unverifiable statement. But it may
be accepted on the ground that it is probable enough in itself. Wamba did much
to strengthen the armed forces of the kingdom.152
3) Referring to the canonica sententia, he mentions the fact that Wamba
ordered synods to be held frequently at Toledo.163
4) The whole story of the connection between Erwig and the family of Chindaswinth, as well as of his oriental ancestry, stands without confirmation.
5) There is no supporting testimony for the story of Wamba's deposition as
here recorded: the poisoned potion, the coma, and the summoning of the bishop
to absolve the king.154
6) What certainly must be discarded -at least on the score of present evidence - is the whole story of the king's seven-year retirement into the monastery. According to Toledo XIII Wamba was dead by November 683.155Though
we have no way of knowing just how long he lived after his deposition, it certainly was beyond January 681.
7. Egica's coming to the throne is recorded in the Laterculus;'66 his marriage to
Erwig's daughter is mentioned in Toledo XV.157
8) The Rodense reports that shortly after Egica ascended the throne (November 687) he repudiated his wife Cixila at the insistence of Wamba. The latter is
reported as still alive and still bent on vengeance.158The Epitome Ovietense
seems to support this statement.159But in Toledo XIII (November 683) Wamba
is spoken of as already dead. Hence it seems that this particular item of the
Chronicleis pure invention.
9) Finally, before quitting the Visigothic period, the Chronicleaccuses Witiza
of the grossest immorality and of having led the clergy into vicious ways.160
But this is in contradiction to the almost contemporary evidence of the Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana.l16
It has been contended before, of course, that the Chroniclein reporting much of
this late seventh-century period shows signs of evident invention. But few have
ventured to take a consistent stand in the matter. Gams, for instance, and Tailhan, both reject the story of the repudiation of Cixila by Egica on Wamba's
initiative, as also the report of Wamba's seven years in the monastery - on
solid grounds it is true - but they do not reject that of the poisoning.162Villada
fails to even mention the Cixila incident, but he places at least some credence in
the report of Erwig's intrigue and the poisoning.1'
19
As regards the first part of the Chronicle,then, it seems that the parts not substantiated by further, independent evidence should stand or fall together. This
should be the case since the story of the king's removal is woven round certain
facts gathered from Julian's Historia, possibly also from the canons of the councils. Even granting that the Chroniclerepresents a popular tradition concerning
Wamba's deposition, it is very strange that the author of the Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana does not record any such story. He does not even hint at it.
Yet he must have been thoroughly familiar with the Toledan scene. He writes
but sixty or seventy years after the event; he was interested in Wamba, going
so far as to quote from the monuments that monarch had erected in the royal
city. He was likewise interested in Julian and Erwig. He records other usurpations of the royal power - that of Sisenand in 631 and of Chindaswinth in 642,
yet passes off Wamba's loss of the throne without a word.164
In view of the fact, then, that one whole incident - the survival of Wamba
in the monastery for seven years after his deposition, and consequently the repudiation of Cixila by Egica - is almost certainly an invention, and the fact
that there is no support for the account of the poisoning in either the contemporary councils or the almost contemporary chronicles, it seems safe to conclude
that the story, while not impossible, has all the earmarks of a legend. At best,
we have no corroboration for this story. According to Villada's axiom, therefore,
it can hardly be accepted as fact; and, as it is bound up with other details that
are certainly to be discarded, it seems to be due for a similar fate.'65
On the other hand, there can be little doubt that some strange tradition
attached itself to the deposition of Wamba- perhaps because of the cryptic
account given in Toledo XII. His deposition was not the ordinary type of removal of a Visigothic king: the chronicles designated such usurpations as 'tyrannicide.' Perhaps the story as suggested by Toledo XII is really the true account:
Wamba merely fell sick, received the penance and monastic tonsure, then recovered and retired in favor of Erwig. But so tame an event proved too strange
for popular legend. Hence the gradual development of the story of the intrigue
and the poison.
CONCLUSION
Of greater interest to the general historian than the particular responsibility

for the deposition of King Wamba is the part that the dethronement played in
preparing the Visigothic kingdom for its collapse under the Arabic invasions.
Dahn, Gams, and the other late nineteenth-century historians have blamed
Archbishop Julian and King Erwig as principally responsible for the deadly
weakening of the political and military powers of the later Visigothic state. They
maintain that the country was 'clergy-ridden,' and that, in an attempt to throw
off the burdensome rule of a really competent king (Wamba), the clerical faction
(and Archbishop Julian in particular) supported the ambitious but tractable
Erwig. Thereby was engendered a fatal weakness in the political control of the
kingdom - a situation of which the Islamic forces were only too anxious to take
advantage.
20
As we have seen, such an interpretation oversteps the limits of the evidence.

Manuel Torres believes that it reveals a surprising ignorance as to the true nature
of the Visigothic political organization, which really contained within itself the
seeds of its own decay. The continual deposition of kings and the fratricidal warfare augmented the anarchical tendencies of the people. The uprisings under
Wamba, and the necessity he found himself under of passing such stringent laws
for the military protection of the kingdom, point to a spirit of rebellion and a lack of
discipline among the people long before Julian became archbishop or Erwig king.
What must not be forgotten is that the Visigothic State continued to function
for twenty-five years after Erwig's reign, that the succeeding kings had little
difficulty in handling internal disturbances, and - what is of crucial importance
-the invading Moslems seem to have been uniformly successful in their attempts at world conquest at this time. Hence it is simply unfair to blame the failure of the Visigothic state upon the reign of any one man.
It is probably true that Erwig was not a very powerful monarch - we have no
record of his military prowess, and some of the legislation passed under his aegis
seems concessionary. But there is a question as to whether such legislation was as
clearly an indication of political debility as it has been made out to be. The rehabilitation of the outlawed nobles and rebels, the relaxation of over-due taxes
and the guarantee of civil liberties seem capable of a more favorable interpretation. They could just as easily represent a certain political wisdom: the attempt
to stabilize a badly functioning government by political kindness rather than
by force. This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
In the face of so positive a statement as that in the Chronicleof Alphonsus III,
recording Erwig's guilt in the deposition of Wamba, it may seem rash to maintain
that the case against the supposed usurper is not as definite as has hitherto
been supposed. Yet, when we examine the Chronicleand the evidence critically,
grave doubts arise as to the validity of Erwig's condemnation. The particular
story in the Chronicle has many characteristics of a legend: it dates from two
hundred years after the event, and has no corroboration beyond a simultaneous
chronicle of at best similar origin. The data to be gleaned from the Toledan councils in no way supports a charge of usurpation. Hence, while there was something
peculiar about the dethronement of King Wamba, there is little more than
prudent suspicion to justify the linking of Erwig with that event. There is certainly much less justification for naming Archbishop Julian, as instigator of, or
even participant in, the deed. As has been pointed out, there is still question as
to whether a crime was actually committed in the removal of the king.
It is simply unethical to link a man with the performance of a crime, the very
existence of which is doubtful. And this in particular when the only source which
speaks of a wrongdoing in the removal of the king explicitly clears the archbishop.
As for Julian's character, we have little positive indication of the arrogance
and ambition with which he has been charged. Regarding his selection as archbishop and primate of Toledo, his early prominence as a theologian and man of
letters certainly merited him that honor. It is true that his dealings with Rome
21
give evidence of a certain high-handedness - but it was a matter of theological

competence there at stake, and down through the ages theologians have not
been noted for their evenness of temper in controversy. The same is true in regard
to his dealings with the Jews. It is, again, chiefly a matter of controversy; and in
this regard Julian was a man of his age. As to his acquiescence in the harsh prescriptions of the anti-Jewish legislation, his participation is problematical; but
the legislation itself was in accord with the temper of the times. The one instance
we possess of his personal dealing with a Jew finds him being chided for his kindness and trusting-nature by a fellow bishop.
Of a more positive nature, the evidence indicating his learning and theological
abilities ranks him as the outstanding Visigothic Churchman of his era. He is
surpassed only by Isidore of Seville; and here it is a matter of breadth of scholarship and influence rather than of depth of doctrine. His biographer, Felix, makes
him out as a man of extreme spiritual integrity; and the Spanish church, in honoring him as a saint on her altars, concurs in this appraisal.
Certainly the tone of his theological tracts, and of the two or three introductions to these works that have come down to us, supports such an estimate.
In the face of all this, it is extremely difficult to think of such a man in connection
with political perfidy and treason. It is rash to place on his shoulders the responsibility for the downfall of the Visigothic Kingdom.
FORT RILEY, KANSAS
1 Vita Juliani auctoreFelice toletano etiam
episcopo (ed. F. A. de Lorenzana, Patrum Toletani Opera,
Madrid, 1785), II, 3-9: to be cited as in Migne, PL, xcv, 445-452. Cf. B. Altaner, Patrologia (Madrid,
1944), 56*-64*.
2 Historia Wambae regis (ed. W. Levison, MGH, SS, rer. Merov., Hanover and Leipzig, 1913), v,
486-535: also in Migne, PL, xcvi, 759-808. There is an English translation by Sister Theresa J. Powers, C.D.P., in an unpublished master's dissertation (1941) in the Catholic University of America Library, Washington, D. C.
3 Cf. E. Amann, 'Penitence' DThC (Paris, 1933), xii, i, 833 f.; B. Poschmann, Die abendldndische
Kirchenbusseim Ausgang des christlichen Altertums (Munich, 1929), pp. 52 ff.; Sister P. J. Mullins,
The Spiritual Life accordingto St Isidore of Seville (Washington, 1940), pp. 91 ff.
4 XII Council of Toledo, Canon 1: Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima collectio (Florence and Venice, 1759-1798), xI, 1027; to be cited as in Migne, PL, Lxxxiv, 470-471.
6 Canon 1.
6 Canon 9.
7 Canon 7.
8 Canon 6.
9 Canon 4.
10PL, Lxxxiv, 487-506.
11Epitome Ovietense,c. 16: MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, xI, 374.
12 Cr6nicade Alfonso III (ed. Z. Garcia Villada, Madrid, 1918), c. 3, pp. 56-57; according to Villada,
this is the first redaction.
18 F.
Dahn, Die Konige der Germanen(Leipzig, 1885), vr, pp. 472 ff.
14 A.
Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichtedes Westgothenrechts(Berlin, 1858), pp. 90 ff.; Westgotischen Arianismus (Berlin, 1860), pp. 77 ff.
15 Paul a
Wengen, Julianus Erzbischofvon Toledo (St Gall, 1891).
16 F.
Gorres, 'Der Primas Julian von Toledo (680-690),' Zeitschriftfr wissensch. Theologie, XLVI
(1903), 524-553.
22
17P. Gams, Die Kirchengeschichtevon Spanien (Regensburg, 1874), ii, 2, pp. 166 f.
18Cf. 'Vita S. Julianii et commentarius' in Acta Sanctorum,martii tomus primus (ed. J. Carnandet,
Paris and Rome, 1865), pp. 780-786; J. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici (Antwerp, 1611), vIII, 562 ff.
Cf. the author's 'Julian of Toledo and the Roman Pontiff' in Melanges De Ghellinck(Louvain, 1951).
19J. Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue(Paris, 1885), p. 121.
20H. Leclerq, L'Espagne chr6tienne(Paris, 1906), pp. 341 ff.
21Z. Garcia Villada, Historia eclesidstica de
Espafia (Madrid, 1932), ill, 96-105.
22 M.
Torres, 'Espafia Visigoda,' in Historia de Espafa (dirig. por Ram6n Menendez Pidal, Madrid,
1940), II, xxxviii-xlix, and 126 ff.
23 C. 47 of this chronicle speaks of Erwig as dominus noster, thus giving the impression that he was
alive when this section was being written. It was probably published a short time after his revised
edition of the Leges visigothorum(October 682). The manuscript tradition favors such an interpretation: the Havniensis manuscript stops with the death of king Receswinth (672); the Soriensis carries
the list of kings down to 710. Cf. MGH, Chron. Min., II, 461.
24 Ibid.
25 Cf.
'Additamenta,' iv, v, op. cit., pp. 323-333.
26Ibid., 323-324.
27 Ibid., 324.
28 C. 137
(MGH, ChronicaMinora, III), p. 367; cf. 'Additamenta,' ibid., pp. 324-326.
29
Referring to Toledo V he says: 'liber canonum indicit .. . ' (c. 22, ibid., p. 340); he cites Tol. II
(c. 16); IV (c. 20); VII (c. 27); VIII, IX, X (c. 35); XI (c. 47); XII (c. 50); XIII (c. 54).
30 MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, pp. 368, 2-4, 13-17. The De sextae aetatis comprobationeis edited by Lorenzana in SS. PP. Tolet., ii, 88 ff.; also in Migne, PL, xcvi, 538-586.
31
MGH, ibid., p. 348, n. 46; also edited in E. Htibner, Inscriptiones christianae hispanicae (Berlin,
1871), supplem. 1900), p. 75, n. 391.
32Ewald, Neues Archiv, x, 605.
33Espana Sagrada (2nd ed., Madrid, 1769), viII, 262-325: Florez was following the eleventh-century bishop of Oviedo, Don Pilayo, who attributed the chronicle to Isidore, bishop of Pacensis, a suffragan of Noxida (today either Bija or Badajoz).
34 R. Dozy, Recherchessur l'histoire et la litrature de l'Espagne pendant le moyen dge (Paris, 1881),
i, 2-14; J. Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue(Paris, 1885).
36'La Cr6nica del moro Rasis,' Anales de la Universidad de Madrid, in (1934), 235 ff., in particular
n. 16.
36 Ewald, Neues Archiv, xi, 236-238, gives a description of the manuscript. Cf. MGH, Auct. Antiq.,
xi, 370 ff.
37 'Cr6nica de Alfonso III,' Boletin de la Academia de la Historica, c (1982), 600-609. Garcia Villada,
after demonstrating the almost verbal parallelisms in the two chronicles (Cr6nicade Alfonso III, pp.
41 ff.) admits it is practically impossible to decide whether or not they are directly interdependent.
38 H. Florenz, Espana Sagrada, xIII, 464-489.
39Z. Garcia Villada, Cr6nica de Alfonso III.
40 Ibid.,
pp. 67 ff.
41 L.
Barrau-Dihigo, 'Remarques sur le chronique dite d'Alphonse III,' Revue Hispanique, XLVI
(1919), 325 ff.
42 Z. Garcia
Villada, 'Notes sobre la cronica de Alfonso III,' Revista de Filologia Espaflola, vIII
(1921), 264.
43L. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Remarques ... ' Revue Hispanique, XLVI (1919), 325-332.
44 Not
given in the shorter recension, called the Rodense, this letter is published by Villada in his
first redaction, in Cr6nica de Alfonso III, c. 1. Villada admits it is the work of a later hand.
4 Ibid. As there is no standard method for reference to these several chronciles and redactions, the
following scheme will be adhered to here: Laterculus: Laterculus regum Wisigothorum, MGH, Auct.
Antiq., xIII, 468. ContinuatioIsid. Hisp.: the Spanish section of the Continuatio Isidoriana, Byzantica
Arabica Hispana, thus edited in MGH, Auct. Antiq., XI, 334ff. Epitome Ovietense:The shorter Chronicle of 883, written at Oviedo, thus edited in MGH, Auct. Antiq., XI, 334 ff., more recently by M.
Gomez-Moreno as the 'Albeldense' in Boletin de la Academia de la Historia, c (1932), 600-609.
23
Cr6nica de Alfonso III: the first redaction edited by Z. Garcia Villada, in his 1918 edition. Rodense:
the second redaction of the chronicle of Alphonsus III in Villada's edition; edited also by M. GomezMoreno in the Boletin de la Academia de la Historia, c (1932), 609-621.
46 C. Cabal, Covadonga (Madrid, 1932), 62-85; 'Temas de reconquista: Cr6nica de Alfonso III,'
Boletin de la Bibliotheca Men&ndezy Pelayo, xvII (1935), 191-224; see esp. 215 ff. An account of the
life of Sisnand is given in Espafna Sagrada, II, append. III.
47 R.
Blasquez, 'Las redacciones de la cr6nica atribuida a Alfonso III,' La Cuidad de Dios, CXLII
(1925), 258-271.
48 M. Gomez-Moreno, 'Cr6nica de Alfonso III,' Boletin de la Academia de la Historia, LXXIII (1918),
44-57. For his editions of the two redactions, see n. 45 above.
49C. S&nchez-Albornoz,'La redacci6n original de la Cr6nica de Alfonso III,' Spanische Forschungen
der G6rresgesellschaft(Mtinster-in-W., 1930), I, ii, 47-66; 'La Cr6nica del Moro Rasis,' Annales de la
Universidadde Madrid, in (1934), 229-265.
50 Vita
Juliani, PL, xcvi, 445-452, incipit.
51
According to Canon 9 of Toledo XVI (May 693), Bishop Sisebut, Julian's successor in the see of
Toledo, was deposed for a conspiracy against the king. He was replaced by Felix, bishop of Seville,
whose transfer to the royal see was then canonically confirmed by the Council (PL, LXxxIV, 542-543).
Felix is mentioned in the Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana, c. 29, in connection with several councils
held under Kings Egica and Witiza. In 701 Gundericus is cited as bishop of Toledo (ibid., c. 30). Cf.
H. Ward. Diet. of Christ. Biog. (DCB), i, 495.
62 Cont. Isid. Hispana, c. 49 (MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, 399).
3 Cf. S. Katz, The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1937), pp. 15-22; A. K. Ziegler, Church and State in Visigothic Spain (Washington,
1930), 189-199.
64Toledo XVII, Tomus (MGH, Leges Visig., ed. K. Zeumer, Hanover and Leipzig, 1902, I, 1, 484;
also, Mansi, xii, 94). Cf. R. D. Shaw, 'The Fall of the Visigothic Power in Spain,' Eng. Hist. Rev.,
xx (1908), 214.
66 S. Katz, op. cit., p. 17, n. 4; cf. F. G6rres, 'Der Primas Julian von Toledo (680-690),' Zeitschrift
fur wissensch. Theologie,XLVI (1903), 526-527.
66 Vita
Juliani, c. 3.
67Canon 20 (PL, LxxXIV, 375).
68 Julian, Prognosticonfuturi seculi (PL, xcvi, 507), II, 24; Felix, Vita c. 1, mentions that Julian
was 'ab ipsis rudimentis infantiae enutritus' in Toledo; but gives no indication of a school attached
to the church there.
69 PL, xxxIv, 335. For some idea of the schooling at the time, see H. Keppler, 'De viris illustribus
and St. Isidore of Seville,' Journal of TheologicalStudies (JTS), xxxVI (1936), 19; E. Perez Pujol,
Historia de las instituciones sociales de la Espana goda (Valencia, 1896), III, 489 ff.
60 Vita, c. 3: 'erant enim in subditis docendis operosae virtutis ... in desiderio decoris domus
Domini strenui, in seniorum obedientia praesto ... animis ferventioribus studebant.'
61 PL, LXXXIV,486, where his
signature is recorded.
62
Felix, Vita Juliani, c. 3. Cabensis is probably the modern Valdecaba.
63
Ibid., c. 4; also c. 12, where Felix says that Julian died on the 6 March 680, having reigned 10
years, 1 month and 7 days.
64 Jaffe, Regesta pontificum romanorum(Leipzig, 1885), nos. 2119-2122. There is no further information as to who this comesSimplicius was.
66 C. 3, Toledo XIV (Mansi, XI, 195-736; PL, LxxxIv, 506). Cf. Hefele-Leclerq, Histoire des conciles (Paris, 1909), II, 1 and 472 ff. Pliche-Martin, Histoire de l'Eglise (Paris, 1937), v, 191.
66Present besides Julian were Bishops Cyprian of Tarraconensis, Sunifrid of Narbonensis, Stephen
of Emerita, Julian of Baracara, and Floresindus of Hispalensis. The several letters of the pope were
read together with an extract of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which the pontiff had forwarded in
Latin. After a critical examination, all were pronounced in conformity with the teachings of Nicaea,
Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. Cf. Canons 3-6 (PL, iLXXIv, 507-508).
67 Felix, Vita (PL, xcVI, 448-449). Cf. Z. Garcia Villada, Historia eclesiastica de Espafla (Madrid,
1936), III, 154 ff.
24
68 Pope Benedict II (d. March 685) evidently sent back word to Spain through the Spanish notary
Peter that he considered certain expressions ill-worded; and Julian made a reply, which, because of
the death of the pontiff, was not acknowledged. In Toledo XV, Julian says:' ... capitula pro quibus
muniendis ante hoc biennium (May 688) Romanus papa Benedictus nos litterarum suarum significatione monuerat, quae tamen non in scriptis sui annotare curavit, sed homini nostro verbo renotanda
injunxit, ad quod illi jam eodem anno sufficienter congrueque responsum est . . .' (PL, LxxxIv, 513).
69Julian's justification of his terminology at first accuses the pope of a careless reading of his text 'incuriosa lectionis transcurione' - and states that in using the phrase 'voluntas genuit voluntatem,'
he was speaking not in terms of human psychology, or of finite (relativum) things, but he was using
voluntas as it is in the divine essence. Thus, as in God, being, willing and knowing are one, so one can
say that in Him, as opposed to what takes place in creatures, the will begets the will. It is this that
(PL,
anyone reading his incriminated work intelligently and carefully could not help seeing...
LxxxVI, 514-519: cf. Villada, op. cit., 154 ff.).
70 'Jam vero si
post haec et ab ipsis dogmatibus patrum quibus haec prolata sunt in quocunque dissentiunt, non jam cum illis est amplius contendendum; sed maiorum directo calle inhaerentes vestigiis,
erit per divinum judicium amatoribus veritatis responsio nostra sublimis, etiam si ab ignorantibus
censeatur indocilis' (PL, LxxxIV, 519-520).
71 Z. Garcia Villada claims to have discovered a fragment of Julian's original letter to Rome in a
Ripoli manuscript; cf. his Hist. ecles. de Espanfa,11, 1, 155-156, and Appendix I, 332-339.
72 The Continuatio Isidoriana Hispanica says explicitly that as a result of Toledo XV (688) an
Apologeticumwas sent to Rome, and that this document occasioned papal and imperial joy, bringing
forth from the Holy See a paean of approbation: MGH, Chron.Min., 11,350, n. 55. In the Vita, Felix
says laconically: 'Item aliud Apologeticum de tribus capitulis de quibus Romanus praesul [i.e., Benedict II] frustra visus est dubitasse.' (PL, xcvi, 450).
73P. Gams, Die
Kirchengeschichtevon Spanien, 11,200 ff.; F. Gorres, 'Der Primas Julian von Toledo
(680-690),' Zeit.fiir wissensch. Theol., XLVI(1903), 523-553.
74 J.
Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue (Paris, 1885), 126 ff.; R. Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de los
heterodoxosespafoles (Madrid, 1912), I, 200.
76 E. Magnin, L'eglise wisigothiqueau VII siecle, I, 28-31; Z. Garcia Villada, Hist. ecles. de Espana,
n, 1,159-160.
76 Cf. C. H. Lynch, St Braulio, Bishop of Saragosa (631-651) (Washington, 1938), p. 131 ff., 145147; A. Vega, El Pontificado y la Iglesia Espafola (Escorial, 1943), 125-143; J. Madoz, El simbolo del
Concilio XVI de Toledo (Madrid, 1944), pp. 98-107; J. Rivera, San Julian Arzbispo de Toledo (Barcelona, 1944), pp. 181-194.
77Cf. J. Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue,p. 126 ff.
78 Vita, c. 12 (PL, xcvI, 451-452).
79
Reprinted in PL, Lxxv and LXXXVI;cf. H. Florez, Espafa Sagrada, v, 310-312.
80P. Ferotin, Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans l'eglise wisigothique ... Monumenta Eccl. liturgica
(Paris, 1904), v, 457, n. 6.
81B. de Gaiffier, 'Les notices hispaniques dans le Martyrologie d'Usuard,' Anal. Bolland., LV (1937),
268-283.
82 B. de Gaiffier, 'Les reliques de l'abbaye de San Millan de la Cogolla au XIII siecle,' Anal. Bolland., LII (1935), 90-96.
83 Edited in Lorenzana, Patrum Toletorum Opera (Madrid, 1785), ii, 10-76: also in PL, xcvi,
453-524: cf. V. Valina, La doctrina escatol6gicade San Julian de Toledo (Comillas, 1940).
84 Edited in Patrum Tolet. Opera, ii, 88-138; PL, xcvI, 538-586: cf. M. L. W. Laistner, Thoughtand
Lettersin the Western World, A.D. 500-900 (London, 1931), p. 131; S. Katz, Jews in the Visigothic and
Frankish Kingdoms, pp. 36-37.
85 Patrum Tolet. Op., ii, 153-265; PL, xcVI, 596-704: cf. M. Manitius, Geschichteder lateinischen
Literatur des Mittelalters (Munich, 1911), pp. 132-133.
86
Felix, Vita, cc. 9 and 11.
87
Ibid., c. 12.
88 Edited in
MGH, SS rer. Merov., v, 486-535: cf. Manitius, op. cit., pp. 130-131.
89 PL, xcvI, 43-44.

90Ed. F. Lorenzana (Rome, 1797), excerpts in H. Hagen, Anecdota Helvetica, cciv-ccxxxviii; De
vitiis etfiguris (ed. W. Lindsay, Oxford, 1922).
91C. H. Beeson, 'The Ars Grammatica of Julian of Toledo,' Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (Rome,
1924), I, 50-70; Manitius, op. cit., pp. 131-132.
92 Hist. Wambae regis, cc. 2-3 (MGH, Rer. SS. merov., v, 486 ff.).
93Canon 10 (PL, IxxxIv, 425-426).
94The IV Council of Toledo under King Sisenand and St Isidore in Canon 1 prescribed that: 'upon
the death of a king, his successor should be elected by the princes of the reign together with the bishops
and the assent of the people.' The V Council, canon 3, excluded from the throne 'all those not pertaining to the noble line of Goths, as well as those of evil character, or who had been elected tumultuously
or without right.' This explains Wamba's hesitation over the informality of his election. Cf. A. Ziegler,
Churchand State in Visigothic Spain, pp. 93-99.
95Hist. Wambaeregis, c. 4. This oath of allegiance was part and parcel of Visigothic political practice, e.g. IV Council of Toledo, c. 75, where the bishops go to great length strengthening the sacredness of the oath upon which depended the security of the political structure. Cf. Z. G. Villada, Hist.
ecles. de Esp., II, 80-82; T. Andres Marcos, Constituci6n, transmisi6n y ejercicio de la monarquia hispano-visigodaen los Concilios Toledanos (Salamanca, 1928).
96 Hist. Wambae regis, c. 4: H. Leclerq puts this down to a prank of an imaginative cleric, cf.
L'Espagne chretienne (Paris, 1906), p. 336.
97Hist., cc. 8-9. For the possible participation of the Jews in the rebellion, see S. Katz, The Jews in
the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms, pp. 16-17.
98 H. Leclerq, L'Espagne chret.,p. 337, comments on the sound military strategy of this operation.
99The Leges Visigothorum (eh. K. Zeumer, MGH, Legum, sect. I), 11, 1, 8 passed under Chindaswinth are harsh in punishing rebellion. The decalvatiomust have been singularly humiliating to the
long-haired Goths, together with the declaration of infamy and imprisonment. Cf. K. Zeumer, 'Geschichte der westgothischen Gesetzgebung,' Neues Archiv, xxiv, 67; F. S. Lear 'Crimen laesae maiestatis in the Lex Romana Visigothorum,' SPECULUM,
IV (1929), 73-87.
100 CIH, XLVI(MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, 348): '[Wamba] civitatem Toleti mire et eleganti labore renobat, quem et opere sculptoria resivicando pertitularis hoc in portarum epigrammata stilo ferreo in
nitida lucidaque marmora patrat:
Evexit factore deo rex inclitus urbem
Wamba seu celebrem protendens gentis honorem;
in memoriis quoque martirum, quos super easdem portarum turriculas titulavit, haec similiter
exaravit:
Vox, sancti domini, quorum his presentia fulget
Hanc urbem et plebem solito salvate fabori.'
101Cf. G. Antolin, 'Estudios de codices visigodos,' Bolet. Acad. Hist., uv (Madrid, 1909), 55.
102Chroniconde
Alfonso III, pp. 56 and 101, n. 73.
103Cone. Bascense III (PL, LXXXIV,585-592), Toledo XI (ibid., 451-468). The ordinances passed
reflect a rather sad state of clerical laxity.
104
Leg. Visig., ix, 2, 8 (MGH, legum sect. I, t. I).
105Leg. Visig., Iv, 5, 6.
106F. Dahn, Die Konige der Germanen,v, 201 f.
107M. Torres, Historia de
Espana, III, p. 126 ff.
108Toledo XI (PL, ixIv,
451-468), Braga III (585-592).
109PL, xxxIV, 473-475.
110Ibid., 475.
111
Felix, Vita, c. 12 (PL, xcvi, 446).
112Cf. Toledo XII, c. 7 (PL, Lxxxv, 470); Tol. XIII: Erwig's Tome (PL, LxxXIV, 487); Tol.
XVI: Egica's Tome (PL, LXXXIV,530 and 549).
113Z. Garcia Villada (ed.), Cr6nica de Alfonso III, c. 3 (pp. 56-57).
114 The Rodenseaccording to Villada (p. 101) the shorter recension of this same Chronicle - does
not mention the reason for giving Erwig's ancestry.
26
115
Leges Visig., n1, 1, 6. Cf. A. Ziegler, Churchand State in Visogothic Spain, p. 109.
6 Erwig's Tome: Leges. Visig., ix, 2, 8 (also in PL. ixxxxv, 466-470).
117A. Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichtedes Westgothenrechts,p. 194.
118This was done at the suggestion of St Braulio of Saragossa: cf. C. Lynch, St Braulio,
Bishop of
Saragossa (631-651), p. 81.
119Canon 10. Cf. A.
Ziegler, op. cit. (note 115 above), pp. 111-112.
120 M. Torres, Historia de
Espaffa, III, 121.
121
Felix, Vita (PL, xcvi, 480).
122PL, LXXXIV,468-470.
123 Canon 1:
ibid., 471.
124Leges Visig., xII, 3, 1-28.
125 P. a
Wengen, Julianus Erzbischofvon Toledo, 30-39.
126 H.
Graetz, Geschichteder Juden (4 ed., Leipzig, 1909), v, pp. 162 ff.; A. Helfferich, Entstehungund
Geschichteder Westgothenrechts,pp. 192 ff.
127 Cf. his Historia Wambae
regis: 'Judicium in tyrannorum perfidia promulgatum' (PL, xcvi,
807-808).
128Cf. S. Katz, The Jews in the
Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms, pp. 32-37.
129
PL, xcvi, 539. Cf. S. Katz, op. cit., p. 17.
130Leges
Visig., Ix, 2, 8.
131Canon 7.
132 F. Dahn, Die
Konige der Germanen,v, 218. Later on, however, he maintains that the law did not
require actual military service of the clergy (vi, 469-470). This admission takes the teeth out of his
postulated grievance of the clergy against the king: the law would have been a matter of taxation
rather than of violation of the immunity of the clergy.
133 M. Torres, Historia de Espana, II, 129-130. Wamba's law was reedited in October 681, as part
of the Leges Visigothorum:ix, 2, 8.
134Leges. Visig., ix, 2, 9. Cf. J. Tailhan, 'Les Espagnols et les Wisigoths,' Revue des questions historiques,xxx (1881), 12.
135PL, LxxxIv, 475-476.
136Cf. P. A Wengen, Julianus
Erzbischof on Toledo, p. 24.
137Laterculus
regum Visigothorum, MGH, Auct. Antiq., xIII, 468. This was probably written while
Erwig was still alive; cf. n. 23 above.
138 Cont. Isid.
Hisp. (CIH: MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, 348), c. 46.
139Ibid., c. 49.
140Ibid., c. 13.
141
Epitome Ovietense,c. 16 (MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, 374).
142 Ed. Z. Garcia
Villada, p. 55. Cf. notes 35 to 45 above.
143 Villada denies this in his introduction.
144Historia de
Espana, II, 132.
145 Ibid.
146 Ibid. The
plague is further recorded in the CIt, c. 53.
147P. Gams.
Kirchengeschichtevon Spanien, ii, 167.
148 F.
Dahn, Die Konige der Germanen,v, 215 if. Dahn's accusation is based on the-erroneous attribution of two laws in the Leges Visigothorum(v and vi, 2) to Erwig: they really stem from the reign
of Chindaswinth; cf. Torres, Hist. de Espaia, p. 129.
149Z. Garcia
Villada, Cr6nica de Alfonso III: Rodense, c. 3.
150Ibid., p. 46; both redactions are used here for evidence and comparison.
151Curiously, C. Cabal ('Temas de
reconquista: Cr6nica del Alfonso III,' Boletin de la Biblioteca
Men4ndezy Pelayo, xvii (1933), 229 f.) denies that the Chronicle is dependent on Julian's history.
152See above, nn. 97-99 and 104.
163XI Council of Toledo, Canon 16 (PL, LxxxIv, 465).
154 See
above, nn. 43-45.
27
155Curiously, after stating that the king retired to a monastery and lived seven years and three
months after his deposition, the Rodense gives the date of the king's death as the era 719 = 681 A.D.
In the first redaction, there is no date for this event.
16 C. 48 (MGH, Auct. Antiq., xiI, 468).
157
PL, LxxXIV, 522.
158
Rodense, c. 4: not included in the first redaction.
159MGH, Auct. Antiq., xi, 379: 'Egica rex anno XV dum regnum accepit, filiam Ervigii cum iurationi Wambani subiecit.'
160Rodense, c. 5.
161Cc. 58-59.
162 G.
Gams, Kirchengeschichtevon Spanien, II, 167-168, accepts the story of the poisoning in its
entirety. Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue, p. 121, is more cautious, believing that the Chronicle has
embellished the tale, though 'quand au fond des choses, elles sont assez d'accord.'
163 Z. Garcia Villada, Historia ecles. de Espafna,pp. 103-106. He holds definitely that there was a king
versus clergy controversy.
164 CIH, cc. 9 and 13. No mention is made of the rebellion of Bishop Sisbert in 698; and Felix is
given as bishop of Toledo during the reign of Egica.
165Villada (Cronica de Alfonso III, p. 40) draws a slightly different conclusion: 'While the account
[of Wamba's undoing] does appear legendary, if we take into consideration that the Albeldense (Epitome Ovietense) asserts that Erwig "deprived" Wamba of the throne; that the princes of the time
made and unmade kings with surprising facility; and that the tenor of the penance is in harmony with
the liturgical usage of the time, it does not appear too impossible.' His reference to the liturgical usage
is irrelevant. The discipline of public penance at the hour of death was a common feature of daily life
at the time. The Chroniclesupplies no noteworthy details.

Murphy (Francis X.) - Julian of Toledo and The Fall of The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain (Speculum 27:1, 1952, 1-27)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Murphy (Francis X.) - Julian of Toledo and The Fall of The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain (Speculum 27:1, 1952, 1-27)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Medieval Academy of America

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain

JULIAN OF TOLEDO AND THE FALL OF THE

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdam

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

deposition of King Wamba. The Epitome Ovietense(also called the Albeldense or

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

dressed to all the bishops (praesulibus) of Spain: to Julian's predecessor Quiricus,

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

His death is commemorated in the modern martyrologies on 8 March. The

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

a proceedure entirely opposed to the ecclesiastical canons and traditions. Wamba

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

By way of reaching a conclusion regarding the part played by Erwig and

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Of greater interest to the general historian than the particular responsibility

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

As we have seen, such an interpretation oversteps the limits of the evidence.

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

give evidence of a certain high-handedness - but it was a matter of theological

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Julian of Toledo and the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi