unanimously elected to the vacant throne (531). He appears to have been
engaged in hostilities for some years with the vindictive or ambitious
sons of Clovis. Gothic Gaul he was compelled to abandon to its fate, but
he vigorously defended his peninsular dominions, which were invaded and
laid waste by Childebert and Clotaire. Elated with his successes, the
victorious Theudes passed the straits of Gibraltar, and laid siege to
Ceuta, then in possession of the imperial troops. The place was invested
with vigour; and this recent conquest of Belisarius would soon have
passed to the Visigoths or the Vandals, but for the pious scruples of
the king. Though an Arian, he revered the Sabbath; on which he not only
refrained from hostile operations, but with his soldiers was occupied in
public worship. Less strict than their foe, the besieged issued from the
walls, fell on the Goths at the hour of prayer, and committed on them a
carnage so horrible that the king had some difficulty to escape. He did
not long survive this disaster. An assassin contrived to penetrate into
the recesses of his palace, and with a poniard to deprive him of life.
Before he expired, he is said to have ordered that the murderer should
not be punished, as in his death he recognised the hand of heaven, which
thus chastised him for a similar crime he had himself committed many
years before. He left behind him the character of a just, a valiant,
and an able ruler, who secured to his kingdom the blessings of internal
peace by avoiding all invidious preference of his own religious sect, and
treating the orthodox with as much favour as his Arian brethren.
Of the next two princes who successively swayed the Gothic sceptre,
very little is known. The former, Theudisela, who had been the general
of Theudes, and had acquired considerable fame in the war with the
Franks, was a monster of licentiousness. This second Sardanapalus had
scarcely reigned eighteen months before his destruction was effected by
his enraged nobles. He was supping with them one evening in his palace
at Seville, when the lights were suddenly extinguished, and a dozen
swords entered his body. He was succeeded by Agila, whose reign was one
continued series of commotions. Many cities refused to recognise his
election. He marched to chastise them, but was vanquished and ultimately
slain by his own soldiers after being defeated by Atanagild, a Gothic
noble (554).
[Illustration: TOLEDO]
[Sidenote: [554-567 A.D.]]
Scarcely had Atanagild obtained the throne, the great object of his
wishes, when he discovered how fatally his ambition had blinded him. The
troops of Justinian, his imperial ally, had no intention of leaving the
country. From their fortresses in the Carthaginian province they defied
his power to expel them. Nor were his successors more fortunate; the
unwelcome intruders remained until they were insensibly incorporated
with Gothic inhabitants. This prince is more famous from the misfortunes
of his two daughters than from his own deeds. The one he married to
Sigebert king of Metz, the other to Chilperic king of Soissons. The
latter, Galeswintha, Galsvinda, or Gosvinda, was murdered by order of her
husband--no doubt at the instigation of his mistress, Fredegund. In Spain
the memory of her sister Brunehild, is held in the highest reverence:
in France, it is branded with infamy. The persecutions which after her
husband’s death she sustained from the unprincipled Fredegund, and the
ferocious Chilperic, and her tragical end, many years afterwards, by the
command of Clotaire, are events which belong to the history of France
rather than that of Spain. Into the question of her guilt or innocence
no inquiry need be instituted here: there are authorities enough to be
consulted on both sides; and in both abundant reason may be found to
lament the influence of national prejudice, which can blind the wise and
exasperate the good.[10]
During the reign of Atanagild, the Suevi, who had abandoned paganism
for the errors of Arius, in the time of their king Rechiarius, about a
century before, were converted to the orthodox faith. Though subject to
the Goths, they had still preserved, as before observed, their kingly
form of government. Theodomir, their present monarch, and his court
solemnly abjured Arianism, were rebaptised, and admitted into the bosom
of the church. After a peaceful, just, and useful reign of near fourteen
years, and an interregnum of five months, occasioned by want of unanimity
among the electors, the party of Narbonne in Gothic Gaul succeeded in
raising Liuva [Leuva or Leova] to the throne. He contented himself with
Gothic Gaul; and, in the second year of his reign, he confided to his
brother Leuvigild (Leovigild) the sovereignty of Spain. Of Liuva no more
is known except that he died in three years from his election, leaving
his brother sole ruler of the kingdom.
LEUVIGILD AND ERMENIGILD
[Sidenote: [567-583 A.D.]]
The reign of Leuvigild is more interesting than that of his predecessors.
His arms were triumphant in every direction. The soldiers of the empire
were again compelled to take refuge in their fortresses on the coast;
and the fierce inhabitants of Biscay, Alava, and even Cantabria, to
surrender at discretion. But the most painful, if not the most formidable
of his enemies, he found in his eldest son Ermenigild. Yet few sons had
ever more reason for filial gratitude. By an affectionate father, on his
marriage with the princess Ingunda, daughter of the famous Brunehild
and of Sigebert (which was celebrated in Toledo in 582) he had been
associated in the royal dignity, and in every other respect treated
with the utmost liberality. But Ingunda was orthodox, and Gosvinda,
the second wife of Leuvigild, a professor of the Arian sect. The two
queens could not long agree: the two husbands, finding that their palace
was scandalised by disgraceful scenes, agreed to have separate courts:
while the elder remained at Toledo, the younger established his court at
Seville, which in splendour was little inferior to that of Leuvigild.
Ermenigild had not long been established in his new palace before he
abjured Arianism, and embraced the Catholic religion. His conversion
was chiefly the work of his consort, who had acquired great ascendency
over him. Leuvigild declared that the crown of the Goths should never
adorn the brow of an apostate. It is difficult to say which of the two
first drew the sword in this unnatural warfare; but there is probability
for throwing the guilt on the son. When no hope of resistance remained
the rebel betook himself to a church, whence he implored pardon from
his justly incensed father. The king promised to spare his life, if he
would leave the sanctuary. By the persuasion of his brother Recared,
who appears to have acted throughout in a manner highly creditable both
as son and brother, he came out; and, with all the outward signs of
repentance, threw himself at the feet of the king. The latter raised him,
kissed him, and wept. For some time the father struggled with the king.
At length he ordered that the rebel should be despoiled of the royal
ornaments, and exiled to Valencia, thenceforward to live as a private
individual.
Had all ended here, the justice of Leuvigild would have been approved by
posterity, and the rebel would never have been lauded for virtues which
he did not possess. But Ermenigild had scarcely arrived at his place of
exile, when he again pursued his guilty plots against his country and
king. He again connected himself with the Greeks, the most faithless and
most formidable enemies to the repose of Spain; instigated the natives
to rebellion; and, at the head of this combined force, made an irruption
into Estremadura. The indignation of Leuvigild may well be conceived.
Having collected a veteran body of troops, he opened another melancholy
campaign against the arch-rebel; he was delivered--or he fell--into their
hands, and thrown into the dungeons of a prison in Tarragona. Leuvigild
despatched several confidential messengers to the prince, promising, it
is said, not only pardon but a restoration to royal favour, if he would
return to the Arian faith. With a constancy which certainly does him
honour, Ermenigild alike disregarded promises and threats, and declared
his unalterable resolution of living and dying in the Catholic communion.
Then it was that Leuvigild, in a fit of ungovernable fury, gave orders
for the execution of the youth. The order was but too promptly obeyed:
the ministers of vengeance hastened to the dungeon, and a hatchet cleft
the head of the prince of the Goths.
[Sidenote: [583-584 A.D.]]
That the crimes of Ermenigild deserved death, no one can attempt to
deny; but nature shudders when a parent, in however just a cause,
becomes the executioner of his child: no excuse can shield Leuvigild
from the execration of posterity. But neither will historic truth permit
the victim to be called a martyr. But what are we to think of St.
Ermenigild[11]--what of the daring impiety which could invest a weak and
wicked youth with attributes little less than divine? By the breviary of
the Spanish church, and one or two ancient chroniclers, we are told that
the dungeon of the saint, on the night of his execution, was illuminated
with celestial light; that angels hovered over the corpse, and celebrated
his martyrdom with holy songs! Then as to the miracles wrought by his
intercession--omitting all mention of those which are said to have
occurred during the darkness of the Middle Ages--a darkness in Spain
“that might be felt”--what are we to say of Morales,’[u] a writer who, so
late as the close of the sixteenth century, gravely tells us that in his
behalf a signal miracle has been performed through the instrumentality of
this precious saint?[12] Even the judicious Masdeu,[r] at the close of
the eighteenth century, could not, or perhaps dared not, divest himself
of the pitiful prejudices of his country’s faith.
After the news of Ermenigild’s death, the brothers of Ingunda armed in
the cause of their widowed sister. At the same time the Suevi showed a
disposition to be restless, and prepared to descend from the mountains
of Galicia, on the plains of central Spain. Nothing could exceed the
promptitude with which Leuvigild met these threatening disasters. While
he himself marched to subdue his rebellious vassals, whose nationality
he had long resolved to destroy, he despatched his son Recared into Gaul
to oppose the Franks. Both expeditions were eminently successful. All
Galicia submitted, and a final period was put to the domination of the
Suevi, 177 years after their arrival in Spain. In the latter expedition,
Recared, after various successes, expelled the invaders from Gothic
Gaul. The great Leuvigild was now undisputed master of the peninsula,
with the exception of some maritime fortresses still held by the Greeks.
Unfortunately, however, for his fame, he stained the lustre of a splendid
reign by persecuting the orthodox or Catholic party. He is the first
of the Visigoth kings[13] represented on ancient coins, with the royal
diadem on his brow. But his riches were not wholly expended in idle pomp.
The city of Recopolis, which he founded in Celtiberia, in honour of his
son Recared, was a monument of his patriotism. Such, also, were the
improvements which he introduced into the national legislation.
[Sidenote: [586-589 A.D.]]
Leuvigild died in 586. A year before his death, he associated his son
in his royal dignity. His greatest glory, in a Spaniard’s eye, is his
suspected conversion to the Catholic faith a few days before his death.
If the alleged change were less disputable, we should hear no more of his
defects; they would be carefully covered by the veil of orthodoxy.
RECARED I AND CATHOLICISM
On the death of his father, Recared I was unanimously acknowledged sole
king of the Goths. In about a year after his accession, this prince
conceived the hardy project of reclaiming his subjects from heresy. Time
and patience, as well as a prudent dexterity, were indispensable towards
the success of his project. By inviting his Catholic and Arian prelates
to dispute in his presence, and by assuming the appearance of perfect
impartiality between them, he laid the foundation of the change he
meditated.
His next was a bolder step, though in perfect accordance with his new
policy: he restored to the Catholic churches the treasures of which they
had been deprived by his predecessors, and secured to the more indigent
ones a considerable augmentation of revenue. When he saw his preparations
sufficiently matured, he assembled his nobles and clergy at Toledo (May
8th, 587), to discuss his proposal. Having prevailed on the assembly to
pass three consecutive days in fasting and prayer, he opened the business
of the meeting in an elaborate speech. He submitted that, if unity of
religion could be restored, an end would be put to the troubles which
had so long agitated the kingdom. Lastly, he caused an instrument to be
read, containing his abjuration of Arianism, and the confession of his
belief in the co-equality of the Three Persons, and in the authority of
the Catholic and apostolic church; and entreated all who were present to
follow his example. When he and his queen had solemnly signed the act
of confession, most of the prelates and nobles in the assembly hastened
to do the same. The Catholic faith was thus declared the religion of
the state. Spaniard, Sueve, and Goth were thus joined in one communion;
and a canon was drawn up at the suggestion of St. Leander and the king,
and with the full concurrence of the several members present, that
henceforth no person should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who should
not previously recite the symbol of belief, as sanctioned by the council
of Constantinople.
[Sidenote: [589-621 A.D.]]
Scarcely had the Gothic monarch effected the conversion of his subjects,
when he was called to defend those of southern Gaul against Gontram,
king of the Franks (589). Near Carcassonne they were utterly routed,
and their camp seized by the general of Recared, nine thousand of their
number being left dead on the field. Not less signal was his success
over the Basques, who, with their characteristic restlessness, had long
harassed the neighbouring provinces. The imperialists, too, he humbled,
and compelled them to seek refuge in their fortresses. The rest of this
monarch’s reign was a continual effort to promote the happiness of his
people: his administration was beyond example prosperous; and he enjoyed
to an unrivalled extent their confidence and affection. It has been truly
said of him that there arose no war in which he was not victorious;
no rebellion which he did not crush; no conspiracy which he did not
discover. In his last illness this king was devout enough, according to
St. Isidore,[p] the contemporary bishop of Seville, to make a public
confession of his sins, in conformity with the practice of the primitive
church. He died in 601.
PETTY MONARCHS (601-672 A.D.)
Of the eleven succeeding sovereigns little is known, and that little
is not very interesting. In general their reigns were brief, and their
actions unimportant; so that we have the less reason to regret the
scantiness of our historic materials. Liuva II, the eldest son and
successor of Recared, ere two years were passed, was assassinated by
the same Witteric whom his father’s clemency had pardoned. Witteric had
little reason to congratulate himself on his success. In his wars he was
uniformly unfortunate; and in his family he was not more to be envied. In
the seventh year of his reign he was murdered at his own table, and his
body buried without honour.
Gundemar, the next king (610), was more fortunate in his warlike
enterprises. He triumphed over the Basques and the imperialists. He had
one advantage--an advantage not always enjoyed by the Visigoth monarchs
of Spain--that of dying a natural death. Sisibut (Sisebert) was much
superior. His successes over both the Basques and the imperialists were
more signal: they were also more solid, since he reduced and retained
several fortresses belonging to the latter; those which lay near the
straits of Gibraltar were lost to them forever. But he deserves greater
praise for his humanity than for his valour or skill in war. He wept over
the wounds of his prisoners; and, with his own money, often redeemed such
as were taken by his soldiers. Whenever a town was sacked, he ordered
it to be proclaimed that the enemies who, even when the contest was
hopeless, should reach his quarters and claim his protection, should
escape with both life and liberty. Such an expedient is indicative enough
both of his own admirable clemency and of the blood-thirsty disposition
of his Goths, who were accustomed indiscriminately to massacre every
living thing that fell in their way.
Strange that this prince, who was thus indulgent to his very enemies,
should so rigorously have persecuted his Jewish subjects! He published an
edict which left them no alternative but baptism or scourges and utter
destitution. Eighty thousand of the poor wretches submitted to the rite;
a great number escaped into France; such as remained and were obstinate
in their faith were treated with great cruelty. At length, however, the
church wisely desisted from this execrable policy. It was accordingly
ordained by the fourth council of Toledo that the holy sacraments should
no longer be administered to such as were unwilling to receive them. In
other respects Sisibut was a wise and patriotic monarch. The construction
of a fleet for the purpose not only of the country’s defence, but of
making his subjects acquainted with maritime affairs, was, in a Gothic
king, a magnificent thought. He is also believed to have surrounded the
city of Evora with fortifications. He died in 621. His son, Recared II,
reigned only three months.
[Sidenote: [621-673 A.D.]]
Suintila, the next in succession, is represented as a strange compound
of great and vicious qualities; at least his life exhibited, at two
different periods, a strange contrast with itself. On the one side
he had the glory of effecting what his predecessors had attempted in
vain--he reduced all the fortresses held by the imperialists, and forever
ended their influence in the peninsula: he was thus the first Gothic
monarch of all Spain. With equal success he quelled the commotions of
the Basques. His triumphs changed him: the hours which he had formerly
devoted to the happiness of his people were now passed in sensuality.
He became cruel. What still more exasperated the Goths, so tenacious
of their original equality, and so jealous of their sovereign’s
prerogatives, was his conferring on his son Recared the title of king,
and thereby laying the foundation of hereditary monarchy. Seeing the
universal dissatisfaction inspired by this once popular ruler, one
Sisenando, a noble Goth, planned his deposition. The Goths deposed their
king, and proclaimed Sisenando the successor (631). The fourth council
of Toledo (assembled in 633), after passing some canons for the better
discipline of the church, entered fully into his views by excommunicating
Suintila, the wife, children, and brother of that monarch.
On the death of this monarch the choice of the Goths fell on Chintella
(Chintila), who, in conformity with the regulation just mentioned,
convoked the prelates at Toledo to confirm his election. These fathers
issued another decree, that in future no one should be nominated as king
who was not of noble blood and of Gothic descent; all candidates, too,
were subjected to excommunication who should endeavour to attain their
end by unlawful means. In another council (the sixth of Toledo), held
about eighteen months afterwards, the third canon obliged all future
kings to swear, not only that they would not suffer the exercise of any
other religion than the Catholic, but that they would rigorously enforce
the laws against all dissidents, especially “that accursed people,” the
Jews. Tulga, who was elected in 640, was also a model of the peaceful
virtues. The aged and inflexible Cindasuinto (Chindaswind), who ascended
the throne in 642, associated with him in the royal dignity his son
Recesuinto (Receswind), and on his death in 653 that prince remained in
secure possession of the crown. The piety of this monarch made him the
favourite of the church; the readiness with which he sanctioned a law
that the wealth acquired by future kings should be transmitted, not to
their children or heirs, but to their successors, rendered him no less
that of the nation.
THE REIGN OF WAMBA
[Sidenote: [673-677 A.D.]]
After the death of Recesuinto in 672, the eyes of the Gothic electors
were turned on Wamba, whose wisdom and virtues were well known to the
whole nation. But this excellent man, who had filled some of the most
honourable posts in the monarchy, and had found little happiness in
greatness, was little inclined to accept the proffered dignity. He
alleged his advanced age, and his consequent incapacity to undertake
duties requiring such labour and activity. Prayers and tears were vainly
employed to move him. At length, one of the dukes of the palace placed a
poniard at his breast, and bade him choose between the sepulchre and a
throne. Such a choice was no longer difficult, and Wamba reigned.
If Wamba, as there is reason to believe, had been induced to refuse
the crown chiefly from an apprehension of popular levity, his prudent
foresight was verified by the event. The Basques revolted, and their
example was instantly followed by the inhabitants of Gothic Gaul. The
evil was increased by the bigotry of the king; he issued a decree,
banishing all Jews who refused to be baptised: these exasperated
exiles flocked to Nîmes, whose count, Hilderic, had drawn many nobles
and prelates into the rebellion. The cause of the monarch appeared
hopeless, when Duke Paul, a Greek by nation, and consequently wily and
unprincipled, who had been despatched at the head of an army to suppress
the commotion beyond the Pyrenees, prevailed on his troops to join the
malcontents, and on several important fortresses to open their gates to
him. Even Barcelona and Narbonne were detached from their fidelity to the
king.
In the meantime the artful Greek had prevailed on the Goths of Gaul
to proclaim him king. The prudent Wamba, after the successful issue
of the Cantabrian war, marched towards Catalonia. On the confines of
that province, he divided his forces into three considerable bodies; of
which, while one was conveyed by sea, the other two proceeded towards
the Pyrenees by two different routes. Barcelona submitted almost without
resistance; Gerona offered none; two of his generals speedily reduced the
fortress of Clausina, on the site of the modern Clusas, and made Hilderic
and Ranosind prisoners. The victorious king now marched on Narbonne, in
the hope of ending the war by the reduction of that capital, and the
seizure of the rebel. But Paul, whose self-confidence seemed to have
greatly abated, had precipitately retired to Nîmes, leaving the defence
of Narbonne to Duke Wittimer. He surrendered, and, with his companions,
was publicly scourged as a rebel.
[Illustration: A SPANISH FLAGELLANT]
The reduction of Narbonne was followed by that of other strong places in
the neighbourhood. No time was now lost in marching against Nîmes, where
Paul was entrenched with his bravest troops. The assault was delivered
with fury, and was as furiously repelled. Eventually the walls were
surmounted: the struggle on the summit was terrible, but short; it was
renewed in the streets, but the sword of the Goths still pursued its
destructive career. Wamba now entered triumphantly into Nîmes, by the
pardoned inhabitants of which he was received with unfeigned gratitude.
By his command Paul, with the other leading rebels, was dragged, by the
hair of the head, from the vaults of the amphitheatre. The judges of the
tribunal voted for the death of the most guilty; but the merciful monarch
satisfied himself with condemning them to wear shaven crowns, and to a
religious confinement within the walls of Toledo. Having pacified the
whole of Gothic Gaul; having deposed some governors, and created others;
having repaired the towns which had been injured, and banished the Jews,
Wamba returned to his capital.
[Sidenote: [677-680 A.D.]]
After those glorious exploits, Wamba applied his undivided cares to
the interests of his subjects. By cultivating the arts of peace, by
bettering the temporal condition of the people, by encouraging the
clergy to greater diligence, by strengthening the walls of Toledo,
and by causing justice to be administered with mercy, he secured the
confidence of his kingdom. The bases of his character seem to have
been incorruptible integrity, an ardent zeal for his country’s good,
and a rare union of moderation with firmness. He was also unrivalled
for prudence; he provided for everything. Foreseeing the enterprises
to which the fanatic ambition of the Saracens would inevitably impel
them, he prepared a fleet for the defence of the coast. He had soon to
congratulate himself on his prophetic caution. About the year 677, a
fleet of 170 barques, filled with these barbarians, passed the straits
of Gibraltar, and attempted to land: they were assailed, dispersed, or
taken by the ships of the king, whose vigour long kept the Mussulmans in
awe. Though masters of nearly all northern Africa, from the Nile to the
Atlantic Ocean, they wisely respected for many years the territories of
the Goths. Had Wamba been succeeded by monarchs of equal prudence and
activity, the scourge of Saracenic domination, the greatest, perhaps,
that ever afflicted any people, would probably have been forever averted
from Spain.
But neither the virtues nor the abilities of Wamba, it is said, could
exempt him from the fate common to so many of the Visigothic kings--from
domestic treason. If that fate, however, be common in kind, it differs
widely in manner, in the present instance. On Sunday, October 14th, 680,
the king fell into a state of insensibility, and seemed to be deprived
of life. As no doubt appeared to be entertained by his servants that
he was dying, in conformity with the custom of his times, his head was
hastily shaven, and he was enveloped in a penitential habit; in other
words, he was transformed from a layman into a member of the monastic
profession. Though he recovered in about twenty-four hours, his doom was
everlastingly sealed: though his profession had been involuntary, and
even forced on him while in a lifeless state, the obligation was not the
less imperative. Disqualified thus strangely from enjoying the honours
and from participating in the duties of public life, he retired to the
monastery of Pampliega, near Burgos, where he passed the remainder of his
days.
Such are the facts of this strange occurrence. The only difficulty is
to determine whether the suspension of the vital powers in Wamba was a
natural or a previously contrived event. Two chroniclers of the ninth
century (Sebastian[v] of Salamanca, and the anonymous monk of Albelda[w])
assert that the indisposition or trance of Wamba, and his consequent
tonsure, were the work of Ervigius, a nephew of King Cindasuinto, who
had long aspired to the throne. He administered, say they, a draught to
the monarch, which he considered potent enough to destroy reason, if not
life itself; and in the lethargy which followed the monastic penitence
was imposed, whether by his contrivance, or through the piety of the
royal attendants, is doubtful. But what reliance is to be placed on
the testimony of these chroniclers, who wrote so long after the event?
Not a hint is given of this treason in the work of the contemporary
prelate St. Julian,[x] nor in the acts of the twelfth council of Toledo,
assembled after the retirement of Wamba, nor in the epitome of Isidore
of Badajoz,[z] who wrote about seventy years after the time; in short,
there is no contemporary authority whatever for fixing so deep a stain
on the character of Ervigius. On the contrary, the three instruments
which he produced on his accession were acknowledged to be authentic:
the first, which was signed by the great officers of the palace, stated
the fact of the tonsure and habit being imposed; the second, which was
signed by Wamba himself, contained his renunciation of the crown in
favour of Ervigius; and the third was an injunction addressed by that
monarch to the metropolitan of Toledo to proceed with the coronation of
his appointed successor.
On the other hand, it may be contended with some appearance of reason
that the silence of St. Julian and of the fathers of the council is
sufficiently explicable: neither would wish to draw on themselves the
vengeance of the reigning king by giving utterance to their suspicions.
And as to the three instruments so carefully adduced, does not that
very care imply an apprehension on the part of him who took it that his
proceedings would be narrowly watched, his motives, perhaps, called in
question? Would innocence, which, like charity, never judges harshly,
or suspects, have taken such pains to furnish evidence so connected
and elaborate? Undue anxiety has often shot beyond its mark. Then
the subsequent conduct of Ervigius, which, as we shall soon see, is
censurable for something worse than imprudence, must naturally confirm
the suspicions of such as incline to the opinion of his guilt. On such a
subject, however, where certainty can never be expected, the wise will
hesitate to decide, and the good to condemn.[14]
ERVIGIUS AND ERGICA
[Sidenote: [680-687 A.D.]]
Having summoned a council at Toledo, the twelfth held in that city (680),
Ervigius had little difficulty in persuading the fathers to acknowledge
the authenticity of the three instruments he produced; and, consequently,
his claim to the Visigothic crown. They even showed a blind devotion to
his will in other respects, not very honourable to their characters,
nor respectful to the memory of an excellent prince. But, with all his
wily contrivances, Ervigius had the mortification to see the bulk of the
people still attached to their late sovereign. To make that sovereign
appear tyrannical, and to attach to his interests all who now justly
suffered for their participation in the rebellion of Paul, he summoned
the thirteenth council of Toledo, and requested the assembled prelates to
reverse the salutary measures of his predecessor. Accordingly, the first
canon restored to their ranks, possessions, and rights, all who had ever
taken arms against Wamba. Even yet Ervigius was apprehensive. He sent
for Ergica, the nephew[15] of Wamba; and offered that prince the hand of
his daughter, with the succession to the throne, on the condition that
the latter would swear to protect his family when he should be no more.
The proposal was eagerly accepted; the marriage was solemnised; and, on
the death of Ervigius, the crown of the Goths fell on the brows of the
son-in-law.
Gratitude is not always the virtue of princes. Scarcely was Ergica in
possession of the envied dignity, than he showed his hostility to the
memory of his benefactor. Resolving to use the same weapons as had been
employed by that king, he convoked the fifteenth council of Toledo to
aid his views of vengeance; he represented to the fathers the oath which
he had taken to protect the family of Ervigius, and how difficult it
was to be observed amidst the general complaints of his people against
the rapacity of that family. The supple ecclesiastics, who had long
lost sight of the independence of their vocation, and were become
the mere ministers of the monarch (in fact, the bishops were, _ex
officio_, ministers of the crown, in a state which has been truly called
theocratic), immediately declared that an unjust oath was not binding;
and that the king might punish or reward any of his subjects, the
relatives of Ervigius among the rest, as justice or equity dictated. In
consequence of this decree, Ergica is said to have punished with severity
the enemies of Wamba and his house--in other words, the partisans of
Ervigius; and even to have repudiated his wife, thus dissolving the only
remaining bond which connected him with the rival family.
[Sidenote: [687-709 A.D.]]
In the sixth year of his reign Ergica was afflicted with a rebellion,
which spread into Gothic Gaul. He had also engagements with the
Franks--probably connected with the conspiracy of Sisebert; but in none
did he obtain any advantage. A more formidable conspiracy was discovered
the following year. Notwithstanding the severity of the penal laws
against their nation, many Jews, though outwardly Christians, were
retained in the peninsula by the attractions of a lucrative commerce;
but their souls groaned within them under the oppressions they were made
to endure; and they were naturally eager to engage in any undertaking
which promised them toleration and revenge. On the present occasion they
were said to have secretly conspired with their brethren of Africa;
perhaps, too, with the Saracens, on whose arms they had long prayed
for success. To avert the threatened explosion, the king convened the
seventeenth council of Toledo, which decreed severe penalties against
the guilty. The eighth canon (_de Judæorum damnatione_) not only reduced
to perpetual slavery all the baptised Jews--and Spain had long suffered
no other--who relapsed, or who conspired against the state, but ordered
that, at seven years of age, their children should be taken from them,
and educated under the direction of approved Christians.[16] In 698
this king associated with him his son Witiza, and caused that prince to
be recognised as his successor. Witiza, to whom Galicia was confided,
established his court at Tuy; and thenceforth, to the death of Ergica,
the coins of the kingdom bore two royal heads, with the motto _Concordia
Regni_. The father died at Toledo in 702, leaving behind him a doubtful
reputation.[17]
WITIZA (702-709 A.D.)
Of Witiza we know little that is certain, but much that is apocryphal.
Over his character, his actions, and even his death, there rests a
cloud of uncertainty which will probably never be removed. It is,
however, agreed that in the beginning of his reign he evinced many great
qualities; that he redressed many grievances inflicted by his father;
that he restored their possessions and liberty to many who had been
unjustly deprived of both; and that he remitted the heavy arrears of
taxes due at his accession--nay, that, to prevent the possibility of
their being collected, he caused the books in which the names of the
defaulters were contained to be publicly burned. On the other hand,
we are told that he was addicted to the greatest luxury; that he took
many concubines, with whom he lived openly, in defiance of church
remonstrances; that in the indulgence of his brutal appetite he spared
neither the high nor the low, neither wife nor maiden; and that, to
stifle complaint, he published an edict by which he allowed all his
subjects, ecclesiastics no less than laymen, as many concubines as they
could obtain.
All this, however startling and improbable, may possibly be true.
Though not a word of it is to be found in the continuator of Joannis
Biclarensis,[ff] nor in the contemporary historian Isidorus Pacensis,[z]
the brevity of those writers, who do no more than chronicle, in the most
meagre terms, a few of the more striking facts, may perhaps account
for the omission. The vices too of Witiza are mentioned by the monk of
Moissiac,[hh] who wrote about one hundred years after the destruction of
Spain, and are alluded to by Sebastian of Salamanca,[v] who finished his
chronicle towards the close of the ninth century.[g]
The history of Witiza’s reputation is a model of the gentle art of
blackening a character, especially in the interests of a religious cause,
which can command the progressive aid of generations. Paquis[gg] tells
the story briefly, noting that “the further the historians are from
the time of Witiza, the more detailed become their recitals, and the
more severe their reprobation.” A century after his death the foreign
and anonymous writer of the _Chronicle of Moissiac_[hh] says that he
was addicted to extreme luxury. Nearly a century more, and the Spanish
Sebastian of Salamanca[v] broke out more strongly: “Witiza plunged into
odious debauches, lived in a cloud of women and concubines, and finally
to escape the censures of the priests dissolved the assemblies of the
bishops and braved the canons of the church; he even ordered the bishops
and priests to marry. His impieties caused the ruin of the Goths.”
Another chronicler[w] of the same time omits mention of the orgies and
the attack on the church, but accuses Witiza of killing the father of
the great Pelayo and of pursuing the famous hero himself. Two centuries
more, and the monk of Silos[ii] adds that Witiza put out the eyes of
a prince of whom he was jealous. Yet again two centuries, and Lucas
Tudensis[jj] discovers that, in addition to previously recorded crimes,
Witiza, fearing rebellion, disarmed every subject and tore down the walls
of every city but three; and that he chased from Toledo the bishop Julian
to place there his own son Oppas, besides mutilating the son of King
Cindasuinto. In fact, there was no Bishop Julian at that time; Oppas was
not Witiza’s son; and the son of Cindasuinto, of whom Witiza was said
to be jealous, must have been over eighty years old at the time, even
imagining him to have been the son.
About this time Roderic Ximenes,[kk] finding the old chronicles praising
Witiza as virtuous and the later condemning him as vicious, combined the
two by representing Witiza’s character as undergoing sudden degeneration
from its high beginnings. This patchwork mantle was long worn by Witiza
in the later histories of Morales,[u] Mariana,[q] Ferreras,[aa] and
Aschbach.[ll] More recent authorities have, however, inclined to discard
the evil side of Witiza’s reputation as a mere fiction of later writers
who hated him because he spared the Jews and resisted the church in some
things.
As a picturesque example of how closely allied to fiction is the
development of supposed history, the story of Witiza is of value. There
is much uncertainty as to his end. There seems to have been a rebellion,
and the power seems to have been divided with Roderic, who was called the
son of King Cindasuinto, but was more probably a descendant. The story
was told that Roderic finally, with the aid of Greek allies, captured
Witiza and put out his eyes; but of this the contemporary Isidorus
Pacensis[z] says no word. We can only be sure that Roderic reigned
supreme in 709. So fabulous is the fame of this Roderic, “the last of
the Goths,” that some historians have been tempted to deny that he ever
existed at all. Dahn[mm] calls him an historical phantom; and even less
credence is given to the famous romance of the lovely Florinda, to whose
virtues he showed no mercy, and whose father in revenge called in the
Arabs from Africa to the rich conquest lying at their very feet. This
romance, though so little credible, is so closely allied with the Moslem
conquest of Spain, that it may well be briefly told, especially as there
is nothing impossible or improbable in the main incidents, once the story
is rid of its miraculous fairy-story accretions, such as the enchanted
tower of Hercules, where Roderic found inscriptions prophesying the
coming Arab storm.[a]
THE FABLE OF RODERIC AND FLORINDA (709-711 A.D.)
[Sidenote: [709-711 A.D.]]
Among the ladies of King Roderic’s court, say the later chronicles of
Spain, there was one of uncommon beauty, named Florinda or La Cava,
the daughter or wife of one Doyllar or Don Illan, or Don Julian. She
had the misfortune to please the king; but as her virtue was equal to
her loveliness, she indignantly rejected his overtures. But kings, and
least of all Gothic kings, were not to be repulsed with impunity; and
Roderic accomplished by force what he could not do by persuasion. The
lady dissimulated her deadly hatred until she had an opportunity of
communicating her dishonour to her father, then absent against the Moors.
All on fire at the indignity done his child and house, the count resolved
on a revenge with which the whole earth should ring. He entered into a
compact with the misbelievers, engaging to put them in possession of
the whole country, if they would wash away his dishonour in the blood
of the foul ravisher. He wrapped his purpose in great secrecy until
he had rescued his daughter from the clutches of the king: he himself
fetched her from the court of Toledo, and behaved to Roderic with so
much courtesy that no one could suspect he knew of his wrong, much less
that he was about so fatally to avenge it. On his return to Ceuta, the
seat of his government, he found the Moors prepared for the expedition:
he openly joined them, accompanied the infidel general to Gibraltar, and
thus commenced the famous struggle which was to end in the subjugation of
a great nation.
The whole story of Florinda is evidently a romance--probably of Arabic
invention--similar to the many thousand others which formed the amusement
of the people in the Middle Ages. It is first mentioned by the monk
of Silos,[ii] who wrote about four hundred years after the Mohammedan
invasion. No doubt, however, can be entertained that Count Julian was
among the most influential and active of the conspirators who called the
Arabs into Spain.
The chivalric _Romance of Don Roderic_[nn]--about as good an authority
as the monk of Silos on such a subject--gives us a minute account of the
amour, its progress, and termination. From the whole conversation, as
given by this anonymous novelist, Roderic might be justified in believing
that the scruples of La Cava were not insuperable[18]--that, in fact,
she was willing in heart, but coy through maiden bashfulness. Even at
last, when she might have so easily alarmed the palace, she was silent
through fear of her cries reaching the ears of the queen. Count Julian’s
daughter is made a model of virtue by Southey, and Roderic himself is
represented as scarcely inferior.
VISIGOTHIC CIVILISATION
[Sidenote: [415-711 A.D.]]
The government of the Visigoths was, in appearance, an absolute
monarchy; yet the power of the chief was so restrained in its exercise
by the controlling influence of the prelates, that it might, with equal
propriety, be termed a theocracy. In the infancy of their office, the
Gothic kings were no less controlled by their nobles; they were, in
fact, but _primi inter pares_; they had no royal descent, no hereditary
honours, nor, indeed, much transmitted wealth, with which to captivate
or influence their rude companions. Every fierce chieftain considered
himself as good as his king, and might become one himself. His titles
were high-sounding: “Your Glory” was the most usual; though the epithets
of Pious, Conquering, etc., were often added. Recared was the first of
the Visigothic kings distinguished by the name of Flavius. Whether he
assumed it after the imperial family of that name, or from its reputed
Gothic signification, is unknown; but it continued to adorn the titles of
his successors. His father was also the first who surrounded the throne
with regal state, and whose effigy bore the impress of a crowned head.
The successors of that monarch improved on his magnificence: robes of
purple, thrones of silver, sceptres and crowns of gold, distinguished
them still more from the time of Cindasuinto.
Soon after the establishment of the Visigothic monarchy at Toledo, the
power of the crown seems to have been bounded by two restrictions only:
(1) The king could not condemn without legal trial, but he had power to
soften the rigour of severe justice or entirely absolve the delinquents
brought before his tribunals; (2) the second restriction related to the
decrees of king, which were received as binding during his life; but
which had no force in perpetuity, unless sanctioned at the same time by
the signatures of the bishops and barons in council assembled. In other
respects he was unshackled. He could make war or peace at pleasure; he
could issue proclamations which had the force of law, subject to the
restriction just mentioned; he commanded in the field, and presided in
the court of justice. The jurisdiction of the king was not confined to
affairs purely temporal. He could issue general regulations relating to
the maintenance of discipline, or the interests of religion. He could
preside in tribunals of appeal, even in affairs purely ecclesiastical.
The king nominated to all vacant bishoprics, and even translated from
one see to another; but this prerogative was very gradually acquired.
The fourth and last ecclesiastical prerogative of the king was that of
convoking national councils, and of confirming them by his authority. He
was thus, in the widest sense, in a degree unknown among other Catholic
nations, the protector of the church. In consequence, the bishops became
courtiers, and generally submissive to the royal will; and even the
fathers of the Toledan councils were swayed by fear, or by the hope of
gaining favour.
In other respects the king was invested by the laws with much outward
reverence. Whoever conspired against his life was punished with death;
or if the capital penalty was remitted, the delinquent was blinded,
shaven, and doomed to perpetual confinement. He who even affronted the
king was, if rich, mulcted in half his possessions; if poor, he remained
at the monarch’s disposal. Whoever defamed the character of a dead king,
was punished with fifty stripes. Yet, with all this studied respect, no
monarchs were ever so unfortunate as those of the Visigoths--none whose
empire, liberty, or even life, was so insecure. From Atawulf to Roderic,
the greater number were assassinated or deposed.
We cannot fail to be struck with the national pride of the Goths: they
alone were styled _nobiles_, while the rest of the community were
_viliores_. Under the latter humiliating term were included not merely
_servi_ and _liberti_, or slaves or freedmen, but even the _ingenui_,
or free-born, whatever might be their wealth or consideration; and, to
preserve the privileged caste uncontaminated, marriages were rigorously
forbidden between the victors and the vanquished, until Recesuinto
abolished the prohibition. Not only was the slave who presumed to marry a
free woman put to death, but the free woman, who either married or sinned
with a slave, was burned at the stake with him. Again, the relative
importance of the three classes, nobles, freemen, and slaves, was
carefully graduated by the laws. For the same crime a greater punishment
was awarded to the second than the first, and to the third than the
second. If from the civil we pass to the military state of the country,
we shall find that the Goths were one vast nation of soldiers, the words
soldier and man being considered almost as synonymous. The obligation
of service was imperative on all freemen; nor were the sons of the king
admitted to his table until they had made their essay in arms. Slaves
were also admitted to join the levies, since every owner was required
to take with him to the field one-tenth of the number he possessed. All
Goths capable of bearing arms, whether lay or clerical, were subject to
military duty; and heavy were the penalties with which he was visited who
absented or hid himself to escape the conscription.
Matrimony, the last of the sacraments mentioned in the Visigothic canons,
was considered of unrivalled importance among a people so tenacious
of their privileges, and so jealous of the purity of their blood. As
before observed, marriages between the victors and the vanquished were
rigorously prohibited, until Recesuinto repealed the obnoxious law. The
damsel could not give her hand to anyone, unless he were not merely
approved, but selected for her, by her parents; or, if an orphan, by her
natural guardians; and, if she married contrary to their wishes, she
not only forfeited all right to her share of her future prosperity, but
both she and her husband became slaves--the slaves of the man for whom
her relatives had intended her. The dowry was given by the bridegroom,
not by the guardians of the bride, and was carefully preserved by them.
The impediments to matrimony were numerous. (1) The male was always to
have the advantage of years over the female. (2) He or she who had been
betrothed to anyone could not marry another before the expiration of two
years; if this prohibition was disregarded, slavery was the doom of both.
(3) He who forced a woman could not marry her. (4) If a Christian married
a Hebrew, both were banished to different places. (5) The monastic
orders, public or devotional penitents, virgins veiled and vowed, were
naturally excluded from this sacrament; so also were kindred to the sixth
degree.
A married couple could at any time separate by mutual agreement; but
they could not return to each other, much less remarry. It was only in
case of adultery, or when the husband committed the most abominable of
sins, or when he wished his wife to commit adultery, that the _vinculum
matrimonii_ was declared forever dissolved, and she was at liberty to
marry another man. Adultery was reputed so enormous a crime among the
Visigoths, that the person who committed it became the slave of the
injured partner. If a husband caught his wife _in flagrante delicto_,
he could, with perfect impunity, destroy both her and her paramour--a
permission of which a modern Spaniard would not be slow to avail himself.
When the actual guilt was not witnessed, every means, not excepting
tortures, were used to arrive at its knowledge.
HARDSHIPS OF THE JEWS
Under the Goths, Spain was no more exempt from heresies than she had
been under the Romans. The first is that of Nestorius, respecting the
mysterious union of the divine and human natures in Christ; but it
was speedily repressed. The Manichæans and Priscillianists were not
more successful; both Arians and Catholics united in banishing them:
extirpation was reserved for later times. After the accession of Recared,
when the Catholic religion became the only one in Spain, severe penalties
were decreed against all who presumed to differ from the established
faith. In the reign of Chintella, and in a council held at Toledo (the
sixth), a decree was made that thenceforth none but Catholics should be
allowed to remain in the country; and all succeeding kings were to swear
that the Jews, the only misbelievers remaining, should not be tolerated.
By a subsequent law this odious intolerance was more clearly and fatally
defined. Under the penalty of confiscation of property and perpetual
banishment, it prohibited all men, of whatever condition, whether
natives or resident foreigners, ever to call in question, either in
public or private, the holy Catholic and apostolic faith, the evangelic
institutions, the definitions of the fathers, the decrees of the church,
whether ancient or recent, the sacraments, or anything whatever which
that church held as holy. After these decrees the poor Jews could
expect little mercy; they had never, indeed, enjoyed much security
since the Roman domination. Sisibut, Sisenando, Chintella, Cindasuinto,
Recesuinto, Wamba, and Ervigius were the most eager rivals in the race
of persecution. They decreed that the Jews should be baptised; that such
as were baptised should not be allowed to have Christian servants; that
they should observe Easter Sunday according to the Christian rite; that
they should respect the matrimonial impediments already noticed; that
they should eat whatever Christians ate, however solemnly forbidden in
their own law; that they should neither read nor receive into their
houses any book contrary to the Christian religion; that they should
not be admissible to any civil offices; that their evidence should not
be received in a court of justice, unless ample testimony were borne
to their moral habits; that when travelling they should make their
confession of faith, and exhibit an episcopal passport at every town they
entered; that they should spend every Sunday in company with Christians,
who should then witness their devotions; and that they should always be
present whenever the catechism was repeated or expounded.
But as, in spite of all these tyrannical measures, the sincerity, if
not the conduct of the forced converts, was naturally suspicious, two
successive confessions of faith, expressed in the most awful terms, were
framed for them. In these confessions they were compelled to swear, in
the most solemn and public manner, by the great Incommunicable Name and
Attributes, that they utterly abhorred, and from their souls forever
renounced, all the rites, ceremonies, customs, and solemnities they had
previously respected and observed; that they would thenceforward live
in the most holy faith of Christ, their Creator and Redeemer; that they
would observe all the rites of God’s church, and shun even the most
distant form of intercourse with Jews. This oppressed nation was, in the
sequel, righteously revenged. Who can blame the readiness with which they
received the Mohammedans, and the zeal with which they endeavoured to
overthrow the most accursed government that ever existed in Europe.[g]
BURKE’S ESTIMATE OF GOTHIC RULE
Spain, with its fertile soil, its varied climate, its noble rivers, its
extensive seaboard, its inexhaustible mines, and its hardy and frugal
population, was the richest inheritance of the Gothic race. Yet, after
three centuries of undisputed enjoyment, their rule was overthrown at
once and forever by a handful of marauders from Africa. The Goth had
neglected all his opportunities, despised all his advantages, heeded no
warnings. He had been weighed in the balance and found wanting; and his
kingdom was taken from him--for he had shown himself unfit for power.
Of all the various systems of government that have been attempted on this
earth, theocracy, or more properly hierocracy, is undoubtedly one of the
very worst. And in all circumstances and conditions where the priest and
the confessor usurp the authority that properly belongs to the magistrate
and to the man, disaster is the inevitable result. From the death of
Recared to the death of Roderic, the government of Spain was a theocracy,
tempered by revolution. At the opening of the eighth century, Spain had
no industry, no commerce, no arms. Not even letters had survived. For the
Catholic church discouraged, if it did not actually prohibit, the study
of polite literature. Virgil and Homer, Tacitus and Livy, were pagans
and atheists, and their works were unprofitable and impious. The study
of natural science or of medicine, the development of manufactures or of
industry, the cultivation of the arts--these were equally unedifying to
the devout Catholic. That sublime manifestation of “poetry in stone,” so
strangely called Gothic architecture, is not only not Visigothic, but it
was unknown in Spain for over four hundred years after the destruction
of the Goths. And although the great province is still covered with the
glorious remains of Roman constructive art, there is scarcely found trace
or fragment of the rude architecture of the Visigoths to tell of their
dominion in the peninsula.
When Atawulf first crossed the Pyrenees at the head of the Visigoths,
Latin was already the language of the Roman diocese. When Roderic
threw away his crown on the banks of the Guadalete, Latin was still
the language of the Visigothic kingdom. The Goth had been absorbed by
the Roman. But a nation without a national language is doomed; a state
without a state language is dead. Latin was the mother-tongue of the
Romish church of Spain; but the Visigothic state was speechless. The
kingdom, like Wamba, had been shorn and habited by the ecclesiastical
power, and the kingdom, like the king, disappeared at the touch of the
aggressor.[j]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Aristotle shows more credulity than philosophy when he makes the
Phœnicians acquire at Tarifa (then Tartessus) a quantity of silver so
prodigious that the ships could not carry it; and says that their anchors
and commonest implements were of the same metal. The exaggeration only
proves, perhaps, the abundance of silver in the country.
[2] Polybius[e] says that he was murdered one night in his tent by a
certain Gaul, in revenge of some private injury. The variation in the
account is exceedingly slight.
[3] For an interesting account of this siege, the reader is referred to
Livy.[f] It is improbable, however, that the destruction was so universal
as is affirmed. Polybius[g] says it was stormed and plundered; but he
makes no mention of the conflagration or the self-immolation.
[4] [“_Matres quoque necatis vel actis per se natorum suorum sint pastæ
corporibus_,” according to old Idatius,[i] but this statement always
accompanies stories of famine.]
[5] [The etymology of this name has been disputed, some claiming with
Casiri[k] and Gibbon[l] that it comes from the Arabic Hondalusia, “the
region of the West”; but Condé,[m] Hume,[d] Burke[j] and the general
majority prefer the Vandalusian theory.]
[6] Of course the death of Gunderic was the work of the offended saint.
He was struck dead on the threshold, says one account; he died after
securing the plunder, says another. Both agree that he was carried
away by the devil. Idatius[i] says: “_Gundericus Rex Vandalorum,
capta Hispali, cum impie elatus manus in ecclesiam civitatis ipsius
extendisset, mox Dei judicio dæmone correptus, interiit._”
[7] Jordanes[y] extends the reign of Torismond to more than three years;
the authority of the bishop Idatius[i], who was a contemporary, is to be
preferred. From the same prelate the death of the king appears not to
have been wholly unprovoked: he had probably meditated as much towards
his brothers, who seem to have acted from self-defence. “_Thorismo
rex Gothorum spirans hostilia in Theodorico et Frederico patribus
jugulatur_,” are the meagre words of Idiatus. Of this catastrophe
Jordanes[y] gives a different account.
[8] [This has been called a “fifth century crusade” and “the first
religious war of Europe.”]
[9] [The single combat between Alaric and Clovis, the miraculous fall of
the walls of Angoulême, and other circumstances related by Gregory of
Tours[n] render his authority in these wars of little weight in any case,
unless supported by other testimony, as that of Procopius[o] and St.
Isidore.[p] Burke[j] calls this battle “the foundation of the Frankish
Kingdom of France and the origin of the Gothic Kingdom of Spain.”]
[10] See Mariana[q] and above all, Masdeu,[r] who base their defence on
the praises bestowed on the princess by her contemporaries, as Gregory
of Tours,[n] and on the silence of contemporary writers as to the crimes
reported to have been committed by her. Both charity and chivalry would
induce us to take part with the Spanish historians in favour of a lady,
did they not attempt to conceal her real frailties (of crimes she was
probably guiltless), and raise a weak, in some respects an imprudent
woman into a saint. That she was undeserving the severe censures of
Baronius[x] is more than probable; but we must agree with Montesquieu[f]
that the queen, daughter, sister, and mother of so many kings would
never have been permitted to sustain the torments she did, had she not
forfeited, in some way or other, the favour of a whole nation.
[11] Ermenigild was not canonised until the pontificate of Sixtus V,
towards the close of the sixteenth century. One of his bones is preserved
as a holy relic in the church of Saragossa.
[12] Morales,[u] fell, he says, into the water at Port St. Martin,
enveloped in his cloak. As he could not swim, he called on God and “his
glorious saint” for his soul’s salvation, being hopeless of bodily
safety. He had sunk twice, when a sailor from an adjoining vessel
stretched out a pole on which he laid hold, and was thereby extricated
from death. On measuring the pole afterwards, he found it so short that
it could not reach the water! No doubt the saint had lengthened it, and
when its service was done, permitted it to regain its natural dimension.
He assures us that he could enumerate many mercies vouchsafed to him
“through the intercession of this holy prince.” In honour of his patron
this author has a poem in Latin hexameters, equal in extent to a book of
the _Æneid_.
[13] [Yet Burke[j] says, “If Recared is called the first of the
Catholics, Leuvigild may fairly be styled the last of the Visigoths in
Spain.”]
[14] [Among modern historians few feel any doubt of the guilt of Ervigius
or Erwig. Among those who believe he administered the sleeping draught
may be named Mariana,[q] Ferreras,[aa] Hume,[d] and Burke.[j] But the
caution expressed above by Dunham[g] and by Masdeu[r] should modify the
certainty of opinion.]
[15] [Dunham[g] says the “brother,” but he is generally called the
nephew.]
[16] [The unending torments the Jews endured in Spain are described in
detail in the work of Amador de los Ríos.[bb]]
[17] [Some writers, among whom are the respectable names of Flórez[cc]
and Cardinal Lorenzana,[dd] fix the death of Ergica in 700. Mariana[q]
and Masdeu,[r] with better reason, give 701. The difference wholly rests
on the Interpretation of the Roman numerals in the Visigothic chronicle
of Wulsa,[ee] No. 34.]
[18] [Burke[j] notes that in Arabic La Caba or La Cava would suggest a
woman of evil life.]
[Illustration]