Hearing continually these complaints and others like them I [have undertaken] to commemorate the past, order that it may come to the knowledge of the future; and although my speech is rude, I have been unable to be silent as to the struggles between the wicked and the upright; and I have been especially - encouraged because, to my surprise, it has often been said by men of our day, that few understand the learned words of the rhetorician but many the rude language of the common people.
Criticism of the text has often centered on accusations that it is less an actual overview of the factual history of the Franks than political propaganda constructed for the express purpose of legitimizing Frankish history. Of course, this same criticism can be applied to nearly any history book. In the Preface, Gregory quickly outlines his purpose in writing this narrative, but of course that still leaves open the question of honesty.
Noah had after the flood three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. From Japheth issued nations, and likewise from Ham and from Shem. And, as ancient history says, from these the human race was scattered under the whole heaven. The first-born of Ham was Cush. He was the first inventor of the whole art of magic and of idolatry, being instructed by the devil. He was the first to set up an idol to be worshipped, at the instigation of the devil, and by his false power he showed to men stars and fire falling from heaven.
One of the more fascinating entries in this history is one of those stories that seems to fill in some of gaps found in the Bible. For instance, what really did become of the sons of Noah? The Bible itself is fairly lean on the subject, but Gregory’s history fills in one of those lapses with some information that come as quite a surprise to many readers. The tale of Cush cavorting with the devil and introducing magic into the world would be fascinating enough, but there is a climax to Gregory’s historical rendering that is a twist right out of Hollywood: Cush turns out to be none other than Zoroaster himself.
Ætius with the Goths and Franks fought against Attila. And the latter saw that his army was being destroyed, and escaped by flight. And Theodore, king of the Goths, was slain in the battle. Now let no one doubt that the army of Huns was put to flight by the intercession of the bishop mentioned above.
In one of the most famous passages of the History of the Franks, Gregory describes the eventual victory by the Franks—working with the Goths—over Attila the Hun. Ultimately, this victory would come at the cost of king of the Goths, Theodore, and the controversial attribution by Gregory to a bishop named Annianus as the singular heroic figure saving the people from the devastation of the Huns. The series of events as described by Gregory has since come under dispute by many.
This is the evidence that the historians who have been named have left us about the Franks, and they have not mentioned kings. Many relate that they came from Pannonia and all dwelt at first on the bank of the Rhine, and then crossing the Rhine they passed into Thuringia, and there among the villages and cities appointed long-haired kings over them from their first or, so to speak, noblest family. This title Clovis’ victories afterwards made a lasting one, as we shall see later on.
Whether straight history or history as propaganda, it is not to be assumed that the Gregory wrote his book in a vacuum. The text is filled with references to previous writings and historical assumptions and is constructed chronologically so as to present a detailed rendering of the known facts. The criticism is often directed at the commentary which accompanies the history, but often—as suggested here—that commentary is at the expense of lapses in the record detailed by previous historians. The final line of this passage also indicates that Gregory was pretty well-acquainted with dramatic art of the tease as, indeed, Clovis will play a huge part in the history.
