Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

family and friendship in the west 427
only at the royal level that descent could be seen in female terms. In the
early eighth century, bishop Hugo of Rouen, although the son of a
Pippinid male, was remembered as the descendant of his maternal grandmother,
Anstrude. 106 Nevertheless, a queen’s power depended largely on
her association with a living king, whether as wife or as mother – it was this
association which provided her with her opportunities. When her husband
died, or her son ceased to be dependent on her, she was very nearly powerless.
The importance of royal or aristocratic women was not, however,
simply biological. Much of a queen’s influence was related to her control
of the royal household, as well as her role in the provision of a king’s
heirs; 107 in short, she was responsible for the continuity of the royal family
and for its possessions. Traditionally, at least, women were also thought of
as the guardians of the family’s status in another sense: they are often
depicted as the forces driving men towards the blood-feud, whether or not
this was actually the case. 108 By contrast, they could help to preserve the
peace through the role they played in marriage alliances. 109 As we have seen,
they would also come to play a substantial role in another aspect of family
status, its holiness.
While the significance of women within the family was rather more than
might seem implied by certain laws, the position of men was rather more
constrained than might be assumed. Essentially what was at issue was the
protection of family and household units. These were not challenged when
a man had sex with his own slaves, but they were in almost every other
sexual act outside the marriage bed. Legislation against adultery was, therefore,
ferocious: in the Burgundian kingdom adulterers caught in the act
were to be killed; 110 among the Franks rape of a betrothed girl elicited a
heavy fine, 111 while the adulterous association of a man and a woman
whose husband was still living was treated on a par with murder, and also
incurred a heavy financial composition. 112 In other words, the law championed
the family rather than any individual – male or female – within it.
This did not, however, limit the sexual unions of the early Merovingians.
The main point of doubt is whether the Frankish royal family practised
serial monogamy, polygamy or concubinage. This in its turn is linked to the
question of whether the Merovingians made a distinction between marriage
and informal liaisons. Some kings, like Sigibert I, 113 seem to have
taken marriage very seriously. Others went in for a succession of liaisons,
and this had an impact on the question of inheritance. Could the offspring
106 Ibid. 261. 107 Stafford (1983) 93–114, 143–65.
108 E.g. Greg. Tur. Hist. iii.6; see Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms 43.
109 For Theoderic’s marriage alliances, Procop.Wars v.12.21–2, ed. and trans. H. B. Dewing (London
1914–28); Anon. Valesianus ii.63, 68, 70, ed. J. Moreau, Excerpta Valesiana (Leipzig 1961); Jord. Get. 58
(297–9), ed. T. Mommsen, MGH, AA 5 (Berlin 1882).
110 Liber Constitutionum lxviii, 1; compare Liber Constitutionum xliv. 111 PLS 13, 14.
112 PLS 15, 1. 113 Greg. Tur. Hist. iv.27.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008