Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

430 15. family and friendship in the west
for chaos. It was in the interests of the kin-group not to lay itself open to
the possibility of retaliation for killing, and therefore to encourage and
support an offer of financial compensation. 130 Perhaps the relative absence
of stories relating to the feud are an indication of the success of the mere
threat of retaliation. On the other hand, those examples of feud known
from the fifth and sixth century do not suggest that the feud, when it did
break out, was prosecuted on a vast scale, involving a widespread kingroup.
The two most eye-catching feuds of the sixth century may not have been
feuds at all. The idea that the Frankish destruction of the Burgundian
kingdom in the 520s and 530s resulted entirely from a deep-seated grudge
held by queen Chlothild against her cousin Sigismund and, more particularly,
her uncle Gundobad, whom she blamed for her father’s death, is an
idea which is scarcely sustained by events, even though the interpretation
was first set out in the early Middle Ages. 131 Nor is there any early evidence
for thinking that much of the political unrest of the second half of the
sixth century resulted from queen Brunhild’s desire to avenge herself on
Chilperic, who had murdered her sister Galswinth, in order to return to his
liaison with Fredegund. 132 Both these interpretations may have more to do
with the gradual recasting of history as epic than with the realities of sixthcentury
politics.
There are, however, two very much more squalid tales which might be
seen as illustrative of the reality of the blood-feud. The better-known of
them is that of Chramnesind and Sichar. In fact, Chramnesind’s family was
not involved in the earliest stages of the conflict, which began with the
murder by an unnamed man of the servant of a friend of Sichar. When
Sichar attempted to take vengeance, he was met by Austregisl, who killed
four of his servants. At this point the case went to law and Austregisl had
to hand over for safe-keeping the gold and silver taken in the course of the
conflict. It was only at this stage that Chramnesind’s family became
involved, and in the first instance merely as safe-keepers of the gold. Sichar,
however, was determined to get the treasure back before the case went to
court, and did so, killing the father, uncle and brother of Chramnesind in
the process. Gregory of Tours, as the local bishop, then intervened with
offers of compensation, which Chramnesind rejected, until a further
attempt had been made on Sichar’s life and more of his servants had been
killed. Thereafter Sichar and Chramnesind became friends. It was not until
Sichar, in his cups, insulted Chramnesind, by pointing out how much his
friend had gained financially out of his father’s murder, that the latter felt
obliged to take revenge. 133 This is no clear-cut feud, with well-defined
130 Wallace-Hadrill (1962) 125–6. 131 Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms 43. 132 Ibid. 127.
133 Greg. Tur. Hist. vii.47; ix.19.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008