The "Good King" Guntram

King Guntram was a son (third eldest, second eldest surviving) of King Lothar and Queen Ingund. After the death of his father (A.D. 561) Guntrum received the kingdom of Chlodomer with its capital at Orleans, a fourth of the kingdom of the Franks divided between him and his three brothers (IV. 22).

Gregory’s portrayal of Guntram is very favourable, who showed himself on occasions generous towards the church. Gregory almost always calls him “good king Guntram,” and in his writings the reader finds phrases such as “good king Guntram took as his servant a concubine Veneranda” (IV. 25). The character of Guntram is portrayed as being a kind one, and Gregory also dedicates much of his writing about him listing his interventions in the wars of his relatives in order to maintain the balance of power in the Frankish territories (IV 30, IV. 46, IV. 49). After the death (575) of his brother King Sigebert I of Austrasia he aided Sigebert's son Childebert II, to whom he eventually left his domains. Supposedly good to his people, he was later made a saint of the Roman Catholic Church.

Much of what Gregory praises Guntram for is his deference to the authority both the (Catholic) Church and God, as well as for his piety (IX. 2, IX. 21). For example, when Bishop Atherius of Lisieux was expelled from his diocese due to the greed and jealousy of the archdeacon and priest, King Guntram “kindly as ever, and swift to pity, loaded the Bishop with presents…and wrote…to all the bishops in his own kingdom, telling them for the love of God to do what they could for this exile” (VI. 36) This donation of worldly good fulfills part of the gospel that Guntram would have believed in (Romans 8, 28), and demonstrates the good Christian ethos that Gregory would have respected in a king. Another passage indicating Gregory’s judgment that Guntram was “good” concerned the election of Sulpicious to the bishopric of Bourges. Many apparently tried to bribe the King to elect them to the vacant position, but rejected their bribes claiming that “I have no intention of incurring the same of accepting filthy lucre…” (VI. 39).

However, I find that Guntram was really no better than the other kings of his age; he was cruel and licentious and was known to use torture in order to secure confessions and other relevant information to ensure his continuance of power. For example, during a conversation with messengers from Gundovald (his brother), Guntram was so incensed by the message that he “ordered the men to be stretched on the rack…” (VII. 32). This hardly seems to be the generous and kind king that Gregory would have us believe him to be.

Another interesting passage concerning a less noteworthy flaw in Guntram’s character is the affair with the former queen Theudechild, who after losing her husband during his excommunication, was told that she could come to live with Guntram. Upon her arrival Guntram informed Theudechild that her treasure ‘should fall into my hands than that is should remain in the control of this woman who was unworthy of my brother’s bed.’ (IV. 26) Though Theudechild was later beaten and locked inside her cell after being caught attempting to flee with ‘a certain Goth,’ this does not fully explain the confiscation of her treasure by Guntram, though certainly it could be seen as an attempt to garner more wealth for his own treasury, or that of the kingdom.

Gregory’s consistency within the narrative as it concern Guntram seems to be on the whole consist with his naming him “the good king.” However, Gregory does place himself within the narrative of Guntram on several occasions, all of which took place prior to his appointment as Bishop of Tours. Gregory also interjects his own personal opinion of what transpires, including an occasion of Guntram falling ill, which he believed to be “God’s providence, for he was planning to send a great number of the bishops into exile” (VIII. 20). This does indicate some personal bias with the story, which can skew the reader’s opinion of Guntram himself.