II.27 (pg139)
I chose this chapter of the book mainly for the surprised factor I came about. Under most periods where there'd be a King, I expected the King to be able to command others and not have people stand up to him. However, that was not the case here, as King Clovis had to ask permission for the ewer, and moreover, King Clovis did not immediately punish the man when the ewer was broken. I think this shows part of the structure where the King himself would still have to follow rules and orders, and cannot kill others without a 'reason'. The King has to be "fair" infront of the public.
He later on still discharges the man in a much smaller group setting, just like how he has killed Syagrius in secret; Or perhaps, when I read on further, I will find out if other Kings do the same.

Blog Assignment #3

"'Your piety as a holy man has all this time been just a cover for your depraved habits,' they cried.  'God no longer permits us to defile ourselves by kissing your unworthy hands.' Bricius stoutly denied the charge.  'Bring the child to me,' he commanded.  The baby was carried in, still only thirty days old.  'In the name of Jesus Christ, the son of God the all-powerful,' said Bricius to the infant, 'if I am really your father, I order you to say so, with all these people listening.'  'You are not my father,' answered the baby." (Book II, page 105)

I found the passage about Bricius to be particularly fascinating due to the fact that it is absolutely unbelievable.  The people automatically blame Bricius for the pregnancy of the woman who washed his clothing, which reveals that word used to spread fast and people are not considered to be innocent until proven guilty at the time.  More obviously, a thirty day old baby was able to comprehend the words of a Bishop and respond to them in the same language.  The people witnessing this event most likely credited this astonishing occurrence to the sheer power of God, but it does not make sense to me.  Individuals were blinded by their faith and totally disregarded all common sense that they might have.  Once the baby admitted that his or her father was not Bricius, something he or she could not have possibly known, the townspeople accepted the baby's words as the undeniable truth.  This nonsensical event discredits this account in my opinion and proves that citizens at the time were gullible and truly believed that God could do anything.

The most interesting passage to me was in Book Two Chapter 12 when Gregory tells us that Basina left her husband Bisinus for Childeric because Childeric was “more capable.” I found this passage interesting mainly because Gregory does not seem to portray Basina negatively. Gregory’s portrayal of her was surprising because, at least in Confessions, marriage seemed more binding and breaking a marriage contract was looked down upon. Therefore, we can see how the idea of marriage changed between Augustine’s and Gregory’s view of Childeric’s world. It seems that “Childeric’s” world marriage, at least between royalty, was unstable and people could change their partners when a more suitable one was found. More specifically, it seemed that women could choose different partners and men had to show their superiority over others to keep their women because partners were chosen based on their amount of power. Lastly, women’s ability to choose new partners hints at their greater freedom than compared to Augustine’s time because of their ability to leave unsuitable partners.

(Book IV, pg. 210) “The Franks were furious with Lothar: they rushed at him, tore his tent to pieces, heaped insults upon him, dragged him out with great violence and swore that they would kill him if he refused to accompany them. When he saw how matters stood, King Lothar marched against his will.”
I found this passage interesting because it provides a little insight into what the power structure was during this time period and how it worked. My first observation is the fact that the Franks forced their king into battle. It shows that the king was not all-powerful. The way the Franks opposed their leader reminds me of rebellions. However, they rebelled not for rights or equality, but to be able to wage war against the Saxons. Eventually, the Franks persuaded Lothar to wage war. My second observation is the Franks’ refusal to wage war without their king. For some reason, no Frank chose to take the king’s position and lead them into battle. They apparently needed Lothar in order to fight. They did threaten Lothar, but that was not until he had rejected their demands multiple times. In this passage, the Franks showed both a power over and dependency on their leader.