Page:Bury J B The Cambridge Medieval History Vol 2 1913.djvu/211

710] the late king. Immediately a revolution broke out, for the nobles refused to acknowledge the new king. They produced a frightful state of confusion, but did not at first succeed in deposing him. Finally, the ringleaders met in council in the spring of 710, and elected Roderick (Ruderico), duke of Baetica. Soon afterwards, Roderick defeated the army of Achila, who, together with his uncle and brothers, fled to Africa, leaving the duke of Baetica in possession of the throne.

The reign of Roderick — the title of Don assigned to him by the later chroniclers is a pure anachronism — is still more legendary than that of Witiza, and partly from the same cause — the false reports spread by political enemies, who were afterwards to be the victors, and partly the Moorish invasion and the fall of the Visigothic kingdom. The last king of the Visigoths is enveloped in legends from his first action as a king (the legend of the Tower of Hercules) until after his death (the legend of the Penance). The most important of all is that known as the legend of Florinda, or La Cava (the harlot), which thoroughly explains the invasion of the Muslims and the cause of their expedition to Spain, which resulted in the destruction of the Visigothic kingdom. We therefore have the story in two forms.

1. The connivance of Julian — whoever he may have been — with the Muslims, in order to effect the conquest of Spain; Julian being actuated by purely political motives, and his daughter having no connexion with the matter.

2. The explanation of Julian's connivance with the Arabs by the insult which he had sustained at the hand of Roderick.

The first Christian writer who mentions the count, and calls him Don Julian — the Don, as in the case of Roderick, is an anachronism — is the monk of Silos, who wrote at the beginning of the twelfth century. In our days it is generally admitted that this individual was called (not Julian but) Urban or Olban, and this opinion is supported by the reading of the most ancient text of the anonymous Latin chronicler, and by the Arab historians Tailhan and Codera. There is considerable difference of opinion as to who this Urban was. Some think that he was a Visigoth, others a Byzantine, but all are agreed that he was governor of Ceuta. Neither of these hypotheses can be maintained, because there is no certain evidence that Ceuta then belonged to the Byzantine Empire — still less to the Visigothic kings. Nor can the title rum given to Urban by the Arab chroniclers, which might mean a Gothic or Byzantine Christian, be taken in a definite sense. On the other hand, the anonymous Latin chronicler, as also Ibn Khaldūn and Ahmed Anasirí Asalauí, state that Urban "belonged to the land of Africa," to the Berber tribe of the Gomera, that he was a Christian and lord or petty king of Ceuta. Whoever he was, the monk of Silos is the first of the Spanish chroniclers to mention him, and to represent him as taking any part in the conquest of Spain; according to the earlier chroniclers, the