Page:History of the Franks.djvu/21

Rh In the light of these conclusions, objectively reached, as to Gregory's language and style, how shall we interpret the confessions in regard to them which he repeatedly makes? In these confessions there are two leading notions: first, that he is without the qualifications to write in the literary style; second, that the popular language can be more widely understood. The inference is always therefore that Gregory writes in the language of the day. This, however, cannot be so. A language spoken by the people would have something organic about it, and it would not defy as Gregory's does the efforts of scholars to find its usages. It would be simpler than the literary language and probably as uniform in its constructions. We must decide then that Gregory's self-analysis is a mistaken one, correct in the first part but not in the second. He knew he could not write the literary language but in spite of this he made the attempt, and the result is what we have, a sort of hybrid, halfway between the popular speech and the formally correct literary language.

In the Epilogue of the History of the Franks written in 594, the year of Gregory's death, he gives us a list of his works: "I have written ten books of History, seven of Miracles, one on the Lives of the Fathers, a commentary in one book on the Psalms, and one book on the Church Services." These works represent two sides of Gregory's experience,—his profession, and his relations with the Merovingian state.

In the former sphere the overshadowing interest was the miraculous. We have eight books devoted to miracles and it may be said that as a churchman Gregory never got very far away from them. It is idle to discuss the question whether he believed in them or not. It is more to the point to attempt to appreciate the part they played in the thought and life of the time. They were