[AJ] P. =56=, l. 21. _Cf._ p. 54. Hermenfred had “forgotten” to reward Theodoric. The atrocities of the Thuringians are mentioned only here. [AK] P. =57=, l. 3. =Ecce verbum directum habemus.= Cf. p. 84, l. 8, _Verbum enim directum non habemus_. The _verbum directum_ was not justification to public opinion but to the supernatural powers. Cf. p. 45, 4 f. and _Introd._ pp. xxiv-xxv. [AL] P. =59=, l. 2. Vitry in Champagne. [AM] P. =60=, c. 15. This story is from Gregory’s family tradition. The bishop of Langres was Gregory’s great-grandfather and Attalus was a relative. Trèves was in Theodoric’s territory (Longnon, p. 368), so that Attalus must have been a hostage from Childebert. However, Longnon (p. 209) gives reasons for the opinion that Langres also belonged to Theodoric. In that case Attalus must have belonged to some other city and must have gone to Gregory merely for protection. For a contrary opinion see Bonnell, _Die Anfänge des Karolingischen Hauses_, p. 204, Note 2. [AN] P. =60=, l. 11. Note the use of the term barbarian (_barbarus_) for Frank. See also p. 94, c. 35. [AO] P. =62=, l. 8. Arndt remarks that the Meuse should certainly have been named in this passage rather than the Moselle. The latter, however, is the reading of all the Mss. [AP] P. =64=, l. 9. The Frankish kings were “long-haired” (_reges crinitos_) (p. 31). The alternative offered to queen Clotilda was to countenance the degradation of her grandchildren from royal rank or “to see them dead.” [AQ] P. =66=, l. 7. The relation of godfather to godson was regarded as of great importance. See _e.g._ p. 179, l. 10. [AR] P. =66=, l. 13. Arles was probably taken by Theodobert about 534 and remained only a short time in his hands. Longnon, p. 434. [AS] P. =67=, l. 33. For the “fast of the Ninevites,” see Jonah 3, 5. [AT] P. =70=, c. 34. Professor J. W. Thompson (_Commerce of France in the Ninth Century_, Journal of Political Economy, November, 1915, pp. 876-7) regards this merchant group as probably going back to a Roman mercantile corporation. He is in error however in supposing that the merchants lent money to the king on the occasion Gregory refers to. [AU] P. =70=, c. 36. The Franks objected to being taxed not only because they were originally tax-free, but because the payment of taxes degraded them by placing them on a level with the conquered Gallo-Romans. This explains the bitterness of the enmity to Parthenius (_cf._ p. 177), who may be judged from other references to him as a man intellectually at least much superior to the environment he found in Theodobert’s kingdom. See S. Hellman’s revision of Giesebrecht’s translation of the _History of the Franks_, vol. 3, p. 169.