ATTILA

ATTILA

210

The historical portrait of Attila, as drawn byhis contemporary Priscus, who was attached tothe embassy of Maximin in 449 (Exc. leg. adann. 449), and by the Gothic bishop Jornandes(Reb. Get. 35), who, though writing a centurylater, had recourse to trustworthy sources ofinformation, has been overlaid by modern his-torians, e. g. Malespini (Hist, di Firenz , c. 36)and even Chateaubriant (Etud. Hist. t. 1) andHerbert, with the fabulous or monstrous details•of 9th century hagiography.

It is still more difficult to separate betweenhistory and legend in tracing out the immediateeffect of Attila’s ravages in Europe. The rapidseries of events between the Hunnish attack onthe Eastern Empire in 441 and the Battle of•Chalons in 451 has been compared to a deluge ofrain which sweeps a district and leaves no fur-ther trace than the debris which the torrent haswashed down. In Eastern Europe this figuredoes not accord with fact; for, though Attila’skingdom was dismembered at his death, the greatbody of Huns, who had followed him from thewilds of Central Asia, settled permanently inthe wide plains of the Lower Danube. Nor inWestern Europe did the terror inspired by.Attila’s name disappear as speedily as the local.effects of the ruin which he caused. Viewed asa special instrument of Providence, “ a Messiahof grief and ruin,” whose mission it was to chas-tise the sins of Christians, the “ scourge or ratherflail of God” had an abiding influence over West-ern Christendom, growing more formidable inhis gigantic and spectral proportions as tradition.gave place to legend, and this in turn to myth:while the virtues and merits of the saints who.had thwarted him by bold resistance or prudentsubmission shone forth the brighter, the darkerbecame the picture of their oppressor.

The following is a brief summary of the factsand results of Attila’s Western incursion. Por-tents in sky and earth announced to the inhabi-tants of Gaul that the year 450 was the openingof a terrible epoch (Idat. Chron. ann. 450). Ser-vatius, bishop of Tongres, visiting Rome to con-sult SS. Peter and Paul, was informed that Gaulwould be entirely devastated by the Huns, butthat he would be suffered to die in peace beforethe desolation came (Paul. Diac. in Bouquet, Rec.i. p. 649). The distracted state of the countryhaving been reported to Attila by a chief of thebagaudi named Eudoxius, who had fled to him in448 (Prosp. Turon. Chron.), Attila himself, beingstrengthened by an alliance with Genseric, kingof the Vandals (Jorn. Reb. Get. 36), had twodirect pretexts for his attack—his claim to thehand of Honoria, and the vindication of the rightsof the elder son of a Frank prince, whose youngerbrother, placing himself under Roman protection,had been established by Aetius in the possessionof their paternal territory (Prise. Exc. leg. p.40). Theodoric, king of the Goths, whose alli-ance was sought at once by Attila and by Valen-tinian, inclined to the side of order, and the Hun,who now took the role of chastising his rebel-lious subjects, the Visigoths, attaching to him-self in his march many Franks, Burgundians,and Thuringians, if we may believe SidoniusApollinaris (Paneg. Avit. v. 324), proceeded withfive or perhaps seven hundred thousand warriorsof all nations to the banks of the Rhine, whichwas crossed by one division under his own com-

mand, near Coblenz, by the other at Angst,near Basle. He installed himself at Treves, theRoman metropolis of Gaul, which was pillaged.Metz appeared impregnable, and after a fruitlessinvestment he withdrew, discouraged, to a placecalled Scarpona, whence, on the informationthat a breach had been made in the walls, he re-turned to Metz, arriving on Easter-Eve, April 8,slaughtered indiscriminately priests and people,except the bishop, and reduced the city to ashes,all the churches perishing except the oratory ofSt. Stephen (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet Rec. i. p. 650).Reims, already deserted by its inhabitants, waseasily reduced; but its bishop, Nicasius, in hisepiscopal robes, surrounded by priests and dea-cons, met the conquerors on the threshold of thechurch, and a Hun struck off his head while hewas precenting the words “Quicken me accordingto Thy word” (Ps. cxix. 25). His sister Eutropiastruck the murderer in the face, and fell by herbrother’s side. But the general massacre whichfollowed was checked by a sudden panic amongthe barbarians (Frodoard. Martyr. Remens. p.113). Tongres, Arras, Laon, and Saint-Quentinalso fell. The inhabitants of Paris had resolvedon flight. Their intention was frustrated andthe city saved by the resolution and devotion ofSt. Genevibve (Genovefa), the maiden of Nanterre,who was warned in a vision that Paris would bespared. The Parisians reluctantly remained inthe city, and Attila did not approach it (Act.SS. Boll. Jan. i. 143-147). Meantime thesecond division of the Huns on their march toStrassburg had been attacked by the Burgun-dians under Gundicarius. The complete failureof this attack induced the Salian and RipuarianFranks to retire to a rallying-point on the Loire,and there fell almost simultaneously before thewestward march of the Huns, the principalstrongholds on the Rhine between Constanceand Mayence. The two divisions effected ajunction between the Somme and the Marne.Two points should be noticed in Attila’s actionat this time — he did not wish to wage waragainst Christianity, though doubtless some ofhis followers were stimulated against the Catho-lics by the rancour of polemical zeal: Attilafought against Rome, not against its Church;and secondly, it was not his intention to give upGaul to indiscriminate pillage; he hoped tocrush the Visigoths first, and then to cope sepa-rately with Aetius and the Roman forces. Withthis view, about April 10th, he left Metz forOrleans, wisely selecting the route of the plains.See an accurate description of this march inThierry’s Hist, d*Attila, i. 154. Defensive pre-cautions were taken, and Anianus (St. Agnan),bishop of Orleans, hastened to Arles, to appriseAetius of their danger. Aid was promised byJune 23rd (Bouquet, Rec . i. p. 645). Muchtime was wasted in the vain endeavours otAetius to procure the assistance of Theodoric,But the influence of the senator Avitus of Cler-mont prevailed where the politic arguments ofthe Roman general were powerless, and Orleanswas relieved only when the gates had actuallybeen opened to the Huns, and pillage was beginning.A graphic account of this siege is given in theVita S. Aniani in Bouquet, Rec. i. 645. Attilaretreated precipitately towards Chalons-surMarne, in the Campi Catalaunici. Near Troyeshe was met by its bishop, Lupus (St. Loup), who