Three 7th-century diplomatic letters from a Visigothic count to a Frankish bishop, providing rare documentation of official correspondence between the Visigothic and Frankish kingdoms during the reign of King Gundemar and offering valuable insights into early medieval diplomatic practices and inter-kingdom relations.

Historical Context

Authorship: The letters are traditionally attributed to Bulgaranus Comes, a Visigothic count under King Gundemar (r. 610–612). Modern scholarship generally accepts Bulgaranus as the author, although he is an obscure figure known only from these letters (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu). The Patrologia Latina identifies him as a 7th-century noble who wrote three letters “ad episcopum Franciae” – “to a bishop of Francia” (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu). There is no evidence of an earlier or pseudonymous author; the style and content align with early 7th-century Visigothic Latin, suggesting the letters are genuine products of that period (revistas.ucm.es). Some scholars have speculated on the identity of the recipient bishop (one theory is that he may have been Agapius, possibly a bishop of Braga), but this remains uncertain (es.scribd.com). The prevailing view is that Bulgaranus, a count in King Gundemar’s service, wrote these letters as part of an official diplomatic mission.

Date of Composition: Internal evidence and historical context place the letters around 610 CE (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu). King Gundemar came to power in spring 610 after the assassination of his predecessor, King Witteric (coinweek.com) (coinweek.com). The letters mention contemporary figures – Queen Brunhilda of Austrasia, Kings Theuderic II and Theudebert II of the Franks, and the threat of the Avars – all of which situate the correspondence in the early 610s. Since Theudebert II died in 612 and Brunhilda was executed in 613, the letters must have been written between 610 and 612. Scholars generally use 610 as the likely date, soon after Gundemar’s accession, when Visigothic–Frankish relations were in flux.

Provenance: The letters were almost certainly written in the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania, likely at the royal court or a provincial seat of power. Bulgaranus was a comes (count) serving King Gundemar, who himself had been dux (duke/governor) of Narbonne in Septimania before becoming king (coinweek.com). It is plausible that Bulgaranus hailed from that same frontier region or was attached to Gundemar’s court at Toledo, the Visigothic capital. The circumstances suggest that Gundemar commissioned Bulgaranus to correspond with a Frankish churchman as part of the kingdom’s diplomatic outreach after 610. The letters may have been drafted with assistance from royal scribes or clergy (perhaps under the influence of scholars like St. Isidore of Seville) given their polished Latin.

Historical Setting: Bulgaranus wrote at a tense moment in early 7th-century Western Europe. Politically, the Visigothic realm had recently converted to Nicene Catholicism (Council of Toledo, 589) and was consolidating unity after decades of Arian vs. Catholic divide. King Gundemar’s predecessor, Witteric, had reversed some Catholic policies and even attempted an alliance with King Theuderic II of Burgundy via a marriage – an attempt that failed when Theuderic publicly spurned Witteric’s daughter (coinweek.com). In 610 Witteric was murdered by Catholic nobles, and Gundemar (a Catholic) was elevated to the throne (coinweek.com) (coinweek.com). Gundemar sought to mend relations with the Catholic Merovingian kingdoms to the north, which were embroiled in their own civil strife. Queen Brunhilda, a Visigothic princess by birth and the power behind the thrones of Austrasia and Burgundy, was at war with her grandsons (Theudebert II of Austrasia and Theuderic II of Burgundy were rival brothers). The Franks’ fraternal conflict (610–613) destabilized Gaul. Meanwhile, on the eastern front, the nomadic Avars threatened the Frankish realm from the Danube region, adding pressure for Frankish leaders to seek allies or at least security on their southwestern border. Culturally and religiously, this was the post-Gregorian age – Pope Gregory the Great had died in 604, but his influence on Christian rulers was fresh. In Visigothic Spain, Bishop Isidore of Seville was emerging as a leading intellectual, promoting Catholic unity and Roman education. This is the backdrop against which Bulgaranus’s letters were written: a newly enthroned Visigothic king reaching out to a Frankish bishop to discuss interstate affairs in a Christian framework.

San Juan de Baños, a 7th-century Visigothic church representing the Catholic architectural flowering during the era when Bulgaranus wrote his letters
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Photo by Roinpa on Wikimedia Commons).* **Suggested caption:** *“San Juan de Baños

Intended Audience: The primary recipient of the letters was a Frankish bishop, presumably a prominent churchman in Burgundy or Austrasia who could influence secular politics. While the specific identity is unclear (possibly a bishop close to Brunhilda’s circle, or conversely sympathetic to her opponents), the letters address him with formal reverence. The choice of an ecclesiastical audience was likely strategic: bishops in the Merovingian kingdoms often acted as royal advisors and diplomats. By writing to a bishop, Bulgaranus could appeal to a sense of Christian solidarity and morality, possibly hoping the bishop would counsel Frankish rulers toward the desired outcome. Essentially, the original audience was twofold: the immediate addressee (the bishop) and, indirectly, the Frankish kings and nobles who would hear the letter’s content through him. The letters were written to urge peace and cooperation between the Visigoths and Franks at a time of mutual danger (the Avar incursions) and to comment on the behavior of figures like Brunhilda and Theuderic II from a moral standpoint. In doing so, Bulgaranus was likely voicing Gundemar’s position, using the bishop as an intermediary to reach the Frankish political leadership.

Theological Significance

Core Themes: Although these letters are primarily political and diplomatic, they are steeped in the religious and moral rhetoric typical of the era. A central theme is the idea of Christian kingship and unity. Bulgaranus reminds the Frankish bishop (and by extension, the Frankish rulers) of the shared Catholic faith of the Visigoths and Franks – a relatively new reality since the Visigoths’ conversion in 589. He invokes the duty of Christian leaders to promote concord and justice, implicitly contrasting Gundemar’s righteous rule with the turmoil in Frankish lands. The letters emphasize divine providence in earthly affairs: for example, hinting that the internal wars of the Franks and the rise of external threats like the Avars could be God’s punishment for sin or disunity. Bulgaranus uses a high rhetorical style to frame political events in moral terms, likely alluding to Biblical examples of discord and divine retribution. For instance, Queen Brunhilda’s manipulations are cast in a negative light that recalls Old Testament wicked queens; one can detect an implicit parallel to Jezebel or Athaliah (who, like Brunhilda, met a gruesome end). The Avar threat is similarly portrayed not just as a military issue but as a scourge that requires Christian repentance and cooperation to overcome.

Patristic Context: The intellectual milieu of these letters is influenced by the Latin Fathers and late-antique Christian thought. While Bulgaranus was a lay official, his letters reflect the influence of Church teachings and earlier epistolary models. We see echoes of St. Gregory the Great’s ideas on kingship – Gregory had corresponded with Visigothic nobles and bishops, stressing piety and the unity of Christendom. Bulgaranus’s appeals to unity and orthodoxy resonate with Gregory’s vision of a Christian commonwealth (www.sermonindex.net) (www.sermonindex.net). There is also likely an Augustinian underpinning: the notion of earthly turmoil as a consequence of sin, and peace as a fruit of Christian concord, recalls St. Augustine’s City of God. Although the letters do not directly quote patristic authorities, they operate within that framework. Importantly, the letters were preserved alongside works by Visigothic churchmen like St. Isidore and St. Braulio, indicating that later readers saw them as part of the ecclesiastical literary heritage. Bulgaranus’s Latinity is notably learned and complex, full of classical and biblical turns of phrase (revistas.ucm.es), suggesting he (or his scribes) had a solid grounding in the Latin literary tradition of the Fathers and late Roman writers.

Biblical Foundation: Bulgaranus bolsters his arguments with scriptural allusions (even if not explicit quotations). For example, he speaks of the need for unity “lest our enemies triumph over us,” echoing biblical language like Psalm 41: “My enemies speak evil of me…”. He references the duty of kings to be “defenders of the faith,” which invokes the biblical image of the shepherd-king (as in David or Solomon). In cautioning against civil war, he may allude to Christ’s words that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). When lamenting Queen Brunhilda’s bloody intrigues, the subtext evokes the Judgment on Jezebel (2 Kings 9) – a powerful older queen who led a nation into chaos and was cast down. The Avars are possibly described in terms reminiscent of Gog and Magog or other biblical invaders, as instruments of God’s wrath. These scriptural threads allowed Bulgaranus to convey political advice with an aura of spiritual authority. By rooting his appeals in biblical morality, he tactfully urged the Frankish bishop to see the Visigothic position as the righteous one.

Controversies: The letters do not delve into doctrinal controversies of the day (e.g. no mention of Arianism or specific heresies – by 610 both Visigoths and Franks were staunchly Catholic). However, they are polemical in a political sense. Bulgaranus makes a case that Brunhilda’s faction is acting unjustly, which might be seen as taking a side in the Merovingian family feud. This was delicate: essentially, a Visigothic envoy admonishing a Frankish regime. There is an undercurrent of moral critique against Brunhilda and Theuderic II – arguably controversial from the Frankish perspective. Indeed, Brunhilda was a divisive figure; within three years of these letters, she was accused of heinous crimes and executed horrifically (tied to wild horses by King Chlothar II (www.worldhistory.org)). Bulgaranus’s letters anticipate that outcome by casting her as a source of discord. Theologically, the letters stayed within orthodox bounds, but their frank commentary on political morality could be seen as daring. Another noteworthy point: one letter apparently mentions a recent synod (there was a supposed Synod of Toledo in 610 under Gundemar (www.sermonindex.net) that affirmed Toledo’s metropolitan status). If Bulgaranus references this, he is asserting the Visigothic Church’s strength – though modern scholars believe that 610 synod might be apocryphal (www.sermonindex.net). In any case, no heterodox positions are present; Bulgaranus speaks from the standpoint of Catholic orthodoxy and uses it to bolster his political arguments.

Influence: While Bulgaranus’s Epistolae Tres did not become widely influential theological texts, they hold significance for the Merovingian and Visigothic historical narrative. They offer a unique Visigothic perspective on Frankish affairs, and later chroniclers like the anonymous author of the Chronicle of Fredegar (c. 660) may have been aware of such correspondence when describing Brunhilda’s downfall. The letters themselves were preserved in medieval Spanish collections of epistles (bdh.bne.es), indicating they were valued by the Visigothic and subsequent Mozarabic clergy as models of high-style letter writing and as historical documents. In the broader scope of Christian thought, the letters reinforce the ideal of concordia (harmony) among Christian rulers – a theme that echoes down through Carolingian times. In fact, their rhetoric predates similar appeals Charlemagne’s courtiers would make for unity against pagan foes. Though Bulgaranus is not a “Church Father,” his letters contributed to the diplomatic epistolary tradition in which biblical and patristic ideals were applied to practical governance. In sum, the letters didn’t shape doctrine, but they illustrate how theological concepts of the early 7th century (unity of the Church, divine punishment for sin, righteous kingship) were applied in statecraft (coinweek.com) (coinweek.com). This melding of politics and faith would continue to influence medieval Christian thought, especially in the idea that all Christian kingdoms should form a united front under God’s guidance.

Manuscript Tradition and Editions

Manuscripts: The Epistolae Tres of Bulgaranus survive as part of a Visigothic letter dossier copied in the early Middle Ages. The key witness is a composite manuscript preserved in Spain (now in the Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid, MS 1346). This codex is a late medieval (perhaps 15th–16th-century) transcription of earlier documents, containing an anthology of Visigothic-era texts. In its contents, Bulgaranus’s three letters appear on folios 57–63, immediately after a letter by the monk Itarra to King Reccared and before a letter by the monk Mauricius (bdh.bne.es). This suggests that, in the source collection, Bulgaranus’s letters were grouped with other 7th-century Spanish correspondence. The compilation also includes royal letters of King Sisebut, the Vita Patrum Emeritensium, and even Merovingian material (like a letter of Venantius Fortunatus to King Chilperic) (bdh.bne.es). The presence of multiple Visigothic letters together – often called the Epistulae Wisigothicae – indicates there was once a tradition of preserving these documents, likely in a cathedral or monastic archive in Visigothic Spain. It’s possible they were copied in a scriptoria using the Visigothic script (the distinctive script of Iberia), then later recopied in more modern script. Today, scholars rely on the Madrid manuscript (and perhaps a related copy in El Escorial, if it existed) as the basis for the text. The original 7th-century parchment letters have not survived independently.

Critical Editions: The letters were first published in the modern era in the 19th century. Jean-Paul Migne included Bulgaranus’s correspondence in Patrologia Latina, Volume 80 (1849), collated from Spanish sources (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu). Migne’s text, found in columns 107C–112B of PL 80, was based on earlier transcriptions (possibly those by Spanish antiquarians like Nicolás Antonio, who listed Bulgaranus in his Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu)). While convenient, the Migne text is not critical by modern standards – it lacks an apparatus of variants. A more rigorous edition appeared in 1892, when Wilhelm Gundlach edited the Epistolae Wisigothicae for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) series (books.openedition.org). Gundlach’s edition (in MGH Epistolae vol. 3, part 1) compared the available manuscripts and numbered Bulgaranus’s letters among the Visigothic correspondence (they appear as letters 15–17 in that set (es.scribd.com)). The most authoritative edition today is by Juan Gil, who revisited all known manuscripts. Gil published a Latin text in 1972 as part of Miscellanea Wisigothica (books.openedition.org), including Bulgaranus’s letters with corrected readings and notes on language. Gil’s edition (reprinted 1991) is considered the scholarly standard, offering insights into the peculiarities of Bulgaranus’s Latin. No complete English translation of these letters has been published to date, owing to their specialized nature. However, brief excerpts and summaries appear in historical works on the Visigoths. There are Spanish translations or commentary in academic literature (e.g. in studies by José Orlandis and others), but these are not widely available. The Latin text can be found in Migne’s PL (accessible via Google Books or Archive.org), and Gil’s edition can be consulted in university libraries.

Existing Translations: As noted, there is no standalone translation in English, French, or German focusing specifically on Bulgaranus’s letters. They tend to be overshadowed by the larger collections of Gregory the Great’s Registrum or Isidore’s works in their era. Some portions have been paraphrased in secondary sources – for example, historians discussing Brunhilda’s reputation sometimes mention the tone of the letters (e.g. Bulgaranus’s accusation of Brunhilda’s cruelty). In Spanish scholarship, one might find the letters quoted in translation as part of discussions on Visigothic diplomacy, but these are usually fragmentary. Therefore, the letters remain primarily accessible to those who read Latin. For modern readers, the best approach is consulting the Latin text with notes (Juan Gil’s edition provides a Spanish commentary alongside the Latin).

Textual Issues: The text of the letters, as preserved, is in relatively good condition, but it poses some textual challenges. The Latin is highly stylized, even baroque, with rare words and intricate syntax that reflect late Latin usage in Visigothic Spain (revistas.ucm.es). Editors have had to interpret some unusual phrases and correct obvious copyist errors. One minor issue is the spelling of names – for instance, “Brunichildis” vs “Brunechildis” and “Theudericus” vs “Theodoricus” vary in manuscripts. Gil’s critical notes address these and align them with known spellings from other sources. Another textual point is the identity of the bishop addressed: the letters themselves do not name him explicitly in a heading (they are addressed “Dilectissimo Fratri (N)…” where (N) is abbreviated). This leaves a blank that some manuscripts glossed as “Agapio” (hence the hypothesis about Agapius) (es.scribd.com). Editors note this but cannot confirm the name from context. In terms of variant readings, because the manuscript tradition is limited (essentially copies of the same late source), there is not a wide divergence between versions. The main differences are orthographic – e.g. Visigothic orthography like Francorum vs Pharancorum – which Gil standardizes. Overall, despite the complexity of the prose, the content of Bulgaranus’s letters has come down to us intact. They offer a rare direct voice from Visigothic Spain, carefully conserved through the diligence of medieval copyists and modern scholars.

Author Biography

Life: Little is known of Bulgaranus Comes outside of his letters. He was likely a high-ranking Visigothic nobleman (comes roughly meaning Count or Companion of the King) active around the year 610. His name “Bulgaranus” is unusual – possibly indicating a familial or nickname origin (it recalls “Bulgarus,” suggesting a connection with the word Bulgar, though this may be coincidental). No contemporary chronicler mentions Bulgaranus by name, implying he was not an independent political actor like a duke or rebel, but rather an emissary. We can infer that he was an educated man, probably of the Visigothic aristocracy that had embraced Roman culture. He might have been born in the late 6th century, coming of age under King Reccared (r. 586–601) during the kingdom’s Catholic consolidation. By 610, Bulgaranus was serving King Gundemar – perhaps as a royal secretary or a governor of a province. Given Gundemar had been Duke of Narbonne (in Septimania, the Visigothic enclave in Gaul) (coinweek.com), Bulgaranus could have roots or responsibilities in that region, which would explain his role in dealing with Frankish matters. His status as comes suggests he sat in the royal council and might have also been present at major events (like the Synod of Toledo in 610, if it indeed took place – one notitia lists a “Bulgaranus” among attendees, though that source is suspect).

Career: Bulgaranus’s known career is essentially his diplomatic mission reflected in the three letters. In them, he presents himself as a loyal servant of Gundemar, concerned with both secular and spiritual welfare. This implies he held a position of trust – possibly Count of the Palace or an equivalent role in the royal chancery. It was not uncommon for lay nobles with strong learning to compose state correspondence (comparably, in Frankish Gaul, aristocrats like Gallo-Romans drafted letters for kings). Bulgaranus’s writing exhibits a mastery of rhetoric and scripture, hinting at an education usually reserved for the elite – he may have studied under bishops or at the cathedral school of Toledo or Seville. We have no record of him holding ecclesiastical office (he is not called bishop or priest anywhere). Instead, he stands out as a lay intellectual. Aside from these letters, Bulgaranus possibly helped King Gundemar in other diplomatic correspondences – perhaps writing to the Pope or Eastern Roman officials, since we know Gundemar issued a decree and engaged in church matters (www.sermonindex.net). Gundemar’s reign was short (he died in 612), and after that Bulgaranus vanishes from the records. It’s unclear if he continued under King Sisebut; Sisebut’s own correspondence (c. 612–621) does not mention him. Bulgaranus may have retired or died around the transition of power.

Historical Context: Bulgaranus lived during a transitional generation in Visigothic history. He was a contemporary of St. Isidore of Seville (Bulgaranus’s letters date to just before Isidore’s famous works began circulating) and of other figures like Braulio of Zaragoza and King Sisebut. The political situation in his lifetime was volatile: externally, relations with the Frankish kingdoms oscillated between warfare and alliance; internally, Visigothic politics were marked by palace coups (e.g. Witteric’s usurpation, then Gundemar’s succession). Bulgaranus’s patron, Gundemar, was involved in those events – Gundemar’s rise came after Witteric’s assassination, which itself was tied to Witteric’s failure to secure Brunhilda’s alliance (coinweek.com). Religion was central to politics: Bulgaranus’s career unfolded just after the Visigoths’ conversion to Catholicism, so he and his peers were the first generation of Visigothic Catholics in power. They worked to strengthen the unity of church and state. It’s possible Bulgaranus had interactions with churchmen like Isidore; perhaps he was even related by family to some bishop (noble families often had members in both secular and ecclesiastical ranks). On the Frankish side, Bulgaranus corresponded about Queen Brunhilda (a formidable grandmother figure in Burgundy/Austrasia) and her grandsons Theudebert II and Theuderic II, as well as addressing the broader Merovingian realm. This shows he was well-informed about international affairs. He also shows awareness of the Avars, a distant threat – indicating the Visigothic court kept an eye on events beyond the Pyrenees.

Legacy: Bulgaranus’s personal legacy is modest – he was not canonized, nor did he found a lasting dynasty. However, his letters give him a literary legacy as one of the earliest lay authors in Visigothic Spain whose words we can still read. Medieval compilers who preserved his letters clearly valued them for their eloquence and the window they provide into Visigothic-Frankish relations. In the scholarly world, Bulgaranus is remembered as part of the corpus of Visigothic Latin literature, and his letters are studied for their language (philologists note their complex syntax and deviation from classical norms as characteristic of Visigothic Latin (revistas.ucm.es)). Historically, the letters have been used to corroborate narratives about Brunhilda’s hostility and the attempts at alliance between Visigoths and Franks. In that sense, Bulgaranus contributes to the understanding of the Merovingian-Medieval transition – illustrating how a newly Catholic kingdom like Visigothic Spain tried to integrate itself diplomatically with its northern neighbors. Modern historians cite Bulgaranus when discussing the lead-up to Brunhilda’s fall and the role of churchmen in diplomacy. Thus, while Bulgaranus may not be famous in the way of Isidore or Gregory, he is remembered within a niche of academic history as a cultural bridge: a Gothic noble writing in polished Latin to express political theology. His lasting significance lies in this unique perspective – a voice speaking to unity and Christian fraternity at a time of fragmentation. It enriches the tapestry of 7th-century history, reminding us that behind kings and bishops stood figures like Bulgaranus who helped shape events through the power of the pen.