The mind of Baddo: Assassination in Merovingian politics
One of the more repellent aspects of the Merovingian age is the apparent ease with which its society resorted to assassination. Ambition, dissimulation, and cupidity all too often found an outlet in political murder. But such behavior may be more than simply the upwelling of pure barbarism. Assassination in Merovingian politics may be the logical, if unhappy, byproduct of an altered world-view. 
 
The people of the Merovingian age were prone to take deeds as an accurate sign of inward intention, which brought the ultimate revelation of right and wrong forward to the present. And if the holiness of an action were readily apparent, even disgusting actions such as assassination may be seen, with proper exegesis of the Books of Judges, to produce right results. An examination of the implied conceptual circumstances surrounding assassination, the ‘mind’ of society to the deed, reveals a mixed attitude to these violent acts. 
 
The permissibility of assassination in qualified cases coupled with'the immediate establishment of it as holy or unholy, encouraged attempts on the lives of public figures. Once the full taboo had been broken, assassination became a dangerously routine solution to political grievances, and society's response to it became chillingly casual.
Evolution of medieval mentalities: a cognitive-structural approach.
IN BOOK II of the History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours recounted how Clovis annexed the kingdom belonging to his kinsman, Sigibert the Lame. Clovis began by promising his support to Sigibert's son Chloderic, if Chloderic would kill his father. After assassins murdered Sigibert while he slept, Chloderic informed Clovis of the deed and invited him to dispatch men to receive a portion of Sigibert's treasures. Clovis answered with assurances of his good wishes, but the men Clovis sent to Chloderic killed him as he bent over to display the coins in a treasure chest. Clovis then came to the district himself to address the populace. According to Gregory, Clovis in his speech disclaimed any knowledge of the affair. "I cannot," he explained, "shed the blood of my own kinsman, which it is shameful to do. " Clovis offered to place the lands of the slain kings under his protection. The populace answered Clovis's speech with great applause of "both voices and shields," raised him up on a shield, and acclaimed him their king.' The story itself is a bizarre enough tale of perfidy, but Gregory's conclusion is perhaps even stranger since he, Christian though he was, expressed no shock at or disapproval of the treacheries and lies he had just described. Instead, Gregory asserted that Clovis had succeeded because "God was laying low his enemies every day under his hand and was increasing his kingdom, because Clovis walked with an upright heart before God, and did what was pleasing in His eyes." To Gregory Clovis's very success may have been proof of his virtue, or Gregory may have believed Clovis was guiltless, since he shed no blood with his own hands but acted through agents. However Gregory's judgment is interpreted, it is evident that to him Clovis's actual motivation or intention had little bearing on the morality of his action. Nor was this the only episode for which Gregory showed little concern for the intentions of the individuals whose actions he narrated. When Gregory described the murder of Chilperic, for example, he recounted in considerable detail where the assassination occurred, at what time of day it happened, Chilperic's posture as he was stabbed, where the knife entered his body, how the blood spurted forth-everything, in fact, except who the assassin was and
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.