Chapters 1 and 2 are out of the way. An excerpt:

White and Althoff’s theories either fail to consider the Merovingian period or else characterize it as being not socially complex enough to have such a sophisticated royal etiquette; the Merovingians’ attitude towards anger is seen as overly positive and lacking in good Christian values that mitigate violence. These attitudes with which the Merovingians are treated have been noted, and the suggestion has been made that perhaps there was more to Merovingian anger and its representation than was previously thought. Barbara Rosenwein points out that one of the main objects of the study on the history of anger is to combat the notion, surprisingly prevalent in historiography, that there has been a steady progression from irrational, unruly behaviour in the Middle Ages towards a more rational, restrained society later on. It is unquestionable that the works discussed above do contribute a great deal to combating that idea; however, they display a somewhat alarming tendency to exclude the Merovingian period and impute to it the same irrationality that they denounce for later eras. This is not necessarily a fault in their thinking, but a failure to consider the time with as nuanced a scholarship as it deserves.

Yeah baby. So that's what my life is right now. Writing this pedantic stuff.