Frankish Church Councils

8/13/2019 Frankish Church Councils

1/21

C u m C o n s e n s u O m n i u m : F r a n k i s h C h u r c hC o u n c i l s f r o m C l o v i s t o C h a r l e m a g n e

G re g or y I . H a l fo nd *U n iv e rs i t y o f M i n ne s o ta

Abstract

For scholars of early medieval Europe, and of the Frankish Kingdoms in particular,

the canonical decisions of church councils have proven to be immensely valuablesources for understanding the beliefs and policies of the ecclesiastical elite.Althoughwe cannot always assume their enforcement, the canons offer a priceless windowinto the minds of their authors and the historical contexts that prompted their action.Less work has been done, however, on the institution that produced thislegislation.The following article provides an overview of the function of the churchcouncil in the Frankish Kingdoms, as well as surveys the relevant evidence andscholarly literature.

In the year 742, the Anglo-Saxon missionary and papal legate Boniface(c.675754) composed a letter to Pope Zacharias (74152), in which heinformed the Pontiff that old men report that the Franks have not held asynod for eighty years.1Bonifaces feigned disbelief imparted a clear message:it was unthinkable that the Frankish bishops were so lax in their duties asto neglect meeting collectively with their brethren for almost a full century.Such an appalling state of affairs could only suggest a true degenerationamong the Frankish episcopacy. For Boniface, the solution to the problem

was obvious: new councils had to be held in order to correct the abuses ofthe past eighty years, with himself, naturally, presiding. Fortunately forBoniface, the sons of Charles Martel (688741), Carloman (d. 755) andPippin III (714/5768), agreed, and sponsored a series of reform councilsin the 740s.2In doing so, they were following in a long tradition that markedroyal jurisdiction over the Church in the Frankish Kingdoms.

In the following essay I will discuss the importance of ecclesiastical councilsto our understanding of Frankish social, religious, and political history.Modern scholars have frequently drawn upon the canons issued inconjunction with the councils as evidence for Church policy, socio-religiousmentalits, and everyday realities in post-Roman Gaul and Germania. Fewer,however, have stepped back to look at the institution that produced thesewritten prescriptions.Therefore, to begin to address this lacuna, I offer firsta brief overview of the background and nature of the Frankish council.

2 0 0 7 T h e A u t h o rJ o u r n a l C o m p i l a t i o n 2 0 0 7 B l a c k w e l l P u b l i s h i n g L t d

H i s t or y C o m p as s 5/2 (2007): 539559, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00414.x


2/21

Following this outline, I will survey the primary evidence for conciliar modusoperandiduring this period, as well as the important contributions that modernscholarship has made towards our understanding of the Frankish council.I will conclude by offering some suggestions for future directions in

scholarship.The ecclesiastical council was an institution of fundamentalimportance in the Frankish Kingdoms, and an increased awareness of its

function allows us to understand better the governance of the most successfulof the post-Roman successor kingdoms.

The Council as an Institution

Ecclesiastical councils were not, of course, a Frankish invention, and hadbeen held in Gaul well before the establishment of Frankish royal power:

from 314 until 506 at over thirty synods congregated north of the Alps.3

Nor were the Franks innovators in permitting the rex a role in theirconvocation and discussions.This practice dated back to the reign of thefirst Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (c.280 337), under whosewatchful eye the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea met in AD325 Constantinewas also responsible for the convocation of the first Gallo-Roman synod,held in Arles in 314 at the will of the most pious emperor.4 NeitherConstantine nor his imperial and Frankish successors thought much ofinterfering in conciliar business and, indeed, viewed it as their prerogative.

It would be misleading to look for any modern understanding of theseparation of Church and State in Late Antiquity, particularly since imperialparticipation in conciliar life had its benefits for both the Church and thestate. For example, it was not uncommon for councils to request stateassistance in enforcing their rulings, a tradition that would continue wellafter the end of Roman rule in the West. In return, conciliar participantshad to accept some level of imperial influence in their deliberations, althoughthe nature of that influence is often difficult to assess, and surely variedaccording to the circumstances under which a given council was held.5 The

emperors aid in the enforcement of conciliar principles sometimes took theform of adopting already agreed-upon canons as the legal precedents fortheir own legislation, a habit subsequently adopted by the Merovingiankings.6 The Frankish councils also owed some of their procedures andterminology to Roman antecedents.Although most scholars today rejectthe hypothesis that the early medieval synods adopted their protocol directlyfrom the procedures of the Roman Senate, there is little question that theformer owed a great deal to the institutional modus operandiof the Romanstate.7 After all, the episcopal participants of both the Gallo-Roman andearly Frankish synods, by and large, were the members of prominentaristocratic families, well versed in the traditions of office holding.8 Thus,by the late fifth century, conciliar practices in Gaul were already deeplyintertwined with imperial administration, procedures, and influence.Thisprecedent would not be ignored by Clovis and his successors.9

540 . C u m C o n s e n s u O m n i u m

2 0 0 7 T h e A u t h o r H i s t o r y C o m p a s s 5 / 2 ( 2 0 0 7 ) : 5 3 95 5 9 , 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 4 7 8 - 0 5 4 2 . 2 0 0 7 . 0 0 4 1 4 . x

J o u r n a l C o m p i l a t i o n 2 0 0 7 B l a c k w e l l P u b l i s h i n g L t d


3/21

Although the church council was not a Roman imperial inventionper se,it has been argued that it was only with Christianitys new protected statusunder the Christian emperors, in combination with the rise of larger andmore powerful Christian communities post AD 313, that an poque of

intense conciliar life was able to flourish during the fourth and fifthcenturies.10 And despite the retreat of Roman administrative involvementin Gaul in the later part of this period, the Gallo-Roman conciliar epocharguably reached its zenith in the century leading up to the establishmentof Frankish sovereignty, particularly under the oversight of the bishops ofArles, Hilary (42949) and Caesarius (502 42).11Caesarius, for example,would chair the Visigothic Council of Agde in 506, a synod convoked onroyal authority, whose influence on canonical legislation would be felt deeplyin both Gaul and Spain in subsequent centuries.12 Thus, when Clovis

convoked the first Frankish council in 511 at Orlans, he was participatingin a tradition with lengthy roots in Gallo-Roman custom.So, what was the precise nature of this institution adopted by Clovis and

his successors? On the most basic level councils were the meetings heldamong the Church leadership, either on the diocesan, provincial, inter-provincial, or ecumenical level.They could be convoked by secular andecclesiastical leaders alike, and were attended by bishops, lower clerics,and occasionally laymen.The attendance was largely determined by the sizeand purpose of the council. In the Late Antique sources, both synodusand

concilium are used interchangeably to describe ecclesiastical assemblies,although modern scholars sometimes apply the former to smaller gatherings.13

Councils met in this period for a variety of purposes. Often their programwas largely legislative.Through the course of deliberation the attendeesproduced a series of decisions known as canons (canones), which wereintended to dictate the rules of Church life. In his Etymologies, Bishop Isidoreof Seville (c.560636) defines a canon as a regula, a word that originally meantmeasuring stick, but which came to denote a maxim or instruction on howto live a proper life.14 The Frankish councils too employed this definition.15

In the ecclesiastical context, canoneswere the legislative expressions of theunified Church, or to be more precise, churches.They drew their authorityfrom their connection to the enduring canonical tradition, the consensus ofthe conciliar participants, and from the willingness of secular authorities toenforce them.16 Although the Frankish sources frequently distinguish canonesfrom secular laws (leges), the tendency to place the two words in oppositionto each other is suggestive of the close relationship between ecclesiasticaland lay legislation.17One can see further evidence for this relationship inthe frequent citations of Roman legesby the Frankish councils,18the adoptionof canonical pronouncements by secular legislators,19as well as in the numberof contemporary manuscripts that include both secular and canonicallegislation.20However, despite the collaborative relationship between secularand Church law, tensions between the two systems remained a constantthroughout the period.A potential means of diffusing this tension emerged



C u m C o n s e n s u O m n i u m . 541


4/21

under the early Carolingians,whereby the monarch himself took unprecedentedresponsibility for legislating on Church matters. Unfortunately, this plan reliedtoo heavily on royal strength and episcopal subservience to be a long-termsolution, and the relationship between canon and state law remained in flux

into the Central Middle Ages.Issuing canons was but one function of Gallo-Roman and Frankish Churchcouncils, however.21 These assemblies played an important judicial role aswell. Councils frequently investigated charges against offending clerics,occasionally going so far as to depose the wrongdoer. Gregory ofToursdescribes a number of such synodal trials in the course of his Ten Books ofHistory, including Paris (577), where Bishop Praetextatus of Rouen wastried for plotting against King Chilperic (56184), and a synod held inClermont-Ferrand between the years of 584 and 591, which investigated

whether Ursicinus of Cahors had illegally annexed parishes from the dioceseof Rodez.22Gregory himself had first-hand experience with such proceedings.In the year 580, the Bishop of Tours was summoned to appear before acouncil at King Chilperics palace at Berny-Rivire, and accused of makingfalse charges against the kings wife, Fredegund.23Luckily for both Gregoryand historians of the Frankish Church, he was acquitted.

A third function of Frankish church councils was the issuing of privilegesand immunities to monastic and clerical foundations.The Council of Orlans(549), for example, confirmed the foundation and stipulated the protection

of the hospice (xenodochium) of Lyons endowed by King Childebert I(51158) and his wife.24 Similarly, Guntram (56192) requested that theCouncil ofValence (583/5) confirm those donations that he and his familyhad made to the Church.25In conjunction with the Council of Paris in 614Chlothar II (584629) issued an edict in which he ordered judges (iudices)not to disturb properties with immunity.26 Likewise, the council ofSaint-Jean-de-Losne (673/5) confirmed previously granted monasticprivileges,27while the eighth-century council ofVer (755) declared that theimmunities of churches had to be respected.28 These examples are merely a

sampling of seventh- and eighth-century councils that granted suchprivileges.29 Moreover, if one accepts Eugen Ewigs argument that theseventh-century episcopal privileges are indicative of actions taken by synods,then we can add even more councils to this tally.30

This last point requires some comment however. Simply put, thesedocuments record the grant of exemptions and privileges to individualmonasteries under the name of particular bishop.These grants were thenendorsed with episcopal signatures, which Ewig has suggested may be takenas evidence of a synodal meeting.31 This theory remains contested. OdettePontal, who included these privileges in the first German edition of herSynoden im Merowingerreich, chose to leave them out, with no explanation,in the second French edition. Even in the German edition, she argues thatcorroborating references for these pseudo-synods are not sure evidence, asthe authors of these other sources may have assumed the existence of the





5/21

meetings based on their knowledge of the subscription lists.Additionally,she writes, we have no way of knowing if these subscriptions were collectedafter the fact, and thus do not reflect a meeting at all.32Pontals argumentsare well taken, but her logic is not without its problems. It seems highly

inefficient, for instance, that a bishop bestowing a privilege would take thetrouble to have the charter carted about from city to city to assemble theappropriate signatures, rather than collect them at a single meeting.Additionally, we should remember that the primary function of subscriptionsis to serve as proof of witness, a function that would be stripped of its valueif they were written considerably after the fact by men who were, indeed,not witnesses at all.33Pontals suggestion that a given council may have beeninvented by concerned beneficiaries relying upon a privilege-charter doesnot undermine the likelihood that a meeting of bishops took place to witness

the signing of the document.Whether or not we choose to accept these meetings as true councils some may have congregated as political assemblies is another questionaltogether. Still, at the very time these privileges began to appear inconsiderable numbers (seventheighth century), the line between purelyecclesiastical and purely political assemblies was beginning to blur, a processthat would culminate in the dominance of the so-called mixed-councils(concilia mixta) of the mid-eighth century.34In these conglomerate meetingsthe ecclesiastical attendees met either separately or alongside the secular

magnates as part of the general assembly of the kingdom.The agenda of theassembly was set by the mayor or king, who legislated with the consensusof the participating secular magnates and prelates, and who issued themeetings decisions in the form of a capitulary.The origins of the conciliamixtacan be traced to the mixed Council of Paris, convoked by ChlotharII in 614. However, the Paris assembly may not have been Chlothars onlyuse of combined assemblages of prelates and nobles.Two years later,according to Fredegar, Chlothar assembled the Burgundian magnates andbishops together at his villa at Bonneuil to listen to their petitions.35

Additionally, the Council of Clichy (626/7), whose canonical recordsurvives, may have met in conjunction with a meeting of magnates.According to Fredegar, in his 44th regnal year (627), Chlothar met withall of the bishops and magnates of his kingdom at Clichy for the good ofthe kingdom and the health of the country.36For Chlothar, these mixedassemblies served as effective reminders of his sovereign authority over theentirety of the Frankish polity, religious and secular spheres alike animportant lesson for his Merovingian and Carolingian successors.37Therefore,attempting to differentiate religious assemblies from secular during this periodmay itself be an anachronistic exercise.The meetings that issued episcopalprivileges in the seventh and eighth centuries were engaging in a completelynormal activity for Gallic synods.

The varying tasks of the Frankish church councils have encouraged somehistorians to distinguish between them according to their perceived





6/21

function.38 The problem with this approach is that it assigns councils toessentially artificial categories for the convenience of modern scholars. Manyof the councils cited above met with more complex agendas than can besummarized by such vague terms as legislative, judicial, or political. Far

preferable to this identification scheme is the classic terminology introducedby Paul Hinschius in the third volume of his immense Kirchenrecht. Hinschiusidentified ecclesiastical councils as either: (1) General and EcumenicalCouncils; (2) Provincial and Plenary Councils (i.e. representative bodies ofecclesiastical units); (3) Inter-Provincial, National, and Imperial Councils(i.e. representative bodies of ecclesiastical units greater than individualdioceses or provinces); and (4) Diocesan Synods.39The benefit of Hinschiussclassification system is that it does not force a given council into apredetermined category that may not fully express its agenda. Unfortunately,

Hinschiuss system has not always been consistently applied, which hasresulted in confusion in the scholarly tradition.40

So, precisely how many councils took place under Frankish authorityfrom Cloviss first in 511 to the accession of Charlemagne to the throne in768? No two specialists in Frankish conciliar history have compiled identicaltallies. Generally speaking, however, the number of accepted councils hoversbetween seventy and eighty.41 This number does not include those councilsthat are either highly contested or dismissed as fictional.42Moreover, councilscertainly were held for which no documentary evidence survives. It would

stretch credulity to argue that it was mere coincidence that those decadesin which Gregory ofTours, the most prolific and detailed narrator ofsixth-century Gallic life, was bishop (57394) saw the most concentratedconciliar activity in Frankish history: 27% of Pontals sixty-six identifiedMerovingian councils fall within this period. Instead, it is clear that ourknowledge of councils, especially those that issued no legislation, is heavilydetermined by the quantity and detail of our sources. It is to these sourcesthat we now turn.

Sources

Among our evidence for the Frankish councils, the surviving canonicalrecords discussed above are the most obvious, and the one to which mostmodern scholars of Frankish councils turn first.We possess thirty-six of thesedocuments from the period in question (511768).43During these centuries,canonical records were preserved in a multitude of collections assembledthroughout the Frankish Kingdoms. Generally, these collections took oneof two forms: chronological or systematic.The former listed canons councilby council while the later grouped them topically. In the early sixth century,canonical collection production was focused in Southern Gaul, but by thebeginning of the seventh century it had shifted northwards.44 What madethese Gallic collections unique compared to those compiled in Italy andelsewhere was that they included near-contemporary conciliar decisions,





7/21


8/21

determining synodal procedures.The danger arises, as with all legal evidence,when enforcement is assumed rather than determined by other evidence.

The Historiographical Tradition

It is all the more interesting then that the historiographical tradition vis--visthe Frankish councils has been, on the whole, far more concerned with theirlegislation than with their history as an institution.The classic survey ofFrankish religious legislation (including royal decrees and monastic rules aswell as conciliar pronouncements) remains Charles de Clercqs La lgislationreligieuse franque de Clovis Charlemagne (507 814)(1936), which takes achronological approach to the evidence, providing for each council both adiscussion of its historical context, as well as an analysis of the canons. Since

the publication of De Clercqs book, other scholars have chosen to look atparticular topics of interest to the Frankish legislators, such as liturgy,57

property rights,58social welfare,59Jewish policy,60the survival of paganism,61

as well as additional assorted issues.62This interest in the legislative enactmentsof the Frankish councils is due in no small part to their usefulness as indicatorsof the beliefs and policies of the ecclesiastical elite.Although we may notbe able to assume enforcement, this does not prohibit us from using thecanons as means of understanding their authors and the historical contextsin which they formulated their policies.

Along with their interest in the canons themselves, a number of scholars,particularly Continental, have looked intently at the procedures by whichthis legislation was collected and disseminated through canonical collections,thus ultimately becoming part of medieval canon law. One of the classicworks in this genre is Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Brass Histoire des collectionscanoniques en Occident(1931), which traced in two volumes the history ofcanonical collections up through the compilation of Gratians Decretum(c.1140).Although more detailed work has been done on individualcollections since their books publication, a number of Fournier and Le

Brass conclusions, such as their observation that Gallic canonical manuscriptproduction shifted northwards in the latter sixth century, continue to mark,with some modifications, the status questionis.63

A work of equal importance for the study of canonical collections isFriedrich Maassens Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischenRechts(1870), which takes a far more detailed and systematic approach thanFournier and Le Bras to the canonical collections.64 Additionally, unlikeHistoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident, it provides valuable informationon the contents of these compilations.Although Maassen does not alwaysgo so far as to ennumerate the individual canons contained in each collection(which, admittedly, would stretch an already lengthy work to enormousdimensions), he does list those councils whose pronouncements are cited.Maassens book has recently been complemented, although not superseded,by Lotte Krys Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages(1999), which





9/21

provides more up-to-date bibliographical and scholarly information oncanonical manuscripts. Kry, unfortunately, does not include any discussionof the actual contents of the collections, thus rendering Maassens earlierwork indispensable.65

Although it looks primarily at a single canonical collection, HubertMordeks Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica,die lteste systematische Kanonessammlung des frnkischen Gallien (1975) isarguably the most significant contribution to the study of canonicalcollections in the last half-century. Ostensibly an edition and commentaryof the Vetus Gallica, Mordeks book offers a wealth of information on thecompilation of canonical collections during the Merovingian period.Although Mordek is not greatly concerned with church councils per se, hiswork is arguably the most successful to date in demonstrating how conciliar

legislation was preserved and disseminated, and eventually turned into legalprecedent for future councils. He notes, for example, how the compilers ofthe Vetus Gallica were able to make use of the copies of canonical decisionsstored in the Church archives of the diocese of Lyon as the source for morerecent meetings, e.g. Mcon (581/3).66Mordek posits that the metropolitanbishop, Priscus, had brought back to Lyon copies of the canons of Mcon,a meeting he himself had supervised.A few years later, when the VetusGallica was being assembled, the compilers were able to draw upon theserecords. Mordek additionally traces how this single collection went through

a series of redactions, and proved enormously popular for a locally compiledanthology, thus ensuring the dissemination of conciliar decisions.67

A far less technical work that discusses this same process in a more generalsense is Jean Gaudemets Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident(1985),which examines both the church councils themselves and those collectionsthat preserved their rulings. Gaudemets book, which relies heavily on thework of others (most notably Fournier and Le Bras, Mordek, and Maassen),was intended by the author to serve as a basic introduction to the field, andnot as an original work of scholarship. Nevertheless, Gaudemet, as one of

the great French scholars of the history of canon law, is able to synthesizethis material in such a way as to demonstrate the incalculable degree ofinfluence of the Late Antique councils on medieval developments into thetwelfth century.68

The great mass of scholarship that has been done in the last century onthe Gallic conciliar legislation and canonical collections is due in no smallpart to the desire of scholars like Gaudemet to explain the origins of thecomplex and intellectually profound system of medieval canon law.Asimportant as this project is, it does not focus attention on the institutionsthemselves that served as the foundation for later developments. Unlike theCarolingian era, which has benefited greatly from the copious penetratingstudies ofWilfried Hartmann, the Merovingian and early Pippinid periodhas lacked the sustained attention of any one scholar.What is more, notsince the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has there been any general





10/21

interest among historians in looking at the institutional history of the Frankishcouncils. Indeed, Karl Joseph Von Hefeles Conciliengeschichte(187390) formany years has served as the chief source for information regarding individualcouncils.Also available in English and French editions,69 Hefeles work

traced ecclesiastical conciliar history from its very beginnings, providingtranscriptions and summaries of the conciliar records of all of the knownindividual councils in both the eastern and western halves of the formerRoman Empire.While monumental in its breadth, Hefeles worknevertheless has been criticized for its lack of analysis.70 This problem wassomewhat rectified in the French edition by its editor Henri Leclercq, whoaugmented the works scholarly apparatus with additional notations anddiscussion.While Hefele and Leclercq were primarily interested in thelegislation of the councils, they nevertheless included important discussions

on the dating, locations, and historicity of individual councils.Alongside of Hefele and Leclercq stand the great turn-of-the-centuryGerman legal and Church historians: Edgar Loening, Paul Hinschius,Heinrich Brunner, and Albert Hauck.As a group, these scholars were farless concerned with individual councils and their legislation than with theirrole as part of a Frankish national church (landeskirche). In particular, therelated issues of royal involvement in conciliar life and the legal status ofcanons dominated their discussions. Both Hinschius and Hauck argued, forexample, that synodal decisions did not need royal approval to be considered

obligatory ecclesiastical regulations, but nevertheless lacked the status of statelaw without royal confirmation, and, moreover, that kings were within theirrights to reject conciliar decisions that they disagreed with.71Loening, incontrast, placed a much stronger emphasis on conciliar independence,arguing that royal approval did not give the canons their validity.72Brunner,likewise, in comparing the Merovingian and Carolingian national councils,noted the relatively independent position which [they] enjoyed under theMerovingians.73

The successor to this group was Hans Barion, whose Das frnkisch-deutscheSynodalrecht des Frhmittelalters(1931) remained the only monograph on theFrankish councils until the publication of Odette Pontals Die Synoden imMerowingerreich in 1986. Barions study, whose scope includes the post-Carolingian German councils, is rarely cited today beyond a few Germanscholars.Adopting the predominant framework of a Frankish national church,Barion argued that royal synods would have been necessary regardless ofCloviss decision to convoke the Council of Orlans in 511.74 TheMerovingian kings, according to Barion, did not govern the Church directly;rather, they allowed the Gallic bishops to do so through the institution ofnational synods.75He argues that these councils took over those functionsthat the monarchy was unwilling or unable to perform, but with royalapproval.76

Barions arguments, however, have not ended the debate on royalinvolvement in Frankish councils prior to the reign of Charlemagne. Some





11/21

historians have argued that the participation of the kings largely ended withtheir convocation of the councils, or at the very least that they usually chosenot to concern themselves with issues of Church discipline or dogma.77

Others have held that royal involvement depended heavily on the specific

circumstances and issues at hand.

78

Still others have stressed the monarchysrole in confirming conciliar canons, thereby giving them their legal force.79

Ian Wood has even gone so far as to suggest that the Frankish kings weredeeply involved in the legislative process, and that, indeed, conciliar andsecular law cannot always easily be distinguished in the sixth century.80Whilethe issue is far from settled, there is some consensus that the Frankish synodsprior to Charlemagne were neither bastions of episcopal independence nora mere subterfuge for royal policy-making; rather, they served as forums ofcompromise, in which kings and bishops could hammer out policies that

benefited both.81

With the exception of a few shorter studies, the most influential of whichwill be discussed in due course, Barions book remained the last word onthe Frankish councils as an institution until the publication ofWalterBrandmllers Konziliengeschichteseries fifty years later. Intended to supplantthe work of Hefele and Leclercq, the relevant volumes are Odette PontalsDie Synoden im Merowingerreich(1986) and Wilfried Hartmanns Die Synodender Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (1989). Both Pontal andHartmann adopt the organizational style imposed by the series editors,

which entails a council-by-council analysis, followed by a summarizingessay.This scheme allows the authors to place each council within its specifichistorical context while still keeping an eye on the larger picture. Both booksalso helpfully summarize the ongoing debates surrounding individual councils,usually involving dating or authenticity.

Hartmann was the natural choice to compose the Carolingian volume,having already published a number of shorter studies on the topic. Pontal,in contrast, was a somewhat less obvious selection, as she had previouslyspecialized in the synods of the Capetian period, and had not published

anything at all on the Merovingian era. Her lack of expertise unfortunatelyshowed throughout in her work, which was riddled with factual errors,omissions, and uneven analysis. Nevertheless, her book, which subsequentlywas translated into French (adding a plethora of typographical errors in theprocess) as Histoire des conciles mrovingiens, quickly became the standard workin the field. Despite these criticisms, it is important to stress that many ofPontals conclusions are valid, and consistently supported by the evidence,in particular her argument that the Gallic bishops were dealing in theircouncils with contemporary issues that affected their Church and theirsociety.82In Pontals view, one which I share, to see conciliar legislation assomehow isolated from social realities would be to misunderstand entirelythe function of the Merovingian councils.

Although Barion, Pontal, and Hartmanns works are the only full-lengthstudies of the Frankish councils as an institution, there have been a handful





12/21

of important shorter studies on the same topic, a number of them focusingon the surviving subscription lists.83 The most important of these, and themost frequently cited, is J. Champagne and R. Szramkiewiczs Recherchessur les conciles des temps mrovingiens (1971), which took the first truly

systematic quantitative approach to the conciliar evidence.They tallied,among other things, the level of participation in the twenty-two inter-

provincial synods held between the years 511 and 695 possessing subscriptionlists, the attendance of metropolitan bishops at these councils, and the mostheavily represented provinces during the course of this period.Throughtheir analysis, they discovered that the plurality of these councils had betweenten and twenty participants, and that over 50% of all meetings were attendedby between two to five metropolitan bishops.84 Additionally, they notedthat the cities of Bourges,Vienne, Lyon, Autun, and Bordeaux were the

most heavily represented bishoprics at inter-provincial councils.85

Thanksto Champagne and Szramkiewiczs work, scholars can now evaluate withfar greater accuracy the comparative size of a given council and the characterof its participants, and a few have already taken their lead, and applied similarmethods to particular regions of Francia.86Nevertheless, the selectivity ofChampagne and Szramkiewiczs test group, which excludes the dozens ofcouncils that did not leave decisions in the form of canons, should makeone wary about applying their findings without qualification.

Future Directions

The time is ripe for a revaluation of the institutional history of the Frankishcouncils.The brief study by Champagne and Szramkiewicz, for example,has demonstrated the untapped quantitative potential of the conciliar sources.Moreover, as noted above, there are additional sources, i.e. contemporaryor near-contemporary narrative histories, hagiographies, epistles, capitularies,and diplomas, which have been seriously under-utilized in examiningconciliar history. Finally, the traditional periodization scheme that divides

the Merovingian and Carolingian eras needs to be reevaluated vis--vis theFrankish synods.The councils of the 740s have, almost without exception,been categorized as Carolingian.Without questioning the de-facto powerof the Pippinids in this period, or their role in the convocation of thesemeetings, are there any other reasons for assuming a fracture with theMerovingian conciliar tradition?The reason that is most often cited is theclaim of Boniface, quoted above, that the Franks had not held a council forover eighty years.Too many historians have been willing to take Bonifaceat his word, or at best admit only that the great missionary may have beenexaggerating.87 Thus, it is important to note that Boniface, or his sources,was mistaken by a range of at least forty years.88Secondly, even if Bonifacessources were being honest, he was writing Pope Zacharias from Germania,which had never experienced nearly so strong a conciliar tradition asGaul.Thirdly, the major issues addressed by the early Pippinid councils were





13/21

not markedly different from those taken up by the Merovingian synods,even if some of the legislative approaches towards them had changed in theintervening period.89 However, it has also been observed that this erawitnessed a trend of increased lay involvement in ecclesiastical meetings.90

While this may have been the case, there are obvious Merovingian precedentsfor non-clerical attendance at Church synods, as we noted above in ourdiscussion of the origins of the concilia mixta. Still, the blending of royal andecclesiastical assemblies did become more conspicuous in the later eighthcentury, with independent synods becoming progressively scarce during thereign of Charlemagne.Thus, while this era certainly witnessed alterationsin ecclesiastical practice, continuity rather than change appears to havemarked conciliar life in the later eighth century.91

A reevaluation of the Frankish synods is necessitated by the fact that

conciliar evidence has been, and continues to be, mined for evidence byscholars of the Frankish Kingdoms. Future scholarship must reevaluate thetraditional periodization scheme that divides up the Frankish era, and makea greater effort to evaluate canonical legislation within an institutionalframework.Additionally, there is still much work that needs to be done tocontextualize the individual synods that met during these centuries. Despiteimportant continuities in conciliar practice between the reigns of Clovisand Charlemagne, councils gathered to discuss contemporary concerns, andtheir legislation was informed by their immediate historical surroundings.

In short, we must return our attention back to the councils themselves, anessential project whose rewards include a far better understanding of thegovernance of the Frankish Church, its intimate relations with the royalgovernment, and the nature of its contribution to the development ofmedieval canon law.

Short Biography

Gregory Halfond received his B.A. from Cornell University and his M.A.

from the University of Minnesota, where he is currently a doctoral candidate.His research focuses on the cultural and religious history of Europe from500 to 800 CE, with a particular emphasis on the development of ecclesiasticalinstitutions in Frankish Gaul. He recently delivered a paper at the 45thannual Midwest Medieval History Conference on the topic of papallandowning in Merovingian Provence. He is completing a doctoraldissertation entitled The Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils.

Notes* Correspondence address: Department of History, University of Minnesota, 614 Social Sciences,267 19th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: [email protected].

1 Boniface, S. Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae, MGH Epistolarum III, ed. Ernst Dmmler (Berlin:Weidmann, 1892), no. 50.





14/21

2 Reuter has argued that it is anachronistic to apply the word reform to the eighth century:T.Reuter,Kirchenreform und Kirchenpolitik im Zeitalter Karl Martells: Begriffe und Wirklichkeit,in J. Jarnut, U. Nonn, and M. Richter (eds.), Karl Martell in seiner Zeit(Sigmaringen: Jan ThorbeckeVerlag, 1994), 3559. Recently, however, M.A. Claussen, The Reform of the Frankish Church:Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula Canonicorum in the Eighth Century (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2004), has employed the term. For a review of the literature on Carolingian

reform, see Claussen, Reform of the Frankish Church, 13.3 Records survive from Arles (314), Cologne (346), Arles (353), Bziers (356), Paris (360/1),Valence (374), Bordeaux (384/5), Trier (386), Nmes (394/6), Turin (398), Riez (439), Orange(441), Vaison (442), Unknown (441/5), Unknown (446), Unknown (451), Arles (449/461),Angers (453), Tours (461),Vannes (461/91), Arles (470), Lyon (470), Agde (506), and possiblyArles II (442/506).4 Arles (314), Preface.All citations of the Gallo-Roman councils pre-511 are from Muniersedition: Concilia Galliae A.314A.506, ed. C. Munier, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 148(Turnhout: Brepols, 1963).5 B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, Les vques, les papes, et les princes dans la vie conciliaire en Francedu IVe au XIIe sicle, Revue historique de droit franais et etranger, 69 (1991): 34.6J. Gaudemet, La formation du droit sculier et du droit de lEglise aux IVe et Ve sicles(Paris: Sirey,1957), 143.7 Hannig, for example, has demonstrated how councils served as intermediaries in the transferenceof Roman notions and vocabulary of consensus and concilium: J. Hannig, Consensus Fidelium(Stuttgart:Anton Hiersemann, 1982), 6479. On the relationship between senatorial and conciliarprocedures, see: Hannig, Consensus Fidelium, 72; J. Gaudemet, Lglise dans lEmpire Romain(IVeVe sicles) (Paris: Sirey, 1958), 4512; Gaudemet, La formation du droit sculier et du droit delEglise, 1356.8 On the aristocratic nature of the Gallic episcopate and episcopal dynasties, see e.g.: M.Heinzelmann,Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien (Munich:Artemis Verlag, 1976); I.Wood, The Ecclesiastical Politicsof Merovingian Clermont, in P.Wormald, D. Bullough, and R. Collins (eds.), Ideal and Reality

in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 34 57; R. Mathisen, RomanAristocrats in Barbarian Gaul (Austin, TX: University ofTexas Press, 1993), 89104. On theparticipation of episcopal dynasties in councils, see: J. Champagne, and R. Szramkiewicz,Recherches sur les conciles des temps mrovingiens, Revue historique de droit franais et etranger,49 (1971): 27.9 On the Frankish kings desire to imitate their imperial predecessors see e.g. P. Hinschius,Kirchenrecht (Berlin: I. Guttentag, 18691897), 3:53940; C. De Clercq, La lgislation religieusefranque de Clovis Charlemagne (507814)(Louvain: Bureaux du Recueil Bibliothque de Universit,1936), 99; J. Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident(Paris: ditions du Cerf/Editionsdu C.N.R.S., 1985), 108; J. Heuclin, Le concile dOrlans de 511, un premier concordat? inM. Rouche (ed.), Clovis histoire & mmoire (Paris: Presses de lUniversitde Paris-Sorbonne,

1997), 436;W. M. Daly,Clovis: How Barbarian, How Pagan? Speculum, 69/3 (1994): 656.10 Gaudemet,Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident, 41.11 H. Barion, Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frhmittelalters (Bonn: Ludwig RhrscheidVerlag, 1931), 78.12 The Visigothic councils ofToledo have received more scholarly attention as an institution thanthose of Francia. For a recent interpretation of their history, see: R. L. Stocking, Bishops, Councils,and Consensus in the Visigothic Kingdom, 589633(Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,2000).The Visigothic and Frankish councils influenced each others legislation through thetransmission of canonical manuscripts, on which see: R. Mathisen, Between Arles, Rome, andToledo: Gallic Collections of Canon Law in Late Antiquity, Ilu: Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones2 (1999): 3346; L. Garca Moreno, Les relations entre lglise des Gaules et lglise dEspagne

du Ve au VIIe sicle: Entre suspicion et mfiance, Revue dhistoire de lglise de France, 90/224(2004): 1954.13 A. Lumpe, Zur Geschichte der Wrter Concilium und Synodus in der antiken christlichenLatinitt,Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 2/1 (1970): 121.14 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, ed.W. M. Lindsay (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), 6.16.1.15 References to regula canonum, canonum regulas, and canonum reguliscan be found, for example, inLyon (567/70), c.5, Clichy (626/7), Preface, and St. Jean de Losne (673/5), c.21 respectively.All





15/21

citations of the Merovingian councils are from De Clercqs edition: Concilia Galliae:A. 511A.695, ed. Charles de Clercq, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 148A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1963).16 On tradition and consensus vis--vis synods, see: K. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in theWestern Church: 3001140(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 1957, etc.; Stocking,Bishops, Councils, and Consensus, 125; Barion, Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frhmittelalters,97110.17 For example, Orleans (511), c.1; Mcon (581/3), c.16; Guntchramni Regis Edictum, in A. Boretius(ed.), Capitularia Regum Francorum, MGH Leges II.1, (Hanover: Hahn, 1883), 1012; GregoryofTours, Decem Libri Historiarum, MGH SRM I: 1, eds. Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison(Hanover: Hahn, 19371951), 5:18.18 On which, see: J. Gaudemet, Survivances romaines dans le droit de la monarchie franque duVme au Xme siecle, in La formation du droit canonique mdival(London:Variorum, 1980),2 :1648.19 Chlothar II, for example, drew upon 14 canons of the Council of Paris (614) for his edict ofthe same year: Concilia Galliae:A. 511A. 695, 2835.20 Gaudemet, Survivances romaines, 16973; M.Vessey, The Origins of the Collectio Sirmon-diana:A New Look at the Evidence, in J. Harries and I.Wood (eds.),The Theodosian Code(Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 17899. Rosamond McKitterick has also noted the existenceof Carolingian-era manuscripts containing both conciliar canons and the Lex Salica: R. McKitter ick,The Carolingians and the Written Word(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 4855.21 In contrast to the Gallo-Roman, Merovingian, and Visigothic synods, only five Anglo-Saxoncouncils are known to have issued sets of canons: C. Cubitt,Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650850(London: Leicester University Press, 1995), 623.22 Gregory ofTours, Decem Libri Historiarum, 5:18, 6:38.23 Ibid., 5:49.24 Orlans (549), c.15.25 Valence (583/5), Conciliar Record.26 Chlotharii II Edictum, c.14.

27 Saint-Jean-de-Losne (673/5), c.14.28 Ver (755), c.19.29 See also e.g. the grant of Clichy (636/7) to the monastery of Rebais: Fredegar, Chronica, MGHSRM II, ed. Bruno Krusch (Hanover: Hahn, 1888), 6:78; Vita Agili Abbatis Resbacensis, AASSAug.VI, ch. 5.Also, the Councils of Paris and Clichy (6534) granted privileges to Saint Denis:Die Urkunden der Merowinger, ed. Carlrichard Brhl, Theo Klzer, Martina Hartmann, and AndreaStieldorf (Hanover: Hahn, 2001), no. 85. Rouen (688/9), whose veracity has been questioned,may have granted them to Fontenelle: Vita Ansberti, MGH SRM V, ed. Bruno Krusch (Hanover:Hahn, 1910), ch. 18.And Compigne (757) granted them to the monastery at Gorze: ConciliaAevi Karolini, ed.Albert Werminghoff, MGH: Legum, sectio III, tomus 2, part 1 (Hanover: Hahn,19061908), 5963.

30 Ewig identifies fifteen privileges composed between 637 and 728.There are additionaleighth-century privileges (e.g. Flavigny 719 and 722), but as testaments or formulaethey do notsuggest councils, and Ewig does not count them. On these privileges, see: O. Pontal, Die Synodenim Merowingerreich (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 1986), 20412; E. Ewig, Beobachtungenzu den Bischofslisten der merowingischen Konzilien und Bischofsprivilegien, in Sptantikes undfrnkisches Gallien, vol. 2 (Munich:Artemis Verlag, 1979), 42755.31 Ewig, Beobachtungen zu den Bischofslisten, 42755. Charters have been taken as evidencefor councils in other regions as well. See, for example, Cubitt, Anglo-Saxon Church Councilsc.650850, 20534.32 O. Pontal, Die Synoden im Merowingerreich, 21112.33 The autograph signatures in the privileges that survive in original copies, e.g. Clovis IIs

confirmation of Landricius grant and Agerardus of Chartres privilege (ChLanos. 558 and 580),provide additional proof for this conclusion.34 On the prominence of this model during the early Pippinid, era, see:W. Hartmann,Laien aufSynoden der Karolingerzeit,Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 10/2 (1978): 257; Claussen, Reformof the Frankish Church, 47. In the Pippinid era, synods become increasingly indistinguishable fromthe ecclesiastical division of the royal assembly.This problem is partially terminological, as it isoften difficult to tell from a given literary context whether the word synodusis referring to a church





16/21

council, a royal assembly, or an ecclesiastical division of said assembly: E. Seyfarth, FrnkischeReichsversammlungen unter Karl dem Grossen und Ludwig dem Frommen(Borna-Leipzig: BuchdruckereiRobert Noske, 1910), 110;W. Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und inItalien(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 1989), 5; J. Imbert, Les Temps Carolingiens(Paris: EditionsCujas, 1994), 1:134; M. De Jong, Charlemagnes Church, in J. Story (ed.), Charlemagne: Empireand Society(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), 10910.35 Fredegar, Chronica, 4:44.36 Ibid., 4:55.37 P. Fouracre, The Age of Charles Martel(Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2000), 25.38 See in this regard especially Pontals Histoire des conciles mrovingiens.39 Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, 3:328.40 For example, in his otherwise excellent history of the Frankish Church, J. M.Wallace-Hadrilleschews consistency in labeling councils altogether, and employs such terms as local, national,regional, and metropolitical to identify conciliar types: J. M.Wallace-Hadrill, The FrankishChurch(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 945, etc.41 Pontal, for example, lists 62 councils for the Merovingian period in the first edition of herSynoden im Merowingerreichand 66 in the second. Hartmann lists 13 councils (not including Roman

and Italian synods) for the years between 740 and 768 in his Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit imFrankenreich und in Italien.42 For example,Agaune (515/23),Tournai (520), Reims (c.626), Utrecht (697), and Rouen (dateunknown).43 I have included the early Pippinid councils known only through capitularies in this tally, butnot those conciliar records that merely record the holding of a meeting, a judicial decision, or a grant.44 P. Fournier and G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Dcrtalesjusquau Dcret de Gratien (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1931), 1:44; H. Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reformim Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonessammlung des frnkischenGallien(Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 16, 74 5; Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de lEglise enOccident, 1467.

45 Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident, 142; Mathisen, Between Arles, Rome, andToledo, 3940.46 For example, Fournier and Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques, 1:43.47 R. McKitterick, Knowledge of Canon Law in the Frankish Kingdoms before 789:The Manu-script Evidence, The Journal ofTheological Studies, 36/1 (1985): 99; H. Mordek, Die CollectioVetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonensammlung des frnkischen Gallien, Francia, 1(1973): 4561. One can also point to the two-way influence between the Gallic compilers andtheir Spanish and Irish contemporaries as evidence against the charge of provinciality.Along withthe studies of Gallic-Spanish relations cited above, see on Irish relations: R. Meens, The OldestManuscript Witness of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,Peritia, 14 (2000): 119; L. M. Davies,Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua and the Gallic Councils in the Hibernensis, Peritia, 14 (2000): 85110.

English attendance at the Council of Paris (614) may be indicative of an exchange of legal ideasbetween the Franks and Anglo-Saxons: P.Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to theTwelfth Century(Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 1001.48 For example, Gregory ofTours, Decem Libri Historiarum, 4:4, 4:67, 4:26, 4:36, 4:47, 5:18, 5:20,5:27, 5:36, 5:49, 6:1, 6:389, 7:17, 7:31, 8:20, 9:20, 9:32, 9:37, 9:3943, 10:8, 10:1517, 10:1920;Fredegar, Chronica, 4:1, 4:24, 4:78; Les gestes des vques dAuxerre I, directed by M. Sot, ed. G.Lobrichon and M. Goullet (Paris: Belles Lettres, 2002), ch. 19, 24; Flodoard of Reims,Die Geschichteder reimser Kirche, MGH SRG 36, ed. M. Stratmann (Hanover: Hahn, 1998), 1:16, 2:5, 2:7; Mariusof Avenches,Chronica, ed. and trans. J. Favrod (Lausanne: Cahiers Lausannois dHistoire Mdivale,1993), entry for 579;Annales Mettensis Priores, ed. B. Simson (Hanover: Hahn, 1905), entries for692, 748, 757, 767;Annales Regni Francorum, MGH SRG I, ed. F. Kurz (Hanover: Hahn, 1895),

entries for 757 and 767;Ado ofVienne, Sancti Adonis Chronicon, PL 123, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris:Garnier Brothers, 1879), entry for 767; Odorannus of Sens, Chronicon, PL 142, ed. J. P. Migne(Paris: Garnier Brothers, 1880), entry for 675.49 Die Urkunden der Merowinger, nos. 85 and 122, and possibly no. 131.50 Capitularia Regum Francorum, 1012; 2030, 3241. Uncertain: Pippini Regis Capitulare (7545),in Capitular ia Regum Francorum, 312, on which see: Hartmann,Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit,678.





17/21

51 For example, Concilia Galliae:A. 511A. 695, 224, 502, 669, 8697, 1112, 1959, 21217,30910; Concilia aevi Karolini, 4550; Avitus ofVienne, Opera, MGH AA VI.2, ed. R. Peiper(Berlin:Weidmann, 1883), no. 30; Epistolae Austrasicae, MGH Epistolarum III, ed.W. Gundlach(Berlin:Weidmann, 1892), no. 11; Epistolae aevi Merowingici Collectae, MGH Epistolarum III,ed.W. Gundlach (Berlin:Weidmann, 1892), nos. 3, 16; Columbanus, Columbae Sive ColumbaniAbbatis Luxoviensis et Bobbiensis Epistolae, MGH Epistolarum III, ed. W. Gundlach

(Berlin:Weidmann, 1892), no. 2; Desiderius of Cahors, Epistulae S. Desiderii Cadurcensis, ed. D.Norberg (Uppsala:Almquist and Wiksell, 1961), nos. II.167; Boniface, S. Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae,nos. 44, 45, 50, 51, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 77, 78, 80; Pope Gregory I, Registrum Epistularum, CorpusChristianorum: Series Latina 140, ed. D. Norberg (Turnhout: Brepols, 1972), nos. IX.214, IX.216,IX.21920, IX.223.52 Venantius Fortunatus, Opera Poetica, MGH AA IV.1, ed. F. Leo (Berlin:Weidmann, 18815),IX.1 (re. Council of Berny 580).53 For example, Hincmar of Reims, Vita Remigii Episcopi Remensis, MGH SRM III, ed. B. Krusch(Hanover: Hahn, 1896), ch. 19, 21; Jonas of Bobbio, Vitae Columbani Abbatis Discipulorumque EiusLibri Duo Auctore Iona, MGH SRM IV, ed. B. Krusch (Hanover: Hahn, 1902), ch. II.9; PassionesLeudegarii Episcopi et Martyris Augustodunensis, MGH SRM V, ed. B. Krusch (Hanover: Hahn,

1910), ch. I.33, II.16; Vita Agili Abbatis Resbacensis, Acta Sanctorum, Aug.VI, p.574 ff.; VitaAnsberti Episcopi Rotomagensis, MGH SRM V, ch. 18; Vita Betharii Episcopi Carnoteni, MGH SRMIII, ch. 11; Vita Caesarii Episcopi Arelatensis, MGH SRM III, ch. I.60; Vita Dalmatii Episcopi Ruteni,MGH SRM III, ch. 7; Vita Desiderii Episcopi Viennensis, MGH SRM III, ch. I.4; Vita Eligii EpiscopiNoviomagensis, MGH SRM IV, ch. 35; Vita Faronis Episcopi Meldensis, MGH SRM V, ch. 110;Vita Melanii Episcopi Redonici, MGH SRM III, ch. 4; Vita Nivardi Episcopi Remensis, MGH SRMV, ch. 7;Walahfrid Strabo, Vita Galli Confessoris, MGH SRM IV, ch. I.235; Wettinus, Vita GalliConfessoris, MGH SRM IV, ch. 235.54 Now helpfully edited in Die Konzilordines des Frh- und Hochmittelalters, ed. H. Schneider(Hanover: Hahn, 1996).55 For example, Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 411 (c.800). On Ordo no. 1,

see: Die Konzilordines des Frh- und Hochmittelalters, 12541.56 The Frankish Ordo 7, which relied heavily on the Visigothic Ordo 3, was copied primarily inliturgical books. On this Ordo, see: Die Konzilordines des Frh- und Hochmittelalters, 296315.57 M. Smyth,Les canons conciliaires de la Gaule, tmoins des responsabilits liturgiques episcopalesen Occident, Revue de droit canonique, 49/2 (1999): 25977.58 M. R. Mayeux, Les biens de lEglise considrs comme patrimoine des pauvres travers lesconciles occidentaux du VIe sicle, in Inspiration religieuse et structures temporelles(Paris: Les ditionsOuvrires, 1948), 139209; E. Magnou-Nortier, A propos des rapports entre lEglise et ltatfranc: La lettre synodale au roi Thodebert (535), in Societa, Istituzioni, Spiritualita: Studi in Onoredi Cinzio Violante, vol. 1 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sullalto Medioevo, 1994), 51934.59 Mayeux, Les Biens de lEglise Considrs Comme Patrimoine des Pauvres, 139209; W.

Ullmann,Public Welfare and Social Legislation in the Early Medieval Councils, in G. J. Cumingand D. Baker (eds.), Councils and Assemblies, Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1971), 139.60 F. Lotter, La crainte du proslytisme et la peur du contact: les juifs dans les actes des synodesmrovingiens, in Rouche (ed.), Clovis, 84979; P. Mikat, Die Judengesetzgebung dermerowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien(Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag, 1995).61 O. Pontal, Survivances paennes, superstitions et sorcellerie au Moyen Age daprs les dcretsdes conciles et synodes,Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 27/8 (19956): 12936.62 B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, Lvque, daprs la lgislation de quelques conciles mrovingiens,in Rouche (ed.), Clovis, 47194; B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, Le Bible dans les canons des concilesmrovingiens, in Jrn Eckert and Hans Hattenhaur (eds.), Bibel und Recht: Rechtshistorisches

Kolloquium 9.13. Juni 1992 an der Christian-Albrechts-Universitt zu Kiel(Franfurt am Main: PeterLang, 1994), 5167; P. Mikat, Die Inzestgesetzgebung der merowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien (511626/27) (Paderborn: F. Schningh, 1994); C. Peyroux, Canonists Construct the Nun: ChurchLaw and Womens Monastic Practice in Merovingian France, in R. Mathisen (ed.), Law, Society,and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 24255.Additionally,Gerhard Kbler has published a concordance of the Merovingian canonical records: G. Kbler,Wrterverzeichnis zu den Concilia aevi Merovingici(Lahn-Giessen: Distler, 1977).





18/21

63 Fournier and Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques, I.44.64 F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts (Graz:AkademischeDruck-U.Verlagsanstalt, 1870).65 L. Kry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400 1140), eds.Wilfried Hartmannand Kenneth Pennington, History of Medieval Canon Law ( Washington, DC:The CatholicUniversity of America Press, 1999).A software database of canonical collection has recently beencompiled by L. Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum: Selected Canon Law Collections Before 1140(Hanover: Hahn, 2005).66 Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich, 703.67 Additionally, Mordek has demonstrated the role canonical collections played in individualcouncils: Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich, 6670 (Re. the Council of Clichy); H.Mordek, Bischofsabsetzung in sptmerowingischer Zeit: Justelliana, Bernensis, und das Konzilvon Mlay (677), in H. Mordek (ed.), Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter: Festschrift fr HorstFuhrmann zum 65. Geburtstag(Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1991), 3153.68 Other scholars have looked in detail at Gratians inclusion of Gallic councils in his Decretum:Y.Le Roy, Les conciles gaulois et le Dcret de Gratien, Revue historique de droit franais et tranger,62 (1984): 55375; I. Schrder,Zur Rezeption merowingischer Konzilskanones bei Gratian, inMordek (ed.), Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter, 23350.69 K. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte(Freiburg im Breisgau Herder, 187390). English edition:A Historyof the Councils of the Church, trans.William R. Clark (Edinburgh:T. and T. Clark, 1883 96);French edition: Histoire des conciles daprs les documents originaux, trans. H. Leclercq (Paris: Letouzeyet An, 1909).70 See e.g. R. Kay, Review of Histoire des conciles mrovingiens, by O. Pontal, Speculum, 67/4(1992): 10302.71 A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 190329), 1656; Hinschius,Kirchenrecht, 3:5423.72 E. Loening, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasbourg:Verlag Karl J.Trbner, 1878),2:1506.

73 H. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte(Munich: Duncker and Humblot, 190628), 2:4245.74 Barion, Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht, 2012.75 Ibid., 233.76 Barion, Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht, 2512.77 For example, Basdevant-Gaudemet, Les vques, les papes, et les princes, 7; Pontal, Histoiredes conciles mrovingiens, 252.78 For example, De Clercq, La lgislation religieuse franque de Clovis Charlemagne, 6, 99, 104; E.Ewig, Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich(Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988), 1045.79 For example, Ewig, Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich, 1045; Gaudemet, glise et cit, 156;O. Guillot, La justice dans le royaume franc lpoque mrovingienne, Settimane di Studio delCentro Italiano di Studi SullAlto Medioevo, 42/2 (1994): 662 ff.

80 I.Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450751(London: Longman Group, 1994), 106.81 The First Council of Orleans (511), in particular, has been interpreted as a concordance betweenChurch and state: L. Duchesne, LEglise au VI sicle (Paris: Fontemoing & Co., E. de Boccard,Successeur, 1925), 502; Heuclin,Le concile dOrlans de 511, un premier concordat, 43550.82 Pontal, Histoire des conciles mrovingiens, 305.83 For example, W. Lippert, Die Verfasserschaft der Canon gallischer Concilien des V. und VI.Jahrhunderts, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 14 (1889): 9 58; B.Bretholz,Die Unterschriften den gallischen Concilien des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts, Neues Archivder Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde18 (1892): 52947; Champagne and Szramkiewicz,Recherches sur les conciles des temps mrovingiens, 549.84 Champagne and Szramkiewicz,Recherches sur les conciles des temps mrovingiens, 1617.85

Ibid., 201.86 For example, F. Cardot, LEspace et le pouvoir: tude sur lAustrasie mrovingienne(Paris: Publicationsde la Sorbonne, 1987), 1427 (especially chart on 147).87 For example, Wallace-Hadrill, Frankish Church, 107; Pontal, Histoire des conciles mrovingiens,260; R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians(London: Longman, 1983), 55.88 A diocesan synod was held in Auxerre sometime between the years 692 and 696: ConciliaGalliae:A. 511A. 695, 3236.





19/21

89 Reuter, Kirchenreform und Kirchenpolitik, 37; Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit imFrankenreich, 52 3;Y. Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul A.D. 481751(New York,NY: E. J. Brill, 1995), 2013.90 For example, P. Geary, Before France and Germany:The Creation and Transformation of theMerovingian World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 21617; Claussen, Reform of theFrankish Church, 47.This period also witnessed the (temporary) disappearance of subscription lists:H. Mordek,Karolingische Kapitularien, in H. Mordek (ed.), berlieferung und Geltung normativerTexte des frhen und hohen Mittelalters(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986), 301; Hartmann,Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit, 5; Hartmann,Konzilsprotokolle aus karolingischer Zeit,AnnuariumHistoriae Conciliorum, 15/2 (1983): 261.91 On the general issue of continuity between the Merovingian and Carolingian periods, see: R.Sullivan, The Carolingian Age: Reflections on its Place in the History of the Middle Ages,Speculum, 64/2 (1989): 267306.

Selected Bibliography

Avril, J., Linstitution synodale et la lgislation piscopale de temps carolingiens au IVe concilede Latran, Revue dhistoire de lEglise de France, 89/223 (2003): 273307.

Barion, H.,Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frhmittelalters(Bonn: Ludwig Rhrscheid Verlag,1931).

Basdevant-Gaudemet, B., Le Bible dans les canons des conciles mrovingiens, in J. Eckert andH. Hattenhaur (eds.), Bibel und Recht: Rechtshistorisches Kolloquium 9.13. Juni 1992 an derChristian-Albrechts-Universitt zu Kiel(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), 5167.

Basdevant-Gaudemet, B., Lvque, daprs la lgislation de quelques conciles mrovingiens, inM. Rouche (ed.), Clovis histoire & mmoire(Paris: Presses de lUniversitde Paris-Sorbonne,1997), 47194.

Basdevant-Gaudemet, B., Les vques, les papes, et les princes dans la vie conciliaire en France

du IVe au XIIe sicle, Revue historique de droit franais et tranger, 69 (1991): 116.Bretholz, B., Die Unterschriften den gallischen Concilien des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts, NeuesArchiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 18 (1892): 52947.

Brunner, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte(Munich: Duncker and Humblot, 190628).Champagne, J., and Szramkiewicz, R., Recherches sur les conciles des temps mrovingiens,

Revue historique de droit franais et tranger, 49 (1971): 549.Clercq, C., La lgislation religieuse franque de Clovis Charlemagne (507814)(Louvain: Bureaux du

Recueil Bibliothque de Universit, 1936).Davies, L., Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua and the Gallic Councils in the Hibernensis, Peritia, 14 (2000):

85110.De Jong, M.,Charlemagnes Church, in J. Story (ed.), Charlemagne: Empire and Society(Manchester:

Manchester University Press, 2005), 10335.Depreux, P., Lexpression statutum est a domno rege et sancta synodo annonant certainsdispositions du Capitulaire Francfort (794), in R. Berndt (ed.), Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794:Kristallisationspunkt karolingischer Kultur(Mainz: Selbstverlag der Gesellschaft fr MittelrheinischeKirchengeschichte, 1997), 1:81101.

Ewig, E., Beobachtungen zu den Bischofslisten der merowingischen Konzilien undBischofsprivilegien, in Sptantikes und frnkisches Gallien, vol. 2 (Munich:Artemis Verlag, 1979),42755.

Ewig, E., Beobachtungen zu den Klosterprivilegien des 7. und frhen 8. Jahrhunderts, inSptantikes und frnkisches Gallien, vol. 2 (Munich:Artemis Verlag, 1979), 41126.

Fournier, P. and Le Bras, G., Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Dcrtales

jusquau Dcret de Gratien(Paris: Recueil Sirey, 193132).Fowler-Magerl, L.,Clavis Canonum: Selected Canon Law Collections before 1140(Hanover: HahnscheBuchhandlung, 2005).

Garca Moreno, L., Les relations entre lglise des Gaules et lglise dEspagne du Ve au VIIesicle: entre suspicion et mfiance, Revue dhistoire de lglise de France, 90/224 (2004): 1954.

Gaudemet,J.,Lglise dans lEmpire Romain (IVeVe sicles)(Paris: Sirey, 1958).Gaudemet,J.,glise et cit: histoire du droit canonique(Paris: Cerf/Montchrestien, 1994).





20/21

Gaudemet, J., La formation du droit sculier et du droit de lglise aux IVe et Ve sicles(Paris: Sirey, 1957).Gaudemet, J., Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident (Paris: ditions du Cerf/Editions du

C.N.R.S., 1985).Gaudemet, J., Survivances romaines dans le droit de la monarchie franque du Vme au Xme

sicle, in La formation du droit canonique mdival(London:Variorum, 1980).Guillot, O., La justice dans le royaume franc lpoque mrovingienne, Settimane di Studio del

Centro Italiano di Studi SullAlto Medioevo, 42/2 (1994): 653731.Hannig, J., Consensus Fidelium(Stuttgart:Anton Hiersemann, 1982).Hartmann,W., Die Konzilien in der vorgratianischen Zeit des Kirchenrechts, in P. Landau and

J. Mueller (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canons Law(VaticanCity: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1997), 25986.

Hartmann,W., Konzilsprotokolle aus karolingischer Zeit,Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 15/2(1983): 2601.

Hartmann, W., Laien auf Synoden der Karolingerzeit,Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 10/2(1978): 24969.

Hartmann,W., Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien(Paderborn: FerdinandSchningh, 1989).

Hartmann, W., La transmission et linfluence du droit synodal carolingien, Revue historique dedroit franais et tranger, 63 (1985): 48397.

Hartmann,W., Zu einigen Problemen der karolingischen Konzilsgeschichte,Annuarium HistoriaeConciliorum, 9/1 (1977): 628.

Hauck,A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 190329).Heuclin, J., Le concile dOrlans de 511, un premier concordat, in M. Rouche (ed.), Clovis

histoire & mmoire(Paris: Presses de lUniversitde Paris-Sorbonne, 1997), 43550.Hinschius, P., Kirchenrecht, vol. 3 (Berlin: I. Guttentag, 18691897).Hove, A., Prolegomena, Commentum Lovaniense in Codicem Iuris Canonici, vol. I, tom. I

(Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1945).Imbert, J., Le pouvoir lgislatif dans lglise carolingienne,Lanne canonique, 17 (1973): 589601.

Imbert, J., Les temps carolingiens, vol. 1 (Paris: Editions Cujas, 1994).Kry, L., Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 4001140) (Washington, DC: The

Catholic University of America Press, 1999).Kbler, G., Wrterverzeichnis zu den Concilia aevi Merovingici(Lahn-Giessen: Distler, 1977).Le Roy,Y., Les conciles gaulois et le Dcret de Gratien, Revue historique de droit franais et tranger,

62 (1984): 55375.Lippert, W., Die Verfasserschaft der Canon gallischer Concilien des V. und VI. Jahrhunderts,

Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 14 (1889): 958.Loening, E., Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts(Strasbourg:Verlag Karl J.Trbner, 1878).Maassen, F., Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande (Graz:

Akademische Druck-U.Verlagsanstalt, 1870).

Magnou-Nortier, E., A propos des rapports entre lglise et ltat franc: La lettre synodale au roiThodebert (535), in Societa, Istituzioni, Spiritualita: Studi in Onore di Cinzio Violante, vol. 1(Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sullalto Medioevo, 1994), 51934.

Mathisen, R., Between Arles, Rome, and Toledo: Gallic Collections of Canon Law in LateAntiquity, Ilu: Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones, 2 (1999): 3346.

Mathisen, R., Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul(Washington,DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989).

Mathisen, R., The Second Council of Arles and the Spirit of Compilation and Codification inLate Roman Gaul,Journal of Early Christian Studies, 5/4 (1997): 51154.

McKitterick, R.,Knowledge of Canon Law in the Frankish Kingdoms before 789:The ManuscriptEvidence, The Journal ofTheological Studies, 36/1 (1985): 97117.

Mikat, P., Die Inzestgesetzgebung der merowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien (511626/27)(Paderborn:Ferdinand Schningh, 1994).Mikat, P., Die Judengesetzgebung der merowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien (Opladen: Westdeutscher

Verlag, 1995).Mordek, H.,Bischofsabsetzung in sptmerowingischer Zeit: Justelliana, Bernensis, und das Konzil

von Mlay (677), in H. Mordek (ed.), Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter: Festschrift frHorst Fuhrmann zum 65. Geburtstag(Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1991), 3153.





21/21

Mordek, H., Die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonensammlung desfrnkischen Gallien, Francia, 1 (1973): 4561.

Mordek, H., Kanonistische Aktivitt in Gallien in der Ersten Hlfte des 8. Jahrunderts, Francia,2 (1974): 1925.

Mordek, H.,Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematischeKanonessammlung des frnkischen Gallien(Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 1975).

Mordek, H., and Reynolds, R., Bischof Leodegar und das Konzil von Autun, in H. Mordek(ed.),Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken: Festschrift fr Raymund Kottje zum 65 Geburtstag(Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 7192.

Pontal, O., Histoire des conciles mrovingiens(Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1989). German Edition: DieSynoden im Merowingerreich(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1986).

Reuter, T., Kirchenreform und Kirchenpolitik im Zeitalter Karl Martells: Begriffe undWirklichkeit, in J. Jarnut, U. Nonn, and M. Richter (eds.), Karl Martell in seiner Zeit(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1994), 3559.

Schrder, I., Zur Rezeption merowingischer Konzilskanones bei Gratian, in H. Mordek (ed.),Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter: Festschrift fr Horst Fuhrmann zum 65. Geburtstag(Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1991), 23350.

Schubert, H.,Staat und Kirche in den arianischen Knigreichen und im Reiche Chlodwigs(Munich/Berlin:Druck und Verlag von R. Oldenbourg, 1912).

Stickler,A., Historia Iuris Canonici Latini(Torino: Pontificium Athenaeum Salesianum, 1950).Ullmann, W., Public Welfare and Social Legislation in the Early Medieval Councils, in G. J.

Cuming and D. Baker (eds.), Councils and Assemblies, Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1971), 139.

Vessey, M.,The Origins of the Collectio Sirmondiana:A New Look at the Evidence, in J.Harriesand I.Wood (eds.), The Theodosian Code(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 17899.

Voigt, K., Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem Grossen bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit(Stuttgart:W.Kohlhammer, 1936).

Wallace-Hadrill,J. M., The Frankish Church(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).

Weyl, R., Das frnkische Staatskirchenrecht zur Zeit der Merovinger (Breslau:Verlag von WilhelmKeobner, 1888; Reprint, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1970).

Wood, I., The Ecclesiastical Politics of Merovingian Clermont, in P. Wormald, D. Bullough,and R. Collins (eds.), Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1983), 3457.

Wood, I., Incest, Law, and the Bible in Sixth-Century Gaul, Early Medieval Europe, 7/3 (1998):291303.




Documents

Frankish Church Councils