Frankish Church Councils

History Compass 5/2 (2007): 539559, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00414.
Cum Consensu Omnium: Frankish Church Councils from Clovis to Charlemagne

Gregory I. Halfond*
University of Minnesota
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 valuable sources for understanding the beliefs and policies of the ecclesiastical elite. Although we cannot always assume their enforcement, the canons offer a priceless window into the minds of their authors and the historical contexts that prompted their action. Less work has been done, however, on the institution that produced this legislation. The following article provides an overview of the function of the church council in the Frankish Kingdoms, as well as surveys the relevant evidence and scholarly literature.
In the year 742, the Anglo-Saxon missionary and papal legate Boniface (c.675754) composed a letter to Pope Zacharias (74152), in which he informed the Pontiff that old men report that the Franks have not held a synod for eighty years.1 Bonifaces feigned disbelief imparted a clear message: it was unthinkable that the Frankish bishops were so lax in their duties as to neglect meeting collectively with their brethren for almost a full century. Such an appalling state of affairs could only suggest a true degeneration among the Frankish episcopacy. For Boniface, the solution to the problem was obvious: new councils had to be held in order to correct the abuses of the past eighty years, with himself, naturally, presiding. Fortunately for Boniface, the sons of Charles Martel (688741), Carloman (d. 755) and Pippin III (714/5 768), agreed, and sponsored a series of reform councils in the 740s.2 In doing so, they were following in a long tradition that marked royal jurisdiction over the Church in the Frankish Kingdoms. In the following essay I will discuss the importance of ecclesiastical councils to our understanding of Frankish social, religious, and political history. Modern scholars have frequently drawn upon the canons issued in conjunction with the councils as evidence for Church policy, socio-religious mentalits, and everyday realities in post-Roman Gaul and Germania. Fewer, however, have stepped back to look at the institution that produced these written prescriptions. Therefore, to begin to address this lacuna, I offer first a brief overview of the background and nature of the Frankish council.
2007 The Author Journal Compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
540 . Cum Consensu Omnium
Following this outline, I will survey the primary evidence for conciliar modus operandi during this period, as well as the important contributions that modern scholarship 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 fundamental importance in the Frankish Kingdoms, and an increased awareness of its function allows us to understand better the governance of the most successful of the post-Roman successor kingdoms. The Council as an Institution Ecclesiastical councils were not, of course, a Frankish invention, and had been 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 their convocation and discussions. This practice dated back to the reign of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (c.280 337), under whose watchful eye the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea met in AD 325 Constantine was 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 Neither Constantine nor his imperial and Frankish successors thought much of interfering in conciliar business and, indeed, viewed it as their prerogative. It would be misleading to look for any modern understanding of the separation of Church and State in Late Antiquity, particularly since imperial participation in conciliar life had its benefits for both the Church and the state. For example, it was not uncommon for councils to request state assistance in enforcing their rulings, a tradition that would continue well after the end of Roman rule in the West. In return, conciliar participants had to accept some level of imperial influence in their deliberations, although the nature of that influence is often difficult to assess, and surely varied according to the circumstances under which a given council was held.5 The emperors aid in the enforcement of conciliar principles sometimes took the form of adopting already agreed-upon canons as the legal precedents for their own legislation, a habit subsequently adopted by the Merovingian kings.6 The Frankish councils also owed some of their procedures and terminology to Roman antecedents. Although most scholars today reject the hypothesis that the early medieval synods adopted their protocol directly from the procedures of the Roman Senate, there is little question that the former owed a great deal to the institutional modus operandi of the Roman state.7 After all, the episcopal participants of both the Gallo-Roman and early Frankish synods, by and large, were the members of prominent aristocratic families, well versed in the traditions of office holding.8 Thus, by the late fifth century, conciliar practices in Gaul were already deeply intertwined with imperial administration, procedures, and influence. This precedent would not be ignored by Clovis and his successors.9
2007 The Author History Compass 5/2 (2007): 539559, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00414.x Journal Compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Cum Consensu Omnium . 541
Although the church council was not a Roman imperial invention per se, it has been argued that it was only with Christianitys new protected status under the Christian emperors, in combination with the rise of larger and more powerful Christian communities post AD 313, that an poque of intense conciliar life was able to flourish during the fourth and fifth centuries.10 And despite the retreat of Roman administrative involvement in Gaul in the later part of this period, the Gallo-Roman conciliar epoch arguably reached its zenith in the century leading up to the establishment of Frankish sovereignty, particularly under the oversight of the bishops of Arles, Hilary (42949) and Caesarius (502 42).11 Caesarius, for example, would chair the Visigothic Council of Agde in 506, a synod convoked on royal authority, whose influence on canonical legislation would be felt deeply in both Gaul and Spain in subsequent centuries.12 Thus, when Clovis convoked the first Frankish council in 511 at Orlans, he was participating in 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 held among the Church leadership, either on the diocesan, provincial, interprovincial, or ecumenical level. They could be convoked by secular and ecclesiastical leaders alike, and were attended by bishops, lower clerics, and occasionally laymen. The attendance was largely determined by the size and purpose of the council. In the Late Antique sources, both synodus and 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 program was largely legislative. Through the course of deliberation the attendees produced a series of decisions known as canons (canones), which were intended to dictate the rules of Church life. In his Etymologies, Bishop Isidore of Seville (c.560636) defines a canon as a regula, a word that originally meant measuring stick, but which came to denote a maxim or instruction on how to live a proper life.14 The Frankish councils too employed this definition.15 In the ecclesiastical context, canones were the legislative expressions of the unified Church, or to be more precise, churches. They drew their authority from their connection to the enduring canonical tradition, the consensus of the conciliar participants, and from the willingness of secular authorities to enforce them.16 Although the Frankish sources frequently distinguish canones from secular laws (leges), the tendency to place the two words in opposition to each other is suggestive of the close relationship between ecclesiastical and lay legislation.17 One can see further evidence for this relationship in the frequent citations of Roman leges by the Frankish councils,18 the adoption of canonical pronouncements by secular legislators,19 as well as in the number of contemporary manuscripts that include both secular and canonical legislation.20 However, despite the collaborative relationship between secular and Church law, tensions between the two systems remained a constant throughout the period. A potential means of diffusing this tension emerged
under the early Carolingians,whereby the monarch himself took unprecedented responsibility for legislating on Church matters. Unfortunately, this plan relied too heavily on royal strength and episcopal subservience to be a long-term solution, 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 Church councils, however.21 These assemblies played an important judicial role as well. Councils frequently investigated charges against offending clerics, occasionally going so far as to depose the wrongdoer. Gregory of Tours describes a number of such synodal trials in the course of his Ten Books of History, including Paris (577), where Bishop Praetextatus of Rouen was tried for plotting against King Chilperic (561 84), and a synod held in Clermont-Ferrand between the years of 584 and 591, which investigated whether Ursicinus of Cahors had illegally annexed parishes from the diocese of Rodez.22 Gregory himself had first-hand experience with such proceedings. In the year 580, the Bishop of Tours was summoned to appear before a council at King Chilperics palace at Berny-Rivire, and accused of making false charges against the kings wife, Fredegund.23 Luckily for both Gregory and historians of the Frankish Church, he was acquitted. A third function of Frankish church councils was the issuing of privileges and 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 (561 92) requested that the Council of Valence (583/5) confirm those donations that he and his family had made to the Church.25 In conjunction with the Council of Paris in 614 Chlothar II (584 629) issued an edict in which he ordered judges (iudices) not to disturb properties with immunity.26 Likewise, the council of Saint-Jean-de-Losne (673/5) confirmed previously granted monastic privileges,27 while the eighth-century council of Ver (755) declared that the immunities of churches had to be respected.28 These examples are merely a sampling of seventh- and eighth-century councils that granted such privileges.29 Moreover, if one accepts Eugen Ewigs argument that the seventh-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, these documents record the grant of exemptions and privileges to individual monasteries under the name of particular bishop. These grants were then endorsed with episcopal signatures, which Ewig has suggested may be taken as evidence of a synodal meeting.31 This theory remains contested. Odette Pontal, who included these privileges in the first German edition of her Synoden im Merowingerreich, chose to leave them out, with no explanation, in the second French edition. Even in the German edition, she argues that corroborating references for these pseudo-synods are not sure evidence, as the authors of these other sources may have assumed the existence of the
meetings based on their knowledge of the subscription lists. Additionally, she writes, we have no way of knowing if these subscriptions were collected after the fact, and thus do not reflect a meeting at all.32 Pontals arguments are well taken, but her logic is not without its problems. It seems highly inefficient, for instance, that a bishop bestowing a privilege would take the trouble to have the charter carted about from city to city to assemble the appropriate signatures, rather than collect them at a single meeting. Additionally, we should remember that the primary function of subscriptions is to serve as proof of witness, a function that would be stripped of its value if they were written considerably after the fact by men who were, indeed, not witnesses at all.33 Pontals suggestion that a given council may have been invented by concerned beneficiaries relying upon a privilege-charter does not 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 question altogether. Still, at the very time these privileges began to appear in considerable numbers (seventheighth century), the line between purely ecclesiastical and purely political assemblies was beginning to blur, a process that would culminate in the dominance of the so-called mixed-councils (concilia mixta) of the mid-eighth century.34 In these conglomerate meetings the ecclesiastical attendees met either separately or alongside the secular magnates as part of the general assembly of the kingdom. The agenda of the assembly was set by the mayor or king, who legislated with the consensus of the participating secular magnates and prelates, and who issued the meetings decisions in the form of a capitulary. The origins of the concilia mixta can be traced to the mixed Council of Paris, convoked by Chlothar II in 614. However, the Paris assembly may not have been Chlothars only use of combined assemblages of prelates and nobles. Two years later, according to Fredegar, Chlothar assembled the Burgundian magnates and bishops together at his villa at Bonneuil to listen to their petitions.35 Additionally, the Council of Clichy (626/7), whose canonical record survives, may have met in conjunction with a meeting of magnates. According to Fredegar, in his 44th regnal year (627), Chlothar met with all of the bishops and magnates of his kingdom at Clichy for the good of the kingdom and the health of the country.36 For Chlothar, these mixed assemblies served as effective reminders of his sovereign authority over the entirety of the Frankish polity, religious and secular spheres alike an important lesson for his Merovingian and Carolingian successors.37 Therefore, attempting to differentiate religious assemblies from secular during this period may itself be an anachronistic exercise. The meetings that issued episcopal privileges in the seventh and eighth centuries were engaging in a completely normal activity for Gallic synods. The varying tasks of the Frankish church councils have encouraged some historians to distinguish between them according to their perceived
function.38 The problem with this approach is that it assigns councils to essentially artificial categories for the convenience of modern scholars. Many of the councils cited above met with more complex agendas than can be summarized by such vague terms as legislative, judicial, or political. Far preferable to this identification scheme is the classic terminology introduced by Paul Hinschius in the third volume of his immense Kirchenrecht. Hinschius identified ecclesiastical councils as either: (1) General and Ecumenical Councils; (2) Provincial and Plenary Councils (i.e. representative bodies of ecclesiastical units); (3) Inter-Provincial, National, and Imperial Councils (i.e. representative bodies of ecclesiastical units greater than individual dioceses or provinces); and (4) Diocesan Synods.39 The benefit of Hinschiuss classification system is that it does not force a given council into a predetermined category that may not fully express its agenda. Unfortunately, Hinschiuss system has not always been consistently applied, which has resulted in confusion in the scholarly tradition.40 So, precisely how many councils took place under Frankish authority from Cloviss first in 511 to the accession of Charlemagne to the throne in 768? No two specialists in Frankish conciliar history have compiled identical tallies. Generally speaking, however, the number of accepted councils hovers between seventy and eighty.41 This number does not include those councils that are either highly contested or dismissed as fictional.42 Moreover, councils certainly were held for which no documentary evidence survives. It would stretch credulity to argue that it was mere coincidence that those decades in which Gregory of Tours, the most prolific and detailed narrator of sixth-century Gallic life, was bishop (573 94) saw the most concentrated conciliar activity in Frankish history: 27% of Pontals sixty-six identified Merovingian councils fall within this period. Instead, it is clear that our knowledge of councils, especially those that issued no legislation, is heavily determined by the quantity and detail of our sources. It is to these sources that we now turn. Sources Among our evidence for the Frankish councils, the surviving canonical records discussed above are the most obvious, and the one to which most modern scholars of Frankish councils turn first. We possess thirty-six of these documents from the period in question (511768).43 During these centuries, canonical records were preserved in a multitude of collections assembled throughout the Frankish Kingdoms. Generally, these collections took one of two forms: chronological or systematic. The former listed canons council by council while the later grouped them topically. In the early sixth century, canonical collection production was focused in Southern Gaul, but by the beginning of the seventh century it had shifted northwards.44 What made these Gallic collections unique compared to those compiled in Italy and elsewhere was that they included near-contemporary conciliar decisions,
thereby not merely canonizing them as part of the canon law tradition, but also aiding in their dissemination.45 Although, traditionally, scholars have assumed that the local origins of these various collections was prohibitive of their achieving a wider recognition,46 it has been observed that certain of these collections did circulate quite widely, in particular, the now well-known Vetus Gallica, originally produced in Lyon around the year 600.47 However, even popular collections like the Vetus Gallica did not receive any sort of official recognition or grant of universal applicability; there was no one authorized canonical collection in Merovingian and early Pippinid Francia. Thus, while we cannot turn to a single definitive compilation for the texts of the Frankish canons, the surviving mlange of manuscripts and collections arguably provides a more useful indicator of the ways in which conciliar decisions were disseminated. However, those meetings that are known to have issued canons make up less than half of the total number of identifiable councils. It is unfortunate, although perhaps not surprising, that scholars have tended to neglect those meetings for which there are no known canons, and which are identified only through references in a variety of other sources. Paradoxically, perhaps even more than the official records, these scattered references, which range from detailed descriptions of conciliar protocol to mere names and locations, are our most important evidence for the Frankish council as an institution. Among our non-canonical sources for the Frankish councils are narrative histories and annals,48 royal diplomata,49 royal edicts and capitularies,50 epistles,51 poems,52 and saints lives.53 While the conciliar references contained within this extensive matrix of texts are of varying dimension and quality, to say nothing of authenticity, they shed light on a number of procedural matters that we would otherwise remain ignorant of, such as convocation, attendance, debate, royal involvement, and the enforcement of legislation. Another, albeit extremely problematic, body of sources for the councils as institutions are the conciliar ordines of the seventh and eighth centuries.54 These documents detail the formal liturgical procedures of conciliar meetings. The earliest of these ordines was issued by the Visigothic Fourth Council of Toledo (633) as its fourth canon, and could be found in Frankish manuscripts of the Collectio Hispana Gallica by at least the eighth century.55 Subsequent Visigothic ordines (nos. 23) also found their way into Frankish territory over the course of the eighth and ninth centuries, eventually influencing the composition of a Frankish ordo around the year 800.56 The problematic aspect of these documents is two-fold: first, because their origins were in a social and ecclesiastical milieu with different conciliar traditions from those of the Gallic churches, we cannot assume that their procedures were identical, or even similar; secondly, despite their frequent appearances in Carolingian manuscripts, including the notorious Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, it is still unknown how they actually influenced conciliar practices. Thus, the ordines need to be treated with extreme caution. Finally, the pronouncements of the conciliar canons themselves can also be useful in
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--vis the Frankish councils has been, on the whole, far more concerned with their legislation than with their history as an institution. The classic survey of Frankish religious legislation (including royal decrees and monastic rules as well as conciliar pronouncements) remains Charles de Clercqs La lgislation religieuse franque de Clovis Charlemagne (507 814) (1936), which takes a chronological approach to the evidence, providing for each council both a discussion 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 at particular topics of interest to the Frankish legislators, such as liturgy,57 property rights,58 social welfare,59 Jewish policy,60 the survival of paganism,61 as well as additional assorted issues.62 This interest in the legislative enactments of the Frankish councils is due in no small part to their usefulness as indicators of the beliefs and policies of the ecclesiastical elite. Although we may not be able to assume enforcement, this does not prohibit us from using the canons as means of understanding their authors and the historical contexts in 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 which this legislation was collected and disseminated through canonical collections, thus ultimately becoming part of medieval canon law. One of the classic works in this genre is Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Brass Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident (1931), which traced in two volumes the history of canonical collections up through the compilation of Gratians Decretum (c.1140). Although more detailed work has been done on individual collections since their books publication, a number of Fournier and Le Brass conclusions, such as their observation that Gallic canonical manuscript production 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 is Friedrich Maassens Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts (1870), which takes a far more detailed and systematic approach than Fournier and Le Bras to the canonical collections.64 Additionally, unlike Histoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident, it provides valuable information on the contents of these compilations. Although Maassen does not always go so far as to ennumerate the individual canons contained in each collection (which, admittedly, would stretch an already lengthy work to enormous dimensions), 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
provides more up-to-date bibliographical and scholarly information on canonical manuscripts. Kry, unfortunately, does not include any discussion of the actual contents of the collections, thus rendering Maassens earlier work indispensable.65 Although it looks primarily at a single canonical collection, Hubert Mordeks Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonessammlung des frnkischen Gallien (1975) is arguably the most significant contribution to the study of canonical collections in the last half-century. Ostensibly an edition and commentary of the Vetus Gallica, Mordeks book offers a wealth of information on the compilation of canonical collections during the Merovingian period. Although Mordek is not greatly concerned with church councils per se, his work is arguably the most successful to date in demonstrating how conciliar legislation was preserved and disseminated, and eventually turned into legal precedent for future councils. He notes, for example, how the compilers of the Vetus Gallica were able to make use of the copies of canonical decisions stored in the Church archives of the diocese of Lyon as the source for more recent meetings, e.g. Mcon (581/3).66 Mordek posits that the metropolitan bishop, Priscus, had brought back to Lyon copies of the canons of Mcon, a meeting he himself had supervised. A few years later, when the Vetus Gallica was being assembled, the compilers were able to draw upon these records. Mordek additionally traces how this single collection went through a series of redactions, and proved enormously popular for a locally compiled anthology, thus ensuring the dissemination of conciliar decisions.67 A far less technical work that discusses this same process in a more general sense is Jean Gaudemets Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident (1985), which examines both the church councils themselves and those collections that preserved their rulings. Gaudemets book, which relies heavily on the work 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, and not as an original work of scholarship. Nevertheless, Gaudemet, as one of the great French scholars of the history of canon law, is able to synthesize this material in such a way as to demonstrate the incalculable degree of influence of the Late Antique councils on medieval developments into the twelfth century.68 The great mass of scholarship that has been done in the last century on the Gallic conciliar legislation and canonical collections is due in no small part to the desire of scholars like Gaudemet to explain the origins of the complex and intellectually profound system of medieval canon law. As important as this project is, it does not focus attention on the institutions themselves that served as the foundation for later developments. Unlike the Carolingian era, which has benefited greatly from the copious penetrating studies of Wilfried Hartmann, the Merovingian and early Pippinid period has lacked the sustained attention of any one scholar. What is more, not since the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has there been any general
interest among historians in looking at the institutional history of the Frankish councils. Indeed, Karl Joseph Von Hefeles Conciliengeschichte (1873 90) for many years has served as the chief source for information regarding individual councils. Also available in English and French editions,69 Hefeles work traced ecclesiastical conciliar history from its very beginnings, providing transcriptions and summaries of the conciliar records of all of the known individual councils in both the eastern and western halves of the former Roman Empire. While monumental in its breadth, Hefeles work nevertheless has been criticized for its lack of analysis.70 This problem was somewhat rectified in the French edition by its editor Henri Leclercq, who augmented the works scholarly apparatus with additional notations and discussion. While Hefele and Leclercq were primarily interested in the legislation 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-century German legal and Church historians: Edgar Loening, Paul Hinschius, Heinrich Brunner, and Albert Hauck. As a group, these scholars were far less concerned with individual councils and their legislation than with their role as part of a Frankish national church (landeskirche). In particular, the related issues of royal involvement in conciliar life and the legal status of canons dominated their discussions. Both Hinschius and Hauck argued, for example, that synodal decisions did not need royal approval to be considered obligatory ecclesiastical regulations, but nevertheless lacked the status of state law without royal confirmation, and, moreover, that kings were within their rights to reject conciliar decisions that they disagreed with.71 Loening, in contrast, placed a much stronger emphasis on conciliar independence, arguing that royal approval did not give the canons their validity.72 Brunner, likewise, in comparing the Merovingian and Carolingian national councils, noted the relatively independent position which [they] enjoyed under the Merovingians.73 The successor to this group was Hans Barion, whose Das frnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frhmittelalters (1931) remained the only monograph on the Frankish councils until the publication of Odette Pontals Die Synoden im Merowingerreich in 1986. Barions study, whose scope includes the postCarolingian German councils, is rarely cited today beyond a few German scholars. Adopting the predominant framework of a Frankish national church, Barion argued that royal synods would have been necessary regardless of Cloviss decision to convoke the Council of Orlans in 511.74 The Merovingian kings, according to Barion, did not govern the Church directly; rather, they allowed the Gallic bishops to do so through the institution of national synods.75 He argues that these councils took over those functions that the monarchy was unwilling or unable to perform, but with royal approval.76 Barions arguments, however, have not ended the debate on royal involvement in Frankish councils prior to the reign of Charlemagne. Some
historians have argued that the participation of the kings largely ended with their convocation of the councils, or at the very least that they usually chose not 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 monarchys role 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 were deeply involved in the legislative process, and that, indeed, conciliar and secular law cannot always easily be distinguished in the sixth century.80 While the issue is far from settled, there is some consensus that the Frankish synods prior to Charlemagne were neither bastions of episcopal independence nor a mere subterfuge for royal policy-making; rather, they served as forums of compromise, 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 which will be discussed in due course, Barions book remained the last word on the Frankish councils as an institution until the publication of Walter Brandmllers Konziliengeschichte series fifty years later. Intended to supplant the work of Hefele and Leclercq, the relevant volumes are Odette Pontals Die Synoden im Merowingerreich (1986) and Wilfried Hartmanns Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (1989). Both Pontal and Hartmann adopt the organizational style imposed by the series editors, which entails a council-by-council analysis, followed by a summarizing essay. This scheme allows the authors to place each council within its specific historical context while still keeping an eye on the larger picture. Both books also 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 previously specialized in the synods of the Capetian period, and had not published anything at all on the Merovingian era. Her lack of expertise unfortunately showed throughout in her work, which was riddled with factual errors, omissions, and uneven analysis. Nevertheless, her book, which subsequently was translated into French (adding a plethora of typographical errors in the process) as Histoire des conciles mrovingiens, quickly became the standard work in the field. Despite these criticisms, it is important to stress that many of Pontals conclusions are valid, and consistently supported by the evidence, in particular her argument that the Gallic bishops were dealing in their councils with contemporary issues that affected their Church and their society.82 In Pontals view, one which I share, to see conciliar legislation as somehow isolated from social realities would be to misunderstand entirely the function of the Merovingian councils. Although Barion, Pontal, and Hartmanns works are the only full-length studies of the Frankish councils as an institution, there have been a handful
of important shorter studies on the same topic, a number of them focusing on the surviving subscription lists.83 The most important of these, and the most frequently cited, is J. Champagne and R. Szramkiewiczs Recherches sur 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 interprovincial synods held between the years 511 and 695 possessing subscription lists, the attendance of metropolitan bishops at these councils, and the most heavily represented provinces during the course of this period. Through their analysis, they discovered that the plurality of these councils had between ten and twenty participants, and that over 50% of all meetings were attended by between two to five metropolitan bishops.84 Additionally, they noted that the cities of Bourges, Vienne, Lyon, Autun, and Bordeaux were the most heavily represented bishoprics at inter-provincial councils.85 Thanks to Champagne and Szramkiewiczs work, scholars can now evaluate with far greater accuracy the comparative size of a given council and the character of its participants, and a few have already taken their lead, and applied similar methods to particular regions of Francia.86 Nevertheless, the selectivity of Champagne and Szramkiewiczs test group, which excludes the dozens of councils that did not leave decisions in the form of canons, should make one wary about applying their findings without qualification. Future Directions The time is ripe for a revaluation of the institutional history of the Frankish councils. 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. contemporary or near-contemporary narrative histories, hagiographies, epistles, capitularies, and diplomas, which have been seriously under-utilized in examining conciliar history. Finally, the traditional periodization scheme that divides the Merovingian and Carolingian eras needs to be reevaluated vis--vis the Frankish synods. The councils of the 740s have, almost without exception, been categorized as Carolingian. Without questioning the de-facto power of the Pippinids in this period, or their role in the convocation of these meetings, are there any other reasons for assuming a fracture with the Merovingian conciliar tradition? The reason that is most often cited is the claim of Boniface, quoted above, that the Franks had not held a council for over eighty years. Too many historians have been willing to take Boniface at his word, or at best admit only that the great missionary may have been exaggerating.87 Thus, it is important to note that Boniface, or his sources, was mistaken by a range of at least forty years.88 Secondly, even if Bonifaces sources were being honest, he was writing Pope Zacharias from Germania, which had never experienced nearly so strong a conciliar tradition as Gaul. Thirdly, the major issues addressed by the early Pippinid councils were
not markedly different from those taken up by the Merovingian synods, even if some of the legislative approaches towards them had changed in the intervening period.89 However, it has also been observed that this era witnessed a trend of increased lay involvement in ecclesiastical meetings.90 While this may have been the case, there are obvious Merovingian precedents for non-clerical attendance at Church synods, as we noted above in our discussion of the origins of the concilia mixta. Still, the blending of royal and ecclesiastical assemblies did become more conspicuous in the later eighth century, with independent synods becoming progressively scarce during the reign of Charlemagne. Thus, while this era certainly witnessed alterations in ecclesiastical practice, continuity rather than change appears to have marked 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 by scholars of the Frankish Kingdoms. Future scholarship must reevaluate the traditional periodization scheme that divides up the Frankish era, and make a greater effort to evaluate canonical legislation within an institutional framework. Additionally, there is still much work that needs to be done to contextualize the individual synods that met during these centuries. Despite important continuities in conciliar practice between the reigns of Clovis and Charlemagne, councils gathered to discuss contemporary concerns, and their legislation was informed by their immediate historical surroundings. In short, we must return our attention back to the councils themselves, an essential project whose rewards include a far better understanding of the governance of the Frankish Church, its intimate relations with the royal government, and the nature of its contribution to the development of medieval 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 from 500 to 800 CE, with a particular emphasis on the development of ecclesiastical institutions in Frankish Gaul. He recently delivered a paper at the 45th annual Midwest Medieval History Conference on the topic of papal landowning in Merovingian Provence. He is completing a doctoral dissertation 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: half0022@umn.edu.
1
Boniface, S. Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae, MGH Epistolarum III, ed. Ernst Dmmler (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892), no. 50.

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 Thorbecke Verlag, 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: Cambridge University 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 possibly Arles II (442/506). 4 Arles (314), Preface. All citations of the Gallo-Roman councils pre-511 are from Muniers edition: 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 France du IVe au XIIe sicle, Revue historique de droit franais et etranger, 69 (1991): 34. 6 J. 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 transference of Roman notions and vocabulary of consensus and concilium: J. Hannig, Consensus Fidelium (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1982), 6479. On the relationship between senatorial and conciliar procedures, 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 de lEglise, 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 Politics of 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, Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1993), 89104. On the participation 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), 3:539 40; C. De Clercq, La lgislation religieuse franque 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/Editions du C.N.R.S., 1985), 108; J. Heuclin, Le concile dOrlans de 511, un premier concordat? in M. Rouche (ed.), Clovis histoire & mmoire (Paris: Presses de lUniversit de 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 Rhrscheid Verlag, 1931), 78. 12 The Visigothic councils of Toledo have received more scholarly attention as an institution than those 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 the transmission of canonical manuscripts, on which see: R. Mathisen, Between Arles, Rome, and Toledo: Gallic Collections of Canon Law in Late Antiquity, Ilu: Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 2 (1999): 33 46; 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 christlichen Latinitt, 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 regulis can be found, for example, in Lyon (567/70), c.5, Clichy (626/7), Preface, and St. Jean de Losne (673/5), c.21 respectively. All

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 the Western 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; Gregory of Tours, 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 du V me 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 of the same year: Concilia Galliae: A. 511A. 695, 2835. 20 Gaudemet, Survivances romaines, 16973; M. Vessey, The Origins of the Collectio Sirmondiana: 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 existence of Carolingian-era manuscripts containing both conciliar canons and the Lex Salica: R. McKitterick, 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-Saxon councils are known to have issued sets of canons: C. Cubitt, Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650 850 (London: Leicester University Press, 1995), 623. 22 Gregory of Tours, 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, MGH SRM II, ed. Bruno Krusch (Hanover: Hahn, 1888), 6:78; Vita Agili Abbatis Resbacensis, AASS Aug. 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 Andrea Stieldorf (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: Concilia Aevi 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 additional eighth-century privileges (e.g. Flavigny 719 and 722), but as testaments or formulae they do not suggest councils, and Ewig does not count them. On these privileges, see: O. Pontal, Die Synoden im Merowingerreich (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 1986), 20412; E. Ewig, Beobachtungen zu den Bischofslisten der merowingischen Konzilien und Bischofsprivilegien, in Sptantikes und frnkisches Gallien, vol. 2 (Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1979), 42755. 31 Ewig, Beobachtungen zu den Bischofslisten, 42755. Charters have been taken as evidence for councils in other regions as well. See, for example, Cubitt, Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.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 (ChLa nos. 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 auf Synoden der Karolingerzeit, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 10/2 (1978): 257; Claussen, Reform of the Frankish Church, 47. In the Pippinid era, synods become increasingly indistinguishable from the ecclesiastical division of the royal assembly. This problem is partially terminological, as it is often difficult to tell from a given literary context whether the word synodus is referring to a church

council, a royal assembly, or an ecclesiastical division of said assembly: E. Seyfarth, Frnkische Reichsversammlungen unter Karl dem Grossen und Ludwig dem Frommen (Borna-Leipzig: Buchdruckerei Robert Noske, 1910), 110; W. Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 1989), 5; J. Imbert, Les Temps Carolingiens (Paris: Editions Cujas, 1994), 1:134; M. De Jong, Charlemagnes Church, in J. Story (ed.), Charlemagne: Empire and 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-Hadrill eschews consistency in labeling councils altogether, and employs such terms as local, national, regional, and metropolitical to identify conciliar types: J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 945, etc. 41 Pontal, for example, lists 62 councils for the Merovingian period in the first edition of her Synoden im Merowingerreich and 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 im Frankenreich und in Italien. 42 For example, Agaune (515/23),Tournai (520), Reims (c.626), Utrecht (697), and Rouen (date unknown). 43 I have included the early Pippinid councils known only through capitularies in this tally, but not 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 Dcrtales jusquau Dcret de Gratien (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1931), 1:44; H. Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonessammlung des frnkischen Gallien (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 16, 74 5; Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident, 1467. 45 Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de lEglise en Occident, 142; Mathisen,Between Arles, Rome, and Toledo, 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 Manuscript Evidence, The Journal of Theological Studies, 36/1 (1985): 99; H. Mordek, Die Collectio Vetus 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 and their Spanish and Irish contemporaries as evidence against the charge of provinciality. Along with the studies of Gallic-Spanish relations cited above, see on Irish relations: R. Meens, The Oldest Manuscript 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 ideas between the Franks and Anglo-Saxons: P. Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 1001. 48 For example, Gregory of Tours, 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 Geschichte der reimser Kirche, MGH SRG 36, ed. M. Stratmann (Hanover: Hahn, 1998), 1:16, 2:5, 2:7; Marius of 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 for 692, 748, 757, 767; Annales Regni Francorum, MGH SRG I, ed. F. Kurz (Hanover: Hahn, 1895), entries for 757 and 767; Ado of Vienne, 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 Capitularia Regum Francorum , 312, on which see: Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit , 678.

51
For example, Concilia Galliae: A. 511A. 695, 224, 502, 669, 8697, 1112, 1959, 21217, 30910; Concilia aevi Karolini, 4550; Avitus of Vienne, 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 Columbani Abbatis 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, Corpus Christianorum: 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 Eius Libri Duo Auctore Iona, MGH SRM IV, ed. B. Krusch (Hanover: Hahn, 1902), ch. II.9; Passiones Leudegarii 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.; Vita Ansberti Episcopi Rotomagensis, MGH SRM V, ch. 18; Vita Betharii Episcopi Carnoteni, MGH SRM III, 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 Episcopi Noviomagensis, 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 SRM V, ch. 7; Walahfrid Strabo, Vita Galli Confessoris, MGH SRM IV, ch. I.235; Wettinus, Vita Galli Confessoris, 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 in liturgical 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 episcopales en Occident, Revue de droit canonique, 49/2 (1999): 25977. 58 M. R. Mayeux, Les biens de lEglise considrs comme patrimoine des pauvres travers les conciles occidentaux du VIe sicle, in Inspiration religieuse et structures temporelles (Paris: Les ditions Ouvrires, 1948), 139209; E. Magnou-Nortier, A propos des rapports entre lEglise et ltat franc: La lettre synodale au roi Thodebert (535), in Societa, Istituzioni, Spiritualita: Studi in Onore di 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. Cuming and D. Baker (eds.), Councils and Assemblies, Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 139. 60 F. Lotter, La crainte du proslytisme et la peur du contact: les juifs dans les actes des synodes mrovingiens, in Rouche (ed.), Clovis, 84979; P. Mikat, Die Judengesetzgebung der merowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1995). 61 O. Pontal, Survivances paennes, superstitions et sorcellerie au Moyen Age daprs les dcrets des 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 conciles mrovingiens, 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: Peter Lang, 1994), 5167; P. Mikat, Die Inzestgesetzgebung der merowingisch-frnkischen Konzilien (511 626/27) (Paderborn: F. Schningh, 1994); C. Peyroux, Canonists Construct the Nun: Church Law 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).

63 64
Fournier and Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques, I.44. F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts (Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1870). 65 L. Kry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400 1140), eds. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington, History of Medieval Canon Law ( Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999). A software database of canonical collection has recently been compiled 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 individual councils: Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich, 6670 (Re. the Council of Clichy); H. Mordek, Bischofsabsetzung in sptmerowingischer Zeit: Justelliana, Bernensis, und das Konzil von Mlay (677), in H. Mordek (ed.), Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter: Festschrift fr Horst Fuhrmann 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): 553 75; I. Schrder, Zur Rezeption merowingischer Konzilskanones bei Gratian, in Mordek (ed.), Papsttum, Kirche und Recht im Mittelalter, 23350. 69 K. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (Freiburg im Breisgau Herder, 187390). English edition: A History of 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: Letouzey et 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, Histoire des 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 del Centro 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 between Church 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 Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde 18 (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: Publications de 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: Concilia Galliae: A. 511A. 695, 3236.

89
Reuter, Kirchenreform und Kirchenpolitik, 37; Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich, 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 the Merovingian World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 21617; Claussen, Reform of the Frankish Church, 47. This period also witnessed the (temporary) disappearance of subscription lists: H. Mordek, Karolingische Kapitularien, in H. Mordek (ed.), berlieferung und Geltung normativer Texte des frhen und hohen Mittelalters (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986), 301; Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit, 5; Hartmann,Konzilsprotokolle aus karolingischer Zeit, Annuarium Historiae 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 concile de 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 and H. Hattenhaur (eds.), Bibel und Recht: Rechtshistorisches Kolloquium 9.13. Juni 1992 an der Christian-Albrechts-Universitt zu Kiel (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), 5167. Basdevant-Gaudemet, B., Lvque, daprs la lgislation de quelques conciles mrovingiens, in M. Rouche (ed.), Clovis histoire & mmoire (Paris: Presses de lUniversit de 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, Neues Archiv 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 certains dispositions du Capitulaire Francfort (794), in R. Berndt (ed.), Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794: Kristallisationspunkt karolingischer Kultur (Mainz: Selbstverlag der Gesellschaft fr Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, 1997), 1:81101. Ewig, E., Beobachtungen zu den Bischofslisten der merowingischen Konzilien und Bischofsprivilegien, in Sptantikes und frnkisches Gallien, vol. 2 (Munich:Artemis Verlag, 1979), 42755. Ewig, E., Beobachtungen zu den Klosterprivilegien des 7. und frhen 8. Jahrhunderts, in Sptantikes 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: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2005). Garca Moreno, L., 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. Gaudemet, J., Lglise dans lEmpire Romain (IVeVe sicles) (Paris: Sirey, 1958). Gaudemet, J., glise et cit: histoire du droit canonique (Paris: Cerf/Montchrestien, 1994).

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 (Vatican City: 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: Ferdinand Schningh, 1989). Hartmann, W., La transmission et linfluence du droit synodal carolingien, Revue historique de droit franais et tranger, 63 (1985): 48397. Hartmann,W., Zu einigen Problemen der karolingischen Konzilsgeschichte, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 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 lUniversit de 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 roi Thodebert (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 Late Antiquity, 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 in Late Roman Gaul, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 5/4 (1997): 51154. McKitterick, R., Knowledge of Canon Law in the Frankish Kingdoms before 789: The Manuscript Evidence, The Journal of Theological 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 fr Horst Fuhrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1991), 3153.

Mordek, H., Die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonensammlung des frnkischen 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 systematische Kanonessammlung 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 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 7192. Pontal, O., Histoire des conciles mrovingiens (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1989). German Edition: Die Synoden im Merowingerreich (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1986). Reuter, T., 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 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. Harries and 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 Wilhelm Keobner, 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: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 3457. Wood, I., Incest, Law, and the Bible in Sixth-Century Gaul, Early Medieval Europe, 7/3 (1998): 291303.

Frankish Church Councils

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Frankish Church Councils

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

History Compass 5/2 (2007): 539559, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00414.

Cum Consensu Omnium: Frankish Church Councils from Clovis to Charlemagne

540 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 541

542 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 543

544 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 545

546 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 547

548 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 549

550 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 551

552 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 553

554 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 555

556 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 557

558 . Cum Consensu Omnium

Cum Consensu Omnium . 559

S-ar putea să vă placă și