Public welfare and social legislation in the early medieval councils

Walter Ullmann

doi:10.1017/S0424208400016430

Public welfare and social legislation in the early medieval councils

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016

Walter Ullmann

Show author details

Walter Ullmann*: Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge and University of Cambridge

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Other
Information: Studies in Church History , Volume 7: Councils and Assemblies , 1971 , pp. 1 - 39

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0424208400016430 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{Page No 2 Note 1} The notable exception is the legatine council of 787, in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum.. .collectio (Florence-Venice 1759 ff.), XII, 943 Google Scholar ff., chapters 11 and 12.

^{Page No 3 Note 1} For modern literature on the councils see the standard work by Hefele, J., ed. Leclercq, H., Histoire des conciles (Paris 1909-11), III and IV Google Scholar; the illustrative studies by de Clercq, Ch., La législation religieuse de Clovis à Charlemagne (Louvain-Paris 1936)Google Scholar, and idem in Revue de droit canonique, iv (1954)-VII (1957).

^{Page No 6 Note 1} Cf. Mainz (813), C. 6, p. 262. Unless otherwise stated, all references are to the MGH edition of Concilia, vols, I-II/1-2 (Hanover 1893-1908). The citation gives the place, followed by the year in brackets, the relevant chapter and page.

^{Page No 6 Note 2} See Const. Apostol., ed. Funk, F. X. (Paderborn 1905), III, 4, pp. 186, 188Google Scholar.

^{Page No 6 Note 3} Cf.Hauck, A. in Reaknzyklop.f. prot. Theol. & Kirche, xxi, 441 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{Page No 6 Note 4} See Orléans (511), C. 16: ‘Pauperibus vel infirmis.. .victum et vestitimi’.

^{Page No 7 Note 1} Tours (567), c. 5, p. 123; almost the same in Lyons (583), c. 6, p. 154: ‘ut illis per civitates vagandi licentia denegetur’.

^{Page No 7 Note 2} Tours (567), c. 5.

^{Page No 7 Note 3} Cf.Loening, E. , Kirchenrecht im Reiche der Merowinger (Strasbourg 1878), II, 242 n. 2 and 243 Google Scholar; also Grupp, G., Kultergeschichte des Mittelalter, 4th ed. (Paderborn 1932), 1, 262 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 8 Note 1} MGH Conc. i, 137-8: Epistola episcoporum prov. Turonensis ad pleban.

^{Page No 8 Note 2} Mâcon (585), c. 5, p. 167, lines 7 ff.

^{Page No 8 Note 3} Orléans (511), c. 5, p. 4.

^{Page No 8 Note 4} Arles (813), c. 9. p. 251.

^{Page No 8 Note 5} Cf. also Aachen (816), c. 28, p. 455: one tenth to be given to nuns for the support of the poor.

^{Page No 8 Note 6} For instance, Salzburg (807), p. 234, which was also adopted by the bishops in their Relatio preceding the council of Paris (829), in Capit. 196, c. 5, p. 32.

^{Page No 8 Note 7} Freising (800), c. 13, p. 209; Charlemagne in Capit. 36, c. 7, p. 106, anno 802.

^{Page No 8 Note 8} Cf. Tours (813), c. II, p. 288; also Aachen (836), c. 19, p. 709.

^{Page No 8 Note 9} Paris (829), c. 31, p. 633.

^{Page No 9 Note 1} See MGH Conc, 11, 109, no. 18.

^{Page No 9 Note 2} Capit. 21, p. 52, anno 780.

^{Page No 9 Note 3} MGH Conc. 1, 233.

^{Page No 9 Note 4} Châlons (813), c. 16, pp. 280-1.

^{Page No 9 Note 4} Cf.Hauck, A., Realcnzyklop., xxi, 440-2Google Scholar.

^{Page No 9 Note 5} Cod. 1, ii, 22 and numerous Novellae.

^{Page No 10 Note 1} Aachen (816), c. 141, p. 416.

^{Page No 10 Note 2} Cf. Capit. 33 (anno 802), c. 27, p. 96: Matt. 25. 35.

^{Page No 10 Note 3} Cf. Orléans (549), c. 15, p. 105, line 17.

^{Page No 10 Note 4} Aachen (816), c. 28, pp. 455-6.

^{Page No 10 Note 5} Aachen (836), c. 3, p. 707.

^{Page No 10 Note 6} Capit. 293. c. 40, p. 408 and Capit. 257, c. 7, p. 262 (June 846).

^{Page No 11 Note 1} Ansegisus, 11, 29 in MGH Capit. 1, 420-1, where the nomenclatures are all taken from Justinian.

^{Page No 11 Note 2} For this see A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (4th ed. Leipzig 1922), 11, 291 n. 3.

^{Page No 11 Note 3} Orléans (549), c. 21, p. 107.

^{Page No 11 Note 4} Lyons (583), c. 6, p. 154: ‘Piacuit etiam universo concilio ut uniuscuiusque civitatis leprosi.. .ab episcopo ecclesiae ipsius sufficientia alimenta et necessaria vestimenta accipiant, ut illis per alias civitates vagandi licentia denegetur. ’

^{Page No 12 Note 1} Capit. 23, c. 23, p. 64 (anno 789): ‘ ut se (leprosi) non intermisceant alio populo ’.

^{Page No 12 Note 2} See for instance Gregory II to Boniface in 726: MGH Epist. 111, 277, lines 1 ff., and council of Worms (868), c. 31, in Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum, xv, 875: ‘Leprosis autem si fideles Christi fuerint, domini corporis et sanguinis participatio tribuatur: cum sanis autem eis convivía celebrare non permittatur. ’

^{Page No 12 Note 3} III Lat., c. 23. For details in the high Middle Ages see Merzbacher, F., ‘Die Leprosen im alten kanonischen Recht’ in Savigny Zeitschr., Kan. Abt., L111 (1967), 27–45 Google Scholar. In general for hospitals in the central medieval period, see now especially Wolter, Hans in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. Jedin, H., 111-2 (Freiburg- Basle-Vienna 1968), at pp. 230 Google Scholar ff: ‘Das abendländische Spital im hohen Mittelalter. ’ Here also very full bibliographical details for the high Middle Ages.

^{Page No 12 Note 4} Orléans (549), c. 20, p. 107.

^{Page No 12 Note 5} Hauck, Cf. A., Kirchengeschichte, 1, 320 n. 2 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 13 Note 1} Riesbach, etc., c. 15, p. 209.

^{Page No 13 Note 2} Riesbach, p. 173, lines 34 ff.

^{Page No 14 Note 1} Hinschius, P., Kirchenrecht (Berlin 1891), IV, 381 Google Scholar. For general orientation and modern literature cf. Lexikon ƒ. Theol. & Kirche, 1, 968; Neu> Catholic Encyclopedia, 1, 994. The best survey is in de Martin, P. Timbal Duclaux, Le droit d’asile (Paris 1939)Google Scholar; cf. also G. Le Bras in Dict, d’hist. et géogr. ecclésiastique, IV (1930), 1035 ff., at 1037-41.

^{Page No 14 Note 2} Epaon (517), c. 39, p. 28: ‘Servus reatu atrociore culpabilis si ad ecclesiam confugerit, a corporalibus suppliciis excusetur.’ But his master may still decalvate the slave, ibid.

^{Page No 14 Note 3} Toledo XII (681), c. 10, in PL LXXXIV, 476.

^{Page No 15 Note 1} Orléans (511), c. 1, p. 2.

^{Page No 15 Note 2} Orléans, c. 3, pp. 3-4.

^{Page No 15 Note 3} Cf. Orléans (541), c. 22, p. 107.

^{Page No 15 Note 4} Mâcon (585), c. 8, p. 68.

^{Page No 15 Note 5} Clichy (626), c. 9, p. 198.

^{Page No 15 Note 6} Rheims (c. 627), c. 7, p. 204.

^{Page No 16 Note 1} Cf. Capit. 20, c. 2, p. 48: ‘ Ut homicidas aut ceteros reos qui legibus mori debent, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, non excusentur seque eis ibiddem victus detur.’ But cf. also Charlemagne in his Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, c. 2 (= Capit. 26, p. 69), forbidding the expulsion of a fugitive from a church.

^{Page No 16 Note 2} Rectors of churches should strive to save the peace, life, and limb of the fugitives —‘pacem et vitam ac membra eis obtinere studeant’ (Mainz (813), c. 39, p. 271).

^{Page No 16 Note 3} For some observations pointing in different directions cf. K. Bosl, ‘Potens und Pauper’ in his Frühformen der Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Europa (Munich- Vienna 1964), 106 ff. See especially the hardly noticed Edict by the Lombard King Aistulph (c. 750), c. 3, in MGH Leges iv, 196: ‘De illis hominibus qui negotiantes sunt et pecunias non habent: qui sunt maiores et potentes, habeant loricam et cavallos, scutum et lanceam; qui sunt sequentes, habeant caballos, scutum et lanceam; et qui sunt minores, habeant coccoras cum sagittas [sic] et arcum.’

^{Page No 17 Note 1} Paris (829), c. 24, p. 628.

^{Page No 17 Note 2} Frankfurt (794), c. 4, p. 166.

^{Page No 17 Note 3} Arles (813), c. 15, p. 252; Capit. 78, c. 13, p. 174.

^{Page No 17 Note 4} Frankish council (between 818 and 829), c. 7, p. 595.

^{Page No 17 Note 5} Relatio episcoporum in Capit. 196, c. 54, p. 44, lines 16 ff.

^{Page No 17 Note 6} Paris (829), 1, 53, pp. 645-7; and 111, 3, p. 671.

^{Page No 18 Note 1} Paris (829), 1, 52, p. 645.

^{Page No 18 Note 2} Arles (813), c. 23, p. 253.

^{Page No 18 Note 3} Arles (813), c. 17, p. 252.

^{Page No 18 Note 4} IV Toledo, c. 32, headed: De cura populorum et pauperum, in PL Lxxxiv, 375: ‘ut quos sacerdotalis admonitio non flectit iustitiam regalis potestas ab improbitate coerceat’. This council was presided over by Isidore himself.

^{Page No 19 Note 1} The fullest treatment of medieval slavery is in Ch. Verlinden, L’esclavage médiévale (Iberian peninsula) (Brugge 1955), 1, pp. 663 ff. (Merovingian period) and 702 ff. (Frankish period). The second and third volumes have not yet appeared. Cf. also idem in New Cath. Encycl. XIII, 284-51;and D. Herlihy, ibid., 346 f.

^{Page No 20 Note 1} Epaon (517), c. 34, p. 27.

^{Page No 20 Note 2} Cf.Dobschütz, E., in Realenzykl., xviii, 429, 431 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 20 Note 3} Orléans (511), c. 3, pp. 3-4.

^{Page No 20 Note 4} Epaon (517), c. 39, p. 28.

^{Page No 20 Note 5} For instance, Orléans (541), c. 9, p. 89.

^{Page No 20 Note 6} Clichy (626), c. 15, p. 199; Rheims (c. 627), c. 13, p. 204.

^{Page No 21 Note 1} Châlons (639), c. 9, p. 210. The reproach of Charlemagne to Hadrian I, that he had sold Roman slaves to the Saracens, is well known; cf. the pope’s reply in MGH Codex Carolinus no. 59 (anno 776) in MGH Epist. 111, 584-5.

^{Page No 21 Note 2} Clichy (626), c. 13, p. 188; Rome (743), c. 10, p. 16: anathema threatened, if Christians consented to this kind of transaction.

^{Page No 21 Note 3} Cf. Orléans (549), c. 7, p. 103.

^{Page No 21 Note 4} Paris (614), c. 7, p. 187: whoever tried to circumvent this decree, was to be excommunicated.

^{Page No 21 Note 5} Orléans (511), c. 8, p. 5. For conditions in the late Roman empire see Gaudement, J., L’église dans l’empire romain (Paris 1959), pp. 136-41.Google Scholar Cf. also Lex Romana Visigothorum, ed. G. Haenel (Leipzig 1849), p. 292, §3.

^{Page No 22 Note 1} Cf. Capit. 173, 356, lines 21 ff., where Louis I said: ‘Statuimus et decrevimus ut abhinc in futurum nulla vilis et servili condicione obnoxia persona ad gradum presbyterii adspirare permittatur.’ Cf. also Capit. 138, c. 6, p. 276.

^{Page No 22 Note 2} Châlons (813), c. 10, p. 279; cf. Capit. 105, c. 12, p. 210.

^{Page No 22 Note 3} Dingolfing (770), c. 10, p. 95.

^{Page No 22 Note 4} Vermena (between 758 and 768): Capit. 16, c. 6, p. 40.

^{Page No 23 Note 1} Capit, 16, c. 13, p. 41.

^{Page No 23 Note 2} See Châlons (813), c. 51, p. 283, pleading for fair and just treatment of nobles, ignobles, slaves, etc., by their superiors and prelates.

^{Page No 23 Note 3} Cf., e.g., Clermont (535), c. 9, p. 67; Mâcon (583), c. 13, p. 158; Paris (614), c. 17, p. 190, re-enacted in Capit. 9, c. 10, p. 22.

^{Page No 23 Note 4} Cf. further Meaux-Paris (845), Capit. 293, c. 73, pp. 416 f.

^{Page No 24 Note 1} Paris (614), c. 17, p. 190.

^{Page No 24 Note 2} Clichy (626), c. 13, p. 199; IV Toledo (633), c. 66, in PL LXXXIV, 381; Rome (743), c. 10, p. 16.

^{Page No 24 Note 3} Cod. 1, iii, 56 (3).

^{Page No 24 Note 4} IV Toledo, c. 65-6, PL LXXXIV, 381.

^{Page No 24 Note 5} Mâcon (583), c. 16, p. 159.

^{Page No 24 Note 6} Orléans (538), c. 33, p. 83. Further, Mâcon (583), c. 15, p. 159.

^{Page No 24 Note 7} Orléans (533), p. 19, p. 64; etc.

^{Page No 24 Note 8} IV Toledo, c. 60, PL LXXXIV, 380.

^{Page No 24 Note 9} XII Toledo (681), c. 9, PL LXXXIV, 477 f. and XVII Toledo (694), c. 8, loc. cit., cols. 559-61.

^{Page No 25 Note 1} See also Leges Visigothorum, xii. 3, in MGH pp. 427 ff., containing the laws of Erwig, 28 in number.

^{Page No 25 Note 2} Capit. 293, cc. 57, 58, 59, 73, 75.

^{Page No 25 Note 3} Rome (743), c. 8, p. 15: threat of anathema.

^{Page No 26 Note 1} Capit. 249, c. 23, p. 191.

^{Page No 26 Note 2} Rheims (813), c. 18: ‘Nimis incumbere’.

^{Page No 26 Note 3} Soissons (813), c. 10, p. 276.

^{Page No 26 Note 4} Cf., e.g., Frankfurt (794), c. 19, p. 168; Châlons (813), c. 44, p. 282; Capit. 123, c. 4, p. 243; Rheims (813), c. 26, p. 256; Tours (813), c. 21, p. 289; Aachen (816), c. 60, p. 364; Capit. 119, c. 7, p. 237; etc.

^{Page No 27 Note 1} Riesbach (800), c. 3, p. 214.

^{Page No 27 Note 2} Aachen (836), n, 7-8, pp. 712-13.

^{Page No 27 Note 3} Mainz (813), c. 22, p. 267.

^{Page No 27 Note 4} Soissons (744), c. 3, p. 34.

^{Page No 27 Note 5} Epaon (517), c. 4, p. 20; Mâcon (585), c. 13, p. 170.

^{Page No 28 Note 1} Cf., e.g., Auxerre (573-604), c. 9, p. 180; Mainz (813), c. 10, p. 263, lines 6 ff.; Aachen (816), c. 83, p. 368.

^{Page No 28 Note 2} Paris (614), c. 12, p. 195.

^{Page No 28 Note 3} Auxerre (between 573 and 604), c. 22, p. 181; Mâcon (585), c. 16, p. 171.

^{Page No 28 Note 4} Orléans (511), c. 4, p. 4.

^{Page No 28 Note 5} IV Toledo (633), c. 43. PL Lxxxiv, 377.

^{Page No 28 Note 6} IX Toledo, c. 10, PL LXXXIV, 437.

^{Page No 29 Note 1} Aachen (816), c. 145, p. 420, lines 24 ff.

^{Page No 29 Note 2} Rome (826), c. 15, p. 574; cf. also Capit. 249, c. 7, p. 188.

^{Page No 29 Note 3} Orléans (538), c. 24, p. 80.

^{Page No 29 Note 4} Clichy (626), c. 3, p. 197.

^{Page No 29 Note 5} Rheims (c. 627), c. 2, p. 203.

^{Page No 29 Note 6} IV Toledo, c. 45, PL Lxxxiv, 377.

^{Page No 29 Note 7} Orléans (541), c. 13, p. 90; Bourges (663), c. 2, p. 215; etc.

^{Page No 30 Note 1} Arles (813), c. 4, p. 250; Mainz (813), c. 29, p. 268; etc.

^{Page No 30 Note 2} Riesbach (800), c. 26; and Capit. 22, c. 10, p. 55; Capit. 13, c. 10, p. 32.

^{Page No 31 Note 1} Tours (813), c. 37, p. 291; Paris (829), c. 50, p. 643.

^{Page No 31 Note 2} Put forward by Rome (826), c. 9. p. 557. The doctrinal and theological back ground is very well drawn by McReavy, L. L., ‘ The Sunday repose from labour’, in Ephemerides theol. Lovanknses, xii (1935), 291–323 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 31 Note 3} Mâcon (585), c. 1, p. 165: ‘Iustum igitur est, ut hanc diem unanimiter celebremus, per quam facti sumus, quod non fuimus; fuimus enim ante servi peccati, sed per eam facti sumus filii iustitiae.’

^{Page No 31 Note 4} See Orléans (538), c. 31, p. 82: ‘Id statuimus, ut die dominico, quod ante fieri licuit, liceat.’

^{Page No 31 Note 5} Orléans (538), c. 31, p. 82; Mâcon (585), c. 1, p. 165; Auxerre (573-603), c. 16, p. 181; Châlons (639), c. 18, p. 212; etc.

^{Page No 32 Note 1} See the quotation in McReavy, , Ephemerides theol. Lovanienses, xii, pp. 311-12Google Scholar.

^{Page No 32 Note 2} Cf. McReavy, art. cit. p. 312.

^{Page No 32 Note 3} For instance, Aachen (789) in Capit. 22, c. 15, p. 55, re-enacting Laodicea (360), c. 29; Friuli (796), c. 13, p. 194. As usual Visigothic legislation was most severe; the royal law extended the prohibition of Sunday work to Jews and Jewesses, and if they were found working in the fields on a Sunday, each was to receive 100 lashes and undergo decalvation: MGH Leges Visigoth. 111, 12, 3 (6), p. 434; cf. also McReavy, art. cit. p. 320. That ‘Sunday’ lasted from Saturday sun-set to Sunday sun-set or sometimes Monday sun-rise, was the law in later Anglo-Saxon England, cf. Liebermann, F., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 11 (Halle 1906), 656-7Google Scholar.

^{Page No 32 Note 4} See Ine’s law book in Liebermann, F., Gesetze, cit., c. 3, i, 91 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 32 Note 5} Rome (826), c. 30, p. 580.

^{Page No 32 Note 6} Mainz (813), c. 37, p. 270; Rheims (813), c. 35, p. 256; Rome (826), c. 31, p. 580, mentioning expressly criminal proceedings.

^{Page No 32 Note 7} Friuli (796), c. 13, p. 194.

^{Page No 32 Note 8} Aachen (836), c. 58, p. 722.

^{Page No 33 Note 1} Mainz (813), c. 36, pp. 269 f., enumerates the general feast days; cf. also Capit. 1, 179, which has slightly fewer.

^{Page No 33 Note 2} MGHEpist. 111, 355.

^{Page No 33 Note 3} In Mansi, c. 3, xii, 395 f.

^{Page No 33 Note 4} Tours (813), c. 48, p. 293.

^{Page No 34 Note 1} Tours (813), c. 18, p. 289.

^{Page No 34 Note 2} Mainz (813), c. 46, p. 272.

^{Page No 34 Note 3} Orléans (533), c. 20, p. 64.

^{Page No 34 Note 4} Orléans (541), cc. 15, 16, p. 90.

^{Page No 34 Note 5} Tours (567), c. 23, p. 144.

^{Page No 35 Note 1} Auxerre (between 573 and 604), cc. 1 and 4, pp. 179, 180.

^{Page No 35 Note 2} Rheims (c. 627), c. 14, p. 205: ‘benigna admonitione suaderi’.

^{Page No 35 Note 3} Capit. 108, pp. 222-3.

^{Page No 35 Note 4} Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, cit., c. 6, p. 69: ‘Si quis diabolo deceptus crediderit secundum morem paganorum virum aliquem aut feminani strigam esse et homines commedere et propter hoc ipsam incenderit vel camera eius ad commendendum dederit vel ipsam commederit, capitali sententia punietur. ’ Further c. 7: ‘Si quis corpus defuncti hominis secundum ritum paganorum fiamma consumi fecerit, et ossa ad cinerem redegerit, capite punietur.’

^{Page No 35 Note 5} See Orléans (511), c. 30, p. 9; also Clichy (626), c. 16, p. 199.

^{Page No 36 Note 1} IV Toledo, c. 29, PL LXXXIV, 375.

^{Page No 36 Note 2} XVI Toledo, c. 2, PL, 537-8. This has obviously served as the model for Charlemagne’s Capitulatio, cit., c. 21, and is further proof that the Visigothic conciliar legislation was known in the Frankish realm in the seventies and eighties of the eighth century.

Article contents

Public welfare and social legislation in the early medieval councils

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests