{"title":"Chindasvinth, the ‘Gothic disease’, and the Monothelite crisis","authors":"Stefan Esders","doi":"10.1515/mill-2019-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Taking up important observations made by L. A. García Moreno on King Chindasvinth’s involvement in the Monothelite crisis via connections to North Africa and to Rome, this article argues that a deep division within the Visigothic episcopate on the king’s policy should already be assumed for October 646, when Chindasvinth assembled the 7th Synod of Toledo. A new reading of the synod’s first canon, usually interpreted as a mere confirmation of Chindasvinth’s law on high treason of 641/2, proceeds from the observation that the synod’s decisions must be seen as a minory vote, given the fact that the synod was not attended by more than 30 bishops and several episcopal representatives, and that it lacked any attendance or support from the ecclesiastical provinces of Tarraconensis and Septimania. As is shown, fears were expressed at the synod somewhat shroudedly that numerous clerics of every rank could find a common cause with a foreign enemy beyond the frontiers and that, as a consequence, an infringement of the orthodox faith could result. This most likely referred to the clergy of Septimania and Aquitania, whose territories the Visigothic kingdom and the Frankish kingdom neighboured. This paper argues that Frankish Aquitania, being the south-western part of the Austrasian kingdom of the Merovingian king Sigibert III, never adopted the policy of Sigibert’s brother Clovis II, who assembled a synod of the episcopate of Neustria and Burgundy at Chalon-sur-Saône in support of Pope Martin’s condemnation of Monothelitism at the Lateran synod of 649. While it is not clear whether Sigibert prevented the Aquitanian clergy from attending the synod for religious reasons or for diplomatic considerations related to Constantinople, the division of both the Frankish and Visigothic episcopates over the issue of supporting the Lateran Council fostered a constellation in which treason could become a crime with strong religious overtones.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"61 1","pages":"175 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Millennium DIPr","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2019-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract Taking up important observations made by L. A. García Moreno on King Chindasvinth’s involvement in the Monothelite crisis via connections to North Africa and to Rome, this article argues that a deep division within the Visigothic episcopate on the king’s policy should already be assumed for October 646, when Chindasvinth assembled the 7th Synod of Toledo. A new reading of the synod’s first canon, usually interpreted as a mere confirmation of Chindasvinth’s law on high treason of 641/2, proceeds from the observation that the synod’s decisions must be seen as a minory vote, given the fact that the synod was not attended by more than 30 bishops and several episcopal representatives, and that it lacked any attendance or support from the ecclesiastical provinces of Tarraconensis and Septimania. As is shown, fears were expressed at the synod somewhat shroudedly that numerous clerics of every rank could find a common cause with a foreign enemy beyond the frontiers and that, as a consequence, an infringement of the orthodox faith could result. This most likely referred to the clergy of Septimania and Aquitania, whose territories the Visigothic kingdom and the Frankish kingdom neighboured. This paper argues that Frankish Aquitania, being the south-western part of the Austrasian kingdom of the Merovingian king Sigibert III, never adopted the policy of Sigibert’s brother Clovis II, who assembled a synod of the episcopate of Neustria and Burgundy at Chalon-sur-Saône in support of Pope Martin’s condemnation of Monothelitism at the Lateran synod of 649. While it is not clear whether Sigibert prevented the Aquitanian clergy from attending the synod for religious reasons or for diplomatic considerations related to Constantinople, the division of both the Frankish and Visigothic episcopates over the issue of supporting the Lateran Council fostered a constellation in which treason could become a crime with strong religious overtones.
本文以L. a . García Moreno关于Chindasvinth国王通过与北非和罗马的联系参与一神派危机的重要观察为基础,认为在646年10月,当Chindasvinth召集第七届托莱多主教会议时,西哥特主教内部对国王政策的深刻分歧应该已经被假设。对主教会议的第一份正典的新解读,通常被解释为仅仅确认了Chindasvinth的641/2叛国罪的法律,从这样的观察中得出结论,即主教会议的决定必须被视为少数派投票,因为出席会议的主教不超过30位主教和几位主教代表,而且它没有任何出席或支持来自Tarraconensis和Septimania的教会省。如所示,主教会议隐隐约约地表达了人们的担忧,担心各个等级的众多神职人员可能会与境外的外国敌人达成共识,结果可能会导致对正统信仰的侵犯。这很可能指的是西哥特王国和法兰克王国相邻的塞普提曼尼亚和阿基坦尼亚的神职人员。本文认为,作为墨洛文王朝国王西格伯特三世的奥地利王国西南部的法兰克阿基塔尼亚,从未采用西格伯特的兄弟克洛维二世的政策,克洛维二世在Chalon-sur-Saône上召集了Neustria和勃艮第主教会议,以支持教皇马丁在649年拉特兰会议上谴责一神派。虽然尚不清楚西吉伯特阻止阿基坦尼亚神职人员参加主教会议是出于宗教原因还是出于与君士坦丁堡有关的外交考虑,但在支持拉特兰会议的问题上,法兰克和西哥特主教的分裂促成了一个群体,在这个群体中,叛国可能成为一种带有强烈宗教色彩的犯罪。