Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:18:21.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Frankish’ penitentials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Rosamond Pierce
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The penitentials in use in the frankish lands in the eighth and ninth centuries were designed as handbooks to aid the priest in the administration of private or secret penance, being at their most simple, tabulations of various misdemeanours associated with particular vices stipulating the penances to be performed.

In the early centuries of the Christian church however, penance seems to have been performed in public, involving both confession and an act of contrition before the assembled congregation. It was, moreover, then undergone only in cases of severe crimes, usually one of three capital sins of homicide, perjury and adultery. The ritual of penance is described fully by Basil the Great, from whom we also learn that the physical act of the laying on of hands by the bishop was the outward sign of reconciliation. This severe form of penance was gradually mitigated and its rarity lessened as it became associated with the increasingly more common practice of death-bed confession and penance, as well as with the lenten period of fasting and contrition, both of which practices are particularly evident in the church in Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries. Both the bishop and, in the case of the absence of the bishop, the priest, were now empowered to reconcile the penitent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 11: The Materials Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History , 1975 , pp. 31 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1975

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

1 For the early history of penance the following are valuable: Poschmann, B., Die Abendländische Kirchenbusse im Ausgang des Christlichen Altertums (Munich 1928)Google Scholar and Die Abendländische Kirchenbusse im Frühen Mittelalter (Breslau 1930); Watkins, O.D., A History of Penance, 2 vols (London 1920);Google Scholar Mortimer, R.C., The Origins of Private Penance in the Western Church (Oxford 1939);Google Scholar Amann, E. ‘Pénitence-Sacrement,’ in DTC (1909) XII, cols 783Google Scholar et seq.

2 Basil, Epistola ad Amphilochiwn, ep 227, The Letters of Basil of Caesarea (London 1934) HI P 241.

3 See for example the sermons of Caesarius of Aries, sermones 62-8 and 143, ed Morin, G., Sancii Caesarii Arelatensis Sermones, CSEL 103 (1953) pp 263 Google Scholar et seq and p 588, and Beck, H.G.H., ‘The Pastoral Care of Souls in Southeast France in the Sixth Century’ Analecta Gregoriana, 51 (Rome 1950).Google Scholar

4 Interrogationis examinationis, cap 3, and Quae a presbiteri discenda sint, cap 7, MGH Cap I, pp 234-5.

5 For example, Haito of Basle, Statuta cap 6, MGH Cap I, p 365 et seq, Gerbald of Liege, Statuta cap 8, MGH Cap I, pp 243, and the statutes contained in the ‘Freising’ manuscript cap 32, ed Seckel, Emil, ‘Studien zu Benedictus Levita, II’ Neues Archiv, 27 (Hanover/Leipzig 1904) pp 386–93.Google Scholar

6 Theodulph of Orleans, Statuta Secundum, section III, ed Clercq, Carlo de, La Legislation Religieuse Franque depuis Ciovis à Charlemagne (Paris/Louvain 1935) pp 378–80 Google Scholar. Although the authenticity of the latter part of this Statuta is in doubt, it is reasonably certain that this particular section is by Theodulph.

7 Concilium Cabillonensis (813) caps 23-5, 28, MGH Cone II, i pp 278-81, and compare Concilium Mettensis (813) cap 53, ibid p 272, Concilium Arelatensis (813) cap 26, ibid p. 253 and Concilium Rhemensis (813) cap 16, ibid p 225.

8 Concilium Parisiensis (829) cap 32, MGH Cone II, ii p 633.

9 On some instances of the antipathy felt towards the Irish See Bischoff, Bernhard, ‘Theodulph und der Ire Cadac-Andreas’ Mittelalterlicher Studien, 2 (Stuttgart 1967).Google Scholar

10 Halitgar of Cambrai, De Vitiis et Virtutibus et de Ordine Paenitentium Libri Quinque;, PL 105, (1851) cols 664Google Scholar et seq.

11 see n 7 above.

12 Hrabanus Maurus, De videndo Deum, de puntate cordis et modo poenitentiae; De quaestionibus canonum poenitentialtum, and in particular see the prefatory letter, addressed to Otgar, of the Poenitentium Liber, cap I, PL 112 (1852) cols 1262- 1431, particularly col 1400.

13 Hincmar of Rheims, Statuta (852) cap 4, Mansi, 15, col 491.

14 Hincmar, ep 136, MGH Epp VIII.

15 Cassian, John, De Coenobiorum Institutions, bk V, De Spiritu Castrimargiae, cap 1, PL 49 (1846) cob 202-3.Google Scholar

16 Gregory the Great, Moralium Libri sive Expositio in Librum Beati Job, bk XXXI, cap xlv, PL 76 (1849) col 621.Google Scholar

17 The irish penitentials have now been edited and translated with an excellent introduction by Bieler, [Ludwig], [The Irish Penitentials,] Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, 5 (Dublin 1963).Google Scholar

18 The Penitential of Theodore, Haddan, A.W. and Stubbs, W., Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland (London 1871) III, pp 173–205 Google Scholar and Finsterwalder, P.W., Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihre Ueberlieferungs Formen (Weimar 1929).Google Scholar

19 See Bieler, introduction, and McNeill, [John T.] and Gamer, [Helena], [Mediaeval Handbooks of Penance,] Records of Civilisation, Sources and Studies, 29 (Columbia, New York 1938) p 64.Google Scholar

20 Wasserschieben, F.W.H., Die Bussordnungen der Abendländischen Kirche (Halle 1851).Google Scholar

21 Schmitz, [H. J.], Die Bussbucher [und das Kanonische Bussverfahren nach Hand schriften Quellen] (Düsseldorf 1898 Google Scholar) and Die Bussbucher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (Mainz 18-83).

22 A selection and translation of many of the collections of penitential canons dealt with by Wasserschieben and Schmitz was made by McNeill and Gamer.

23 See in particular Fournier, P., ‘Etudes sur les penitentiels’ Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses, 6 (Paris 1901) pp 289–317 Google Scholar; 7 (1902) pp 59-70; 8 (1903) pp 528-53; 9 (1904) pp 97-103; and von Hormann, W., ‘Bussbucher Studien’ ZSR, KA (1911-14).Google Scholar

24 For example, Oakley, T., English Penitential Discipline and Anglo-Saxon Law in Their Joint Influence (New York 1923).Google Scholar

25 Vogel, C., ‘Composition legale et commutations dans le système de la penitence tarifée’, Revue du Droit Canonique, 8 (Strasbourg 1958) pp 289–318 Google Scholar; 9 (1959) pp 1-39 and 341-59.

26 Pseudo-Cummean, ed Schmitz, Die Bussbucher, and See Kenney, J.F., Tlie Sources for the Early History of Ireland (New York 1929) p 243.Google Scholar

27 For a handlist of these manuscripts see McNeill and Gamer, pp 432-50.

28 Pseudo-Cummean, , ed Schmitz, , Die Bussbucher cap V, xxx.Google Scholar

29 Much could and still needs to be said about the relation between the penitential collections, the Canones Hibemenses and the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals. Many important comments can be found in Fournier, P. and Bras, G.le, Histoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident, depuis les Fausses Decretales jusqu’au décret de Gratian (Paris 1931)Google Scholar, Emil Seckel’s series of articles on Benedictus Levita in Neues Archiv (Hanover/Leipzig 1899-1932), and now more recently, Fuhrmann, H., Einfluss und Verbreitung der Pseudoisidorschen Dekretalsammlung (Munich 1972)Google Scholar.

30 Sprandel, R., ‘Über das Problem, neuen Rechts im früheren Mittelalter’, ZSR, KA, 48 (1962) pp 117–37 Google Scholar, has some interesting things to say in this respect.