The Edict of Paris of Chlothar II, the Merovingian King of the Franks, promulgated 18 October 614 (or perhaps 615), is one of the most important royal instruments of the Merovingian period in Frankish history and a hallmark in the history of the development of the Frankish monarchy. It is the last of the Merovingian capitularia, a series of legal ordinances governing church and realm.

Chlothar had recently assumed the full Kingship of the Franks, in 613, when he deposed his cousin Sigebert II, king of Austrasia, and his regent, his great-grandmother Brunhilda. The Edict has been commonly seen as a series of concessions to the Austrasian nobility, which had sided with him against Brunhilda. More popular now is the belief that it was primarily aimed at correcting abuses which had entered the judicial system during the civil wars which had dominated the Kingdom since the beginning of the feud of Brunhilda with Chlothar’s mother, Fredegund (568).

It cannot be known how much of the Edict’s language and ideas stem from the King, his officers and courtiers and how much from the nobles. Some of its clauses were designed to amend decisions of the prelates at the synod that had just finished sitting. The bishops insisted upon freedom in the choice of bishops, but Chlothar modified the council’s decisions by insisting that only the bishops he wanted, or those sent from amongst suitable priests at court, should be ordained.

The Edict throughout attempts to establish order by standardising orderly appointments to offices, both ecclesiastical and secular, and by asserting the responsibilities of all—the magnates, bishops, and the king—to secure the happiness and peace of the realm: the felicitas regni and pax et disciplina in regno. Among the true concessions granted by the Edict were the ban on Jews in royal offices,[1] leaving all such appointments to the Frankish nobility, the granting of the right to bishops of deposing poor judges (if the king was unable at the time), and certain tax cuts and exemptions. Despite the exclusion of Jews from high office, their right to bring legal actions against Christians was preserved. Similarly, the right of a woman not to be married against her will was affirmed.

The most famous is almost certainly number twelve, in which Chlothar says in part that “nullus iudex de aliis provinciis aut regionibus in alia loca ordinetur”, meaning that judges should be appointed only within their own regions. It has been interpreted as a concession, granting the magnates more control over appointments and the King less ability to influence, and conversely as a piece of anti-corruption legislation, intended to ease the penalisation of corrupt officers.

The Paris edict marked a milestone in the Merovingian Kings’ efforts to stem the rising tide of the Church claims to a kind of political sovereignty, because it maintained the subjection of clerics to royal courts. For the legal historians, that showed that the Merovingian rulers knew how to keep the Church in its place. This was important because it demonstrated that political reforms concerning the place of the Church in modern times were really not an innovation, but a return to a better time: a time when, thanks to the efforts of Merovingian Kings, the Church and the State co-existed in different spheres without overlapping, as was proper. For some the real Middle Ages came later, when the Church overstepped the mark and betrayed its own nature by becoming a rival to the State.

Unfortunately, clause 4 of the Edict of Paris does not straightforwardly state that judges cannot condemn clerics. The text is preserved in just one surviving manuscript from the late 8th century. And rather awkwardly, according to this manuscript, it seems that it is clerics who cannot condemn judges, and not the other way around:

“Vt nullum iudicium de qualibet ordine clerecus de civilibus causis, praeter criminale negucia, per se distringere aut damnare praesumat, nisi conuicitur manifestus, excepto presbytero aut diacono”.

“The Synod had enacted that all Jews holding military or civil positions must accept baptism, together with their families”.

___________________________

Functional Structure

Functional officials are those that have a task based on specialization. For instance, the treasurer takes care of finance, the Master of the Stables is there for the horses, the Major Domus for the household of the king, and the Count of the Palace for arbitration. All greater landed proprietors were in the habit of appointing specialized servants in charge of these affairs. Kings started to use these trusted men also in the public administration. It was one of the efforts to reduce the span of control of a king and to centralize the government. The use of domestic servants in the public administration had the advantage that these men were completely dependent on the king for their support.

Estates were administered by a mayor, steward or bailiff. The major domus or Mayor of the Palace supervised all the estates of a king. All the revenues from the estates were paid to him. He was the manager of the household of the king and he was also charged with maintaining discipline in the household. Being always in close relation with the king, he also acquired political functions. If the king was a minor, it was the duty of the nutricius or governor to watch over the education of the young king. This gave him a significant political influence. Some majores domus and Counts of the Palace were appointed commander of an army: an appointment for one campaign. For these positions they were in competition with the dukes. These appointments can be seen as an attempt of the king to get more control in military affairs.

The Count of the Palace directed the procedures of the royal tribunal. He assisted the king in his judicial duties and discharged many of these himself. The Count or Master of the Stables was responsible for the horses and pack animals, intended for use by the court and court officials. Horse breeding estates were under the control of the Master of the Stables. The treasurer was one of the most important officials for a king. He had to be trusted with the treasure of the kingdom and with the incoming revenues. The governor, tutor or nutricius for a young prince was an important official when the prince became an under-aged king. Some dukes or counts that were trusted by a king could be given special assignments, like an embassy or the drawing up of tax lists.

Other positions in the public administration were: referendaries (legal secretaries who drew up and signed diplomas in the name of king or queen), notaries, chamberlains, ecclesiastics of the king, prefects, tax inspectors, tribunes, and guardians of the royal horses. Queen Fredegunde had her spies and assassins. Judges are mentioned, and they are not the same as the counts. An explanation can be that these judges were the same as the sagibarons mentioned in the Lex Salica, a lower judge than the count. All the Antrustiones, men of the King, had a higher legal status in the Lex Salica and the capitularia than common people.

The Church in Gaul honoured the papacy and regarded the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter, but the pope had no effective power in Gaul. The position of the pope in this period cannot be compared to the dominance of later popes. Still, bishops were sometimes allowed by a King to appeal to the pope, which might be seen as a functional relation in religious or moral affairs, because there was no other higher moral and religious authority but the pope. This is also indicated by the letters of Pope Gregory the Great (590- 604) to various bishops and monarchs of Merovingian Gaul, criticizing a number of canonical errors prevalent in Gaul at that time, namely simony, the appointment of laymen to the episcopate, and the influence of patronage and nepotism on elections. There was, however, no criticism of the right of Kings to appoint bishops.

The Merovingian government was mainly focused on the military. All officials were also warriors, and all important officials had a band of warriors. All free men were armed, and in theory probably all were under the obligation of military service. But most warriors were not full- time warriors, like the leudes of the kings. Most men were only warriors in the fighting season, in summer. War was mainly aimed at plunder, slaves, prisoners of war and hostages, who could be brought back for a ransom. Prisoners of war who could not repay their ransom became slaves in their own territory.

Authority based on expertise was important for all officials who were leaders in a military campaign. The reputation of a war leader was very important to attract warriors. Success in battle and the acquisition of much booty made his reputation. For kings this became less important as the meaning of their descent grew and their position transformed into that of the symbol of the unity of the kingdom. For this reason a king could resolve to delegate his military duties to dukes and other officials, although these men were also competitors for influence. Expertise in the form of learned knowledge was not much appreciated and was hardly a reason to give a man authority. Some specialists were mentioned, but they were only assisting the important officials. Bishops will have had some authority because of their learning and religious position, and were asked for special tasks, such as judging high officials.

The span of control of an official is the number of persons that he is directly responsible for. The span of control of an official has to be large enough for giving each subordinate sufficient attention for consultation and control. A span of control that is too large will result in insufficient coordination, whereas a span of control that is too small will result in too much coordination.

Division was probably not a choice but a necessity. Without a partition the Merovingian Kingdoms might have become the target for ambitious warlords. Even for one Kingdom the span of control of a King was too large. The number of officials that reported directly to a King, like dukes, counts, bishops, household officers, etc. altogether must have been over 100 men. In a complex organization 5 or 6 is considered acceptable, in a less complex organization 10-12. The much too large span of control of a King resulted in a lack of directives and lack of control. Large parts of the Kingdom must have been semi-independent and only nominally part of the Kingom. In fact, this was the continuation of the anarchistic situation that had grown in the fifth century.

Taxation

The Merovingian Kings took over the tax system that existed in the conquered Visigoth and Burgundian kingdoms, where the Roman tax system had been upheld. Tax collection was organized for each civitas. Some persons were subject to the capitatio humana and some lands to the capitatio terrena. The capitatio terrena was a taxation on lands, as the capitatio humana was a taxation on persons. The transaction of land from a tax-paying person to a free Frank or to the Church, who were not obliged to pay taxes, gave problems, because the obligation to pay taxes was attached to the soil. The free Frank, not having to pay taxes, was now taxed for the land he had acquired. The Church was exempt from taxation, but every pious gift of land from a taxpayer was complicating this exemption, because this land had been taxed. Attempts by King Theudebert and by King Chilperic to levy taxes from free Franks encountered fierce resistance and people moved to other kingdoms to evade taxation.

The changing attitude about taxation may very well be the main cause of fading of taxation. Taxation was believed to be in contradiction with being a free person. This will put pressure on the concept of paying taxes, because people will have wanted the higher social status of free persons, and kings will have been forced to accept this. However, there is no reason to believe that the kings did not get income from them in a more honourable way, by gifts and military services. The result may have been the granting of immunity to ever more people.

Gifts, bribes, tribute, and even plunder, were all a redistribution of material goods by more or less forced donations. Gift-giving was incorporated in the culture of the Franks on quite a considerable scale.Gifts, nominally voluntary, were in a way compulsory in a society that upheld relations in this way. Gifts reinforced social bonds and also secured future return gifts, protection and help when this might be most needed. Expectations about gifts and the institutionalization of regular giving determined the actions of people. Making an appropriate gift was a way of asserting and augmenting social and political status.

Gifts among kings and magnates consisted as a rule of precious objects, identifiable by their special design and therefore a recognizable sign of the relation, or of money. In the Histories are mentioned objects of gold and silver and jewels, like chalices, patens, gospel books (with precious coverts), salver, and medallions. Much of this treasure will have circulated in a closed system of gift exchange which recycled gifts within a narrow elite. Because of the cultural and social capital invested in this treasure, it was passed on face-to- face in personalized exchanges and in public. The gifts’ value ultimately lay in the series of relationships they articulated and helped define, and not in their commercial value. This system of exchange bound together the king and the magnates.

Kings were presented with gifts, for example for a dowry to Princess Rigunth. A dowry was given to a queen before the wedding, and a morning gift after the wedding night. Gifts for a king were also presented for acquiring official positions, like a bishopric.

Other income for the Kingom came from toll, fines, payments for arbitration, confiscation, public auction, and revenues from the estates of the King. The King supported himself and a small retinue with the products of his private domain (royal demesne), which was called the crown lands or fisc. Some estates were temporarily given to officials for their sustenance and to pay them for their services, but this was confined to a limited number. These estates were returned after death or dismissal, and the fisc was kept intact.

Because of the low productivity of the land, such a property was not a source of wealth, but a possibility to support a group of workers and warriors, necessary for an official to operate.

The Kings also raised customs dues on the goods which passed through certain towns. The income from the most important port, Marseille, was divided among the kings, because of the significant revenues from these duties. According to the Lex Salica, officials were entitled to receive a fixed part of compensation paid after arbitration. But these officials could also be forced to pay compensation themselves, up to their wergeld.

Expenses

Expenses of the Kings must have been low because they did not regularly pay their officials and warriors, except with incidental gifts. Warriors, except the leudes, had to provide their own military equipment and food. When the King and his officials travelled, private persons were obliged to furnish them with food, lodging, and means of transport. Because little was spent for the public interest in return for the taxation paid, this will not have contributed to a willingness to pay taxes. People didn’t get much in return, not even safety. The extent of income and expenses for the kingdoms is not known, but it was probably limited and was one of the reasons to keep the public administration small and unpaid. While the income may have been small, however, the possessions of a Kingdom may have been considerable in land and treasure.

Gregory mentions the usurpation of the treasures of the Kingdom of Aegidius, the Ripuarian Franks in Cologne, of the other Frankish Kings, of the Visigoths in Toulouse, and the tribute paid by the Thuringians. From the year 523 CE, the Burgundian kingdom was conquered, with its treasure. From 535 CE, there were campaigns in Italy because of the Gothic wars. From 574 CE, the Franks were involved in wars with the Longobards. The result of all this successful campaigning must have been large accumulated wealth in the Merovingian realm.

Treasure was important for the succession of a new Merovingian King.

After the death of King Theudebald, Chlothar I took his treasure.
After the death of King Childebert I, Chlothar I took his treasure and exiled his Queen Ultrogotha and their two daughters.

After the death of King Chlothar I, Chilperich I seized the treasure of his father that was kept in the villa at Berny, to the detriment of his brothers.

After the killing of King Sigebert I, Chilperic took the treasure from Queen Brunhild that she had taken to Paris, although Childebert II was to become king.

After the killing of King Chilperic, Childebert II took the treasure that was kept at Chelles in a villa, while Queen Fredegunde took refuge in a church in Paris with the treasure she had, although Chlothar II was to become king. The pretender Gundovald came from Constantinople to Gaul with treasure, and after his first attempt made a new effort with the treasure that was taken from the dowry of Princess Rigunth.

Duke Rauching pretended to be a son of Chlothar I and took treasure from the king for his usurpation.

The treasure of Prince Clovis was seized by Chilperic after his murder. In a gift-giving economy, treasures could easily be spent, but the reciprocity of gifts and the balance of power between the magnates will have kept much of this royal treasure intact.

Because of the strain between giving and keeping the treasure for future gifts, a King was not free in his gifts.

First of all, gifts were the leverage for the creation of coalitions and maintaining relations, and they had to be balanced carefully to win as many allies as possible without causing envy and depletion of the treasure.

Secondly, the magnitude of the treasure would attract allies in the hope for future gifts, and therefore the treasure could not be given away freely.

Kings were in the habit of showing their treasure. By showing it, the magnitude of the wealth of a King was made clear to everyone. This display of prosperity assured the loyalty of people who could hope for future gifts. For example, in 561 Chilperic used a part of the royal treasure of his dead father, which had fallen into his hands, to ensure the support of magnates to become King. The pretender for Kingship Gundabald could not act without a treasure to support his efforts, and he was only able to make a bid for the throne because the Roman emperor gave him money and the large dowry of Princess Rigunth was transferred to his cause by Duke Desiderius.

There is a tension between this necessity for display and the safety of the treasure. Treasure was kept hidden in treasure houses, in closed chambers and in locked chests. The treasure was probably dispersed over several locations. Most likely, the guarding of this treasure was one of the most important duties of the leudes. The treasurer of a king must have been one of his most trusted persons. He certainly was an important official. Each magnate might have been tempted to take away this treasure, but he will have been prevented because all other magnates would have united against him. Only secretly or after the death of a King is there a situation in which treasure is taken by the first to come. For example, the dowry of Rigunth is guarded by 4,000 men and many magnates. After the death of King Chilperic, this treasure is seized, but not by one of the retinue of the princess. Duke Desiderius takes this treasure, but does not use it for his own purposes, but to support the pretender Gundovald.

Treasure was not important for its commercial economic value, but for its symbolic value in a gift-giving economy. Gifts of precious objects made the political coalitions that existed visible. Treasure that is taken, is either hidden and useless, or used for the purpose of becoming king. The treasure of a king was considered more or less the collective property of the kingdom.

There is mainly mentioning about the civitas, which is the focus for the organization of the Church. But there were also the rural estates’ centres, governed by magnates, the rural territorial units directed by the centenarii, and the newly formed territorial units of the dukes. All magnates owned large estates with at least dozens, and for some thousands of people, for which they were sole rulers. The other rural areas were inhabited by free peasants who were organized and accepted a centenarius as their leader.
The growing social differentiation, visible in the capitularia, indicates a shift from these social units of free peasants to more dependency on magnates.
_____________

There were several centres of government, each being a core area for a kingdom, together forming the core area of the Merovingian realm centered on Paris. Similar to these core areas, in the periphery of the Kingdom there was centralization of several districts under dukes. This regional organization was not stable, and the continuous redistribution of territory, or rather spheres of influence, was possible because the top layer of the public organization was similar for all kingdoms. Kings were aware that they had a potential interest in other Kingdoms and acted accordingly.

The evolution of the power structure and public administration resulted in a growth from local to more permanent regional structures. The fragmented anarchistic organization of the beginning of the sixth century began to seek more safety and stability. Coalitions will have become more permanent in time, probably strengthened by family ties. The union of districts under a duke created stronger organizational units, enforcing other regions to do the same. This explains the growing importance of the dukes. 

This development continued and resulted in the three territorial Kingdoms: 

                                                        Neustrasia, Austrasia, and Burgundy.