<論説>メロヴィング期における synodus のイメージと実態 (五一一～六一四年)

Abstract

近年、中世初期の集会を聖俗の制度に区別し、制定された法規の分析を重視する伝統的な研究手法が問題法されている。こうした研究動向をふまえ、本稿ではメロヴィング朝の前半期を対象として、これまで「教会会議」として一様に理解されてきた synodus の史料におけるイメージの分析を試みた。決議史料においては聖職者のみの宗教的な集会のイメージが顕著なのに対し、トゥール司教グレゴリウスの記述や勅令においては、王権に直結した、聖俗にとらわれない役割を持ったイメージが描かれた。これは従来の「教会会議」という集会概念により捉えきれない柔軟な synodus の実態を示す。同時に、史料における synodus の取り上げ方の相違が、聖・俗や王権・教会の関係をめぐる同時代人の意識と密接に関わることを指摘した。これは七世紀以降に一層進展するといわれる王権のキリスト教化、さらにはカロリング朝との関係を考える上でも承平的である。

In Roman-era sources the terms synodus and concilium, commonly known as Church councils, were used interchangeably to denote religious assemblies attended by the clergy; in these assemblies canons were promulgated, clerics disciplined, and issues of dogma discussed Roman Gaul in particular, especially during the fourth and fifth centuries, was a region where many of these assemblies were held, and even after the eventual collapse of imperial authority, the Church and its councils survived. Under the Merovingian Franks (c.481-751), the new masters of post-Roman Gaul, councils continued to be held, and a significant amount of canonical legislation produced in this period has been passed down to us. For nearly two centuries research has centred upon the institutional/legal features and development of Church councils. As for Merovingian councils, many scholars seem to agree on the following three points. First, the councils were religious assemblies held mainly in order to legislate canon law. Second, kings and other laymen did not normally attend councils, and even if they did, had no legal right to deliberate or vote on religious affairs. Third, the councils were an institution of the Church and thus completely separate from secular assemblies. In short, councils in the Merovingian era were organs of a Church that was basically independent of secular authority. Naturally, secular involvement was not unheard of, but the majority of scholars maintain that such involvement did not bring about a change in the basic institutional framework of the councils. However, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to maintain that early medieval synodi were merely assemblies of a religious nature. For example, regarding the Carolingian era, Mayke De Jong has pointed out that synodi were arenas in which the unity of the realm was displayed, and Takuro Tsuda has revealed the problematic nature of the traditional classifications of assemblies, especially the widely accepted Church council/royal assembly dichotomy. It is in light of such findings that this paper aims to clarify the true character of synodi in the Merovingian era by taking into consideration three major sources: canonical legislation, Bishop Gregory of Tours' Ten Books of History, and several edicts promulgated by kings. Do the sources offer different images of synodi, and if so, why? How and to what extent do those images reflect the reality of synodi in the Merovingian era? Last but not least, what implications do the images and reality of synodi have for understanding the relationship between sacred and secular as well as that between royal authority and the Church in the Merovingian era? These are the questions that I hope to answer in this paper. Through a detailed analysis of the sources, it is made clear that contemporary images of synodi were by no means homogenous and that, at least by the late sixth and early seventh century, not only religious matters but issues concerning royal or political interests were discussed in these assemblies. Additionally, it is shown that kings participated in synodi to a much larger extent than previous scholarship has assumed. An important point is, however, that each source tended to depict different images of synodi. This cannot simply be explained by pure lack of information or differences in literary interest on the part of the author(s) or propagator(s). In fact, what was at stake was the very ideal of the relationship between kings and bishops and, further, the role of the king in securing the stability of a Christian realm. In the canonical sources that were first written and later compiled by clerics, it was always bishops who had authority over religious affairs, and the role the king played in synodi was insignificant and in some cases even omitted. Thus canonical sources emphasised a separation of clerical and lay responsibility. On the other hand, the edicts of King Guntram and Clothar II state not only that the stability of the realm but the salvation of the king himself depended on the grace of God. In this context, synodi embodied the cooperation of royal and episcopal authority in securing God's grace. The writings of Gregory also point towards a similar concept. Although a cleric, his view was that ultimate religious and secular responsibility rested with the king, and bishops and saints were to advise and admonish him so that royal power was exercised in accordance with Christian teachings, lest divine punishment befall the kingdom. Thus in his Histories, synodi are depicted as assemblies that pertained to both royal and episcopal interests. In conclusion, synodi were in reality assemblies that played wide-ranging roles in a world in which the "sacred" and the "secular" were inseparably linked. To uncritically categorise all synodi as "Church" councils or "religious" gatherings from a modern point of view would be to overlook a fundamental feature of early medieval society.