Caesarius of Arles and the Development of the Ecclesiastical Tithe: from a Theology of Almsgiving to Practical Obligations

Home , Tithe

CAESARIUS OF ARLES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE: FROM A THEOLOGY OF ALMSGIVING TO PRACTICAL OBLIGATIONS

BY ERIC SHULER

Few taxes have been as enduring and as evocative of identity as the Christian ecclesiastical tithe, arguably “the most important tax in the economic development of western Europe.”1 The secular enforcement in 779 of the tithe’s collection by the church clearly marked a decisive moment in its evolution, but its earlier origins as religious law have been much more elusive. Scholarship over the past five decades has made clear that mandatory tithing to the church was not a custom of early Christianity but rather something that developed in late antiquity, with our first unambiguous evidence of a developed theory of the tithe coming from sixth-century Gaul.2 The key figure providing that evidence was Caesarius of Arles (ca. 469–542).3 The aim of this article is to explain the first crucial shift in the Chris- tian understanding of what tithing meant, a shift in which Caesarius played a pivotal role. It was in his time period and apparently in his written sermons that tithing was first defined as a mandatory payment of a fixed percentage of income to the church incumbent on all Christians and

1 Arnold Poschl, quoted and supported in Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes from Their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1964), 2; similarly Catherine Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy: The Historical Roots of a Modern Problem (Ithaca, NY, 1952), vii. I am grateful to Tom Noble, Steve Molvarec, and Traditio’s two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, as well as the Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fund for financial support. An early version of this paper was presented at the New College Conference on Medieval and Renaissance History. 2 The historiography is discussed below. The earliest reference is: A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1964), 2:894–95; the best exposition is Richard Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313–450) (Oxford, 2006), 49–56. 3 On Caesarius, see Carl Franklin Arnold, Caesarius von Arelate und die gallische Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipzig, 1894); Arthur Malnory, St. Césaire, évêque d’Arles 503– 543 (Paris, 1894); Henry C. J. Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls in Southeast France During the Sixth Century (Rome, 1950); and especially William Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge, 1994).

COPYRIGHT TRADITIO VOLUME 67, 2012 THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, STORED IN A RETRIEVAL SYSTEM WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER 44 traditio

distinct from other forms of offerings. Before Caesarius, churchmen used the language of tithing only to discuss almsgiving, which by its nature resisted being made a fixed due. However, certain useful and ambiguous elements in early discourse and practice opened the way for the sixth century’s creation of a recognizable notion of the ecclesiastical tithe, which in turn opened the way for the tithe’s later imposition by secular authority. Caesarius’s sermons, as the first elucidation of a tithe distinct from almsgiving, offer us a privileged insight into why the ecclesiastical tithe was developed. Moreover, it is quite probable that Caesarius, rather than merely describing shifting practice, played an active and crucial role in the emergence of the tithe. My argument falls into four parts. The first treats the trail of evidence up until Caesarius, pointing out both the conflation of almsgiving with tithing (as observed by previous scholars) and the desire of some churchmen for a system (perhaps similar to tithing) for regularizing the offerings of the faithful. The second section focuses on Caesarius himself, not- ing the practical challenges he faced as a forceful and innovative bishop. The third section delves into his theology of tithing, his argument for its necessity, and his consequent solution to some of the issues caused by the earlier use of Old Testament language of fixed dues for almsgiving. The final section briefly surveys the immediate history of tithing after Caesarius, which highlights his originality and influence in the development of the tithe. Throughout this paper, the terms “tithe” or “ecclesiastical tithe” refer to a Christian practice of levying a fixed rate (usually 10 percent, which is the etymological origin of the English word “tithes,” Latin decimae) on all believers that was to be paid to the church to use or redistribute. This was an act of obligation, not charity. The ultimate origin of the tithe lay in the Jewish tithe, which was paid in biblical times to the Levites and to the poor, and which existed in some form in Jesus’s day.4 Christians also practiced an eleemosynary tithe, giving away a tenth of their income or of certain possessions either annually or on specific occasions as alms. Tithes (“tenths”) existed also as a rate for secular rents.5 The focus of this investigation is the creation of the ecclesiastical tithe in light of its earlier Jewish and eleemosynary precedents.

4 Lev. 27:30–33; Num. 18:21–32, Deut. 14:22–29, 16:1–15; Neh. 10:37–38; Matt. 23:23, Luke 11:42. 5 See Boyd, Tithes, 1–4; Constable, Monastic Tithes, 6.

Tithing and Almsgiving before Caesarius Until the second half of the twentieth century, the story of the ecclesiastical tithe seemed simple: Christians practiced an obligatory tithe from the time of the primitive church through the Middle Ages.6 Figures such as Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and John Cassian all did indeed talk about something called decimae. However, the belief that this referred to a mandatory tariff paid to the church eroded over the twentieth century. The first tremors came from regional studies. In 1910, Émile Lesne raised a cautionary voice, warning that in Roman Gaul references to tithes before the sixth century functioned more as scriptural examples of piety urging generosity than as fixed tariffs.7 Catherine Boyd’s foundational study of the Italian tithe found no evidence of its being collected before the Carolingians.8 Giles Constable focused on the central Middle Ages in his classic survey of monastic tithing and accepted what was still the consensus for earlier periods; however, with his customary acumen, he pointed out the poor quality of the early evidence and raised the problem of why the Greeks found Crusader attempts to introduce the tithe baffling if tithing was in fact their own ancient custom.9 The turning point in this scholarship came when, in his 1964 magiste- rial survey of the late Roman Empire, A. H. M. Jones reevaluated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the ecclesiastical tithe did not exist (except as voluntary offerings by the pious) until sixth-century Gaul: “Tithe, in fact, seems to have been first initiated in Merovingian Gaul. . . . The offerings of the faithful before this date appear to have been left unregulated.”10 Patristic references to tithing were “figurative.”11 Sub-

6 Paul Viard, Histoire de la dîme ecclésiastique, principalement en France jusqu’au Décret de Gratien (Dijon, 1909), 9–39; P. Gagnol, La dîme ecclésiastique en France au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1911, repr. 1974), 13–21; Henri Leclerq, “Dîme,” in DACL (Paris, 1920), 4/1:995–1003, at cols. 995–98; Lukas Vischer, “Die Zehntforderung in der Alten Kirche,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959): 201–17. 7 Émile Lesne, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique, vol 1: Époques romaine et mérovingienne (Lille, 1910), 15–16. 8 Boyd, Tithes, 26–28; cf. Finn, Almsgiving, 48–49. Boyd does note a reference by Pope Leo I (440–61) to a voluntary collectio in Rome on certain days of the year and Pope Gregory’s mention of an obligatory collatio in Genoa in 599 taken by the archbishop of Milan; she believes that this may point to a wider Italian tradition that merged into the tithe when it was introduced. One solitary reference to an obligatory collection, however, is a fragile reed on which to support a hypothesis of large-scale practice. 9 Constable, Monastic Tithes, 19–21. 10 Jones, Later Roman Empire,2:895. 11 Ibid., 894. For a more nuanced presentation of patristic language, see discussion below and Boniface Ramsey, “Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth

sequently, scholars such as Raymond Kottje, Ewa Wipsyzcka, Thomas Sternberg, and Richard Finn have endorsed Jones’s skepticism concerning any widespread practice of obligatory tithing in the Roman Empire. There is little agreement among them concerning the exact origins of such a custom and possible eastern Mediterranean innovations, but they all agree in the crucial matter that the Latin tradition of tithing began to develop only in sixth-century Gaul.12 The older argument for tithing’s early existence and the areas of con- tinuing ambiguity stem from two very real facts, which provided the raw material for the Caesarian and post-Caesarian development of the tithe.13 The first is the scattered patristic use of Old Testament language (tithes, first fruits, oblations, and offerings) to discuss the gifts of the faithful. The second is efforts by churchmen to regularize and control these gifts, even if these efforts were generally unsuccessful.

The Patristic Language of Tithing While some early theologians directly opposed Jewish tithing to Chris- tian practice, the basic patristic understanding of references to tithing (as well as first fruits and oblations) was that it related to Christian almsgiving, whether as a direct equivalent, a metaphorical description, or a suggested guideline for how much to give.14 Thus Augustine explained Jewish tithing simply as almsgiving: “[the Pharisees] tithed (Luke 11:42); that is, they subtracted the tenth part and gave alms.”15 These eleemosy-

and Early Fifth Centuries,” Theological Studies 43 (1982): 226–59, at 234–35; Finn, Almsgiving, 49–52. 12 Raymund Kottje, Studien zum Einfluß des Alten Testamentes auf Recht und Li- turgie des frühen Mittelalters (6.–8. Jahrhundert) (Bonn, 1970), 57–63; Ewa Wipszycka, Les ressources et les activités économiques des églises en Égypte du IVe au VIIIe siècle (Brussels, 1972), 70–72, 89; Thomas Sternberg, Orientalium more secutus: Räume und Institutionen der Caritas des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts in Gallien (Münster, 1991), 27–30; Finn, Almsgiving, 49–56; Robert Godding, Prêtres en Gaule mérovingienne (Brussels, 2001), 346–49. Kottje and Wipszycka argued for retaining a Syrian idea of tithing, even if it was not widely followed even there; the evidence is discussed below. For a summary of the state of scholarship in the 1980s, which focuses on Caesarius as the linchpin, see Josef Semmler, “Zehntgebot und Pfarrtermination in Karolingische Zeit,” in Aus Kirche und Reich: Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht um Mittelal- ter, Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf, ed. Hubert Mordek (Sigmaringen, 1983), 33–44, at 37–38. 13 Misattributed evidence dating back to Gratian also played a role in early theo- ries (Kottje, Studien zum Einfluß, 57–58; Finn, Almsgiving, 52). 14 Lesne, Époques romaine, 15–16; Jones, Later Roman Empire, 2:894; Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 234; Sternberg, Orientalium more, 27; Finn, Almsgiving, 49–51. 15 “Decimabant: id est, decimam partem detrahebant, et eleemosynas dabant” (Augustine, Sermones ad populum 106.2.3, PL 38:626).

nary tithes then could be given directly to the economic poor without being paid to the church. Jerome interpreted tithes and first fruits as generally indicating gifts to the clergy and the poor, pausing to explain, “as we spoke of tithes and first fruits, which once were given to the priests and Levites by the people, understand it also in regards to the people of the church. . . . [If we cannot sell everything,] at least let us imitate the first steps of the Jews by giving a part of everything to the poor and paying priests and deacons the honor owed them.”16 In other words, the Old Testament law of tithing was to be understood as generally urging Christians to give alms to the poor or the clergy if they could not follow the path of Gospel perfection. Augustine and Jerome were sometimes also willing to look to tithing for more specific guidelines on giving alms, which would both create a precedent for Caesarius and create a new tension for him to resolve. Augustine and Jerome taught that the literal tenth offered by the Jews suggested an acceptable minimum amount to give as alms, for the Pharisees had done as much and “unless your righteousness exceeds the scribe and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).17 However, Augustine placed this suggested minimum of a tenth among a range of options, ranging from his preferred giving of half one’s possessions like Zaccheus to giving a double tithe of alms (thus actually exceeding the Pharisees) to his hyperbolic claim that his congregation felt themselves exceptional if they gave away a thousandth of their income.18 As an act of love and mercy, almsgiving resisted being made a fixed obligation for a fixed amount. If alms had to express love, what meaning would they have had if they were forced? If it was the interior motive that gave alms their significance, then what rationale could be given for focusing solely on the exterior amount? Christians certainly had an obligation

16 “Quod de decimis primitiis que diximus, quae olim dabantur a populo sacerdotibus ac leuitis, in ecclesiae quoque populis intellegite, quibus praeceptum est, non solum decimas dare et primitias, sed et uendere omnia quae habent, et dare pauperibus et sequi dominum saluatorem. Quod si facere nolumus, saltem Iudaeorum imite- mur exordia, ut pauperibus partem demus ex toto, et sacerdotibus ac leuitis honorem debitum deferamus” (Jerome, In Malachiam 3.8–12, ed. M. Adriaen, CCL 76A [Turn- hout, 1976], 935). Later in the passage he also speaks of the failure to give “alms” to the poor as fraud, apparently as a synonym for this failure to give “tithes.” 17 Augustine, Sermones ad populum 85.4.5, PL 38:522; Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 234–36; Finn, Almsgiving, 49–52. 18 Augustine, Enarrationes in psalmos Ps. 147[146].17, ed. D. Dekkers and J. Frai- pont, CCL 39 (Turnhout, 1956), 2135; idem, Quaestiones evangeliorum libri duo 2.34.2, ed. A. Mutzenbaecher, CCL 44B (Turnhout, 1980), 85; idem, Sermones de vetere testamento 9.19, ed. C. Lambot, CCL 41 (Turnhout, 1961), 144–45; idem, Sermones ad populum 106.4.4, PL 38:89, 627.

to give something, but then again even a cold glass of water earned its reward (Matthew 10:42). The most that could be said was that almsgiving was necessary for salvation or that, since riches were a gift from God, the rich could not justly keep all of their goods to themselves.19 Ambrose especially pioneered the idea that God’s justice demanded that the rich provide the poor with enough to live on. He emphasized that everything is a gift from God intended for all, therefore incurring an obligation on humanity to make sure all received their intended gifts. For Ambrose, this obligation of justice seems to have coexisted with love as a motive for almsgiving in a finely tuned balance.20 This idea would reappear in Caesarius’s sermons, but with that balance between justice and love resolved in a new way. In the end, however, Ambrose and other patristic theologians shied away from commanding a gift of a literal tithe, instead usually emphasizing the freedom and responsibility of love in each individual’s decision on what to give.21 This understanding of the tithe seems to have prevailed in Gaul right up to Caesarius’s day. Julianus Pomerius, a patristic theologian whose influence especially on matters pertaining to wealth and church property is just beginning to be appreciated, spoke of tithes in this figurative sense: “And therefore tithes and first fruits, the firstborn and sin offerings, or the sacrifices which God ordered to be given to himself, he decreed ought to be distributed among priests and ministers.”22 While tithes and first fruits eventually could be considered technical categories

19 Augustine, Sermones ad populum 85.4.5, 106.2–4.3–4, PL 38:522, 626–27; idem, In epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos 8, PL 35:2040; Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 233–41, 249–50, 237–40; Sternberg, Orientalium more, 28; Raymond Canning, The Unity of Love for God and Neighbour in St. Augustine (Louvain, 1993), 180, 398–401, 407–10; Abigail Firey, “‘For I Was Hungry and You Fed Me’: Social Justice and Economic Thought in the Latin Patristic and Medieval Christian Traditions,” in Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice, ed. S. Todd Lowry and Barry Gordon (Leiden, 1998), 333–70, at 335–42. For futher discussion of patristic almsgiving, see Allan Fitzgerald, “Almsgiving in the Works of Saint Augustine,” in Signum Pietatis: Festgabe für Cornelius Petrus Mayer OSA zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. A. Zumkeller (Würzburg, 1989), 445–59; Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, 2002). 20 Ambrose, De officiis 1.30.143, ed. M. Testard, vol. 1 (Paris, 1984), 16; Firey, “For I Was Hungry,” 337–43. 21 Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 234–35. 22 “Et ideo decimas atque primitias frugum, primogenita et sacrificia pro peccato, vel vota quae sibi Deus iussit offerri, sacerdotibus ac ministris distribui debere con- stituit” (Julianus Pomerius, De vita contemplativa 2.16.3, PL 59:461A). Similarly, “lac et lanas ovium Christi, oblationibus quotidianis ac decimis fidelium gaudentes accipimus” (ibid., 1.21.3, PL 59:437A). If “quotidianis” modifies “decimis” as well as “oblationibus,” then Pomerius surely is referring to alms rather than an annual tax.

of dues, there is no antique or early medieval evidence for the rest of these being technical terms, which suggests their figurative nature here. This plethora of Old Testament terms for offerings functioned merely as a dose of metaphorical language to describe general gifts by Christians to the clergy (who were the beneficiaries of this “tithe,” unlike the case of Caesarius’s tithe, which aided the poor). The reason for his rhetoric is plain: Pomerius aimed in this passage to build up the sacred quality of the priests’ income in order to excoriate them then for abusing it and neglecting their sacred duties. Pomerius’s terminology conformed to the expectations of previous patristic thought. This is significant. Pomerius wrote in the late fifth century and knew the younger Caesarius before the latter started his career.23 That Pomerius could assume a conventional idea of tithes as a mere image of almsgiving suggests that the ecclesiastical tithe was unknown in Gaul before Caesarius. This is reinforced by Eugippius’s nearly contemporary Vita Severini, which claimed that the saint (d. ca. 482) exhorted the people of Noricum by his words and example to give a tithe of their crops directly to the poor (not the church). Eugippius presented the saint as introducing a new practice, with people voluntar- ily choosing to participate or not, and he gave no hint that this gift of a tenth was anything other than alms — though he was quite clear that giving nothing (seemingly the only alternative lifestyle here) fully merited God’s wrath.24

The Question of Early Practice and the Fundraising Quest Eugippius hailed from the eastern Mediterranean, where the evidence discussing tithing is sparse but more ambiguous. In Egypt, the fourth-century Canons of Hippolytus mention priests and bishops receiving the first fruits of Christians’ work (also calling them offerings), but does not mention tithes; the eastern evidence in general rarely considers tithes except in connection to first fruits.25 The pseudonymous Canons of Athanasius (written between 350 and 450) urge bishops to use first fruits and tithes (mentioned in the same breath) to aid the poor or, in another canon, to use what is left of them to aid the poor after caring for priests and the

23 Paul Christophe, Cassien et Césaire: Prédicateurs de la morale monastique (Gem- bloux, 1969), 44; Klingshirn, Caesarius (n. 3 above), 73–82. 24 Eugippius, Vita Severini 17–18, Vie de saint Séverin, ed. P. Régerat, SC 374 (Paris, 1991), 226–30; Finn, Almsgiving, 56; but cf. Kottje (Studien zum Einfluß [n. 12 above], 61–62), who still acknowledges the evidence is uncertain in comparison to Caesarius. 25 Wipszycka, Les ressources (n. 12 above), 70; generally, for the following texts and tithing, see ibid., 70–73, 89; Finn, Almsgiving, 53–56.

sick.26 It also orders all clergy, of lofty or humble station, to tithe; this may sound a bit odd coming immediately after a canon mentioning the use of tithes to care for priests, but makes sense if the principle of a universal obligation to give alms is applied to this provision.27 There is nothing in these passages that contradicts the standard patristic sense of tithing and first fruits as general terms for alms and freewill offerings. The most intriguing evidence comes from the Syrian church. Undated but early interpolations into the Didache suggest that Christians were supposed to take the “first fruits” when preparing food (and possibly other possessions) and give it to the poor or prophets; no mention is made of tithes.28 In the third-century Didascalia, one passage contrasts Levitical first fruits and tithes with the gifts now offered by bishops to God; however, a second passage, in urging bishops to refuse to receive alms from evil people (even for aiding widows and the poor), refers to the bishops’ revenue as the Levite’s old gifts, first fruits, sacrifices.29 The seeming contradiction is easily resolved if this is approached as a clear case of figurative use of Old Testament language to establish Christian responsibilities. Both of these passages were incorporated into the late fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions.30 The Constitutions also expand upon the Didache’s promotion of first fruits, though these are now given only to priests, and add a passage urging the gift of tithes to orphans, widows, beggars, and aliens, or (when this command is repeated later on) to lower clergy as well.31 Orphans and widows also received fruit fruits, however, in the case of money, clothes, and other goods, which undermines the apparent initial consistency (and how exactly the idea of first fruits might literally be applied to possessions like clothing rather than more readily divisible agricultural produce is another question).32 If all of these old and new passages are taken together, then there is no consistency in references to first fruits and tithes.33 If only the new passages are considered, then it

26 Canons of Athanasius 14, 82, ed. and trans. W. Riedel and W. E. Crum (Lon- don, 1904), 26, 50. 27 Canons of Athanasius 83, ed. Riedel and Crum, 50–51; Finn, Almsgiving, 55. 28 Didache 13.3–7, La Doctrine des douze Apôtres, ed. W. Rordorf and A. Tuilier, SC 248bis (Paris, 1998), 190; Finn, Almsgiving, 53. 29 Didascalia 2.26, 4.8, in Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed. F. X. Funk, vol. 1 (Paderborn, 1905), 101–2, 228–29. 30 Les Constitutions apostoliques 2.26, 4.8.4, ed. M. Metzger, 3 vols., SC 320, 329, 336 (Paris, 1985–87), 1:236–37, 2:184–85; Finn, Almsgiving, 53. 31 Constitutions apostoliques 7.29, 8.30, ed. Metzger, 3:60–61, 3:234–35. 32 Ibid., 7.29, ed. Metzger, 3:60–61. 33 Metzger, introduction to Constitutions apostoliques, 3:107; cf. Finn, Almsgiving, 53–54.

is possible to read them as referring to two revenue streams, with tithes reserved for ecclesiastical charity and first fruits divided between clergy and widows. However, any such maximalist reading of these two new passages needs to take into account their isolation in the context of other eastern sources, whether looking at councils or homilies by figures such as John Chrysostom.34 A maximalist interpretation could only argue that some elements of the eastern church attempted to introduce a specific custom of interlocked collections of first fruits and tithes, but with quite limited success: “Dans l’ensemble du monde méditerranéen, la dîme a continué à exister en tant qu’un don volontaire de chrétiens exception- nellement pieux.”35 Even in this case, there is no extant elaboration on how this pair of offerings might have been understood or whether it was distinguished yet from almsgiving (with the possible exception of John Cassian, discussed below). Richard Finn’s judicious evaluation of this evidence seems like the most plausible interpretation: What governs the language of the authors and redactors of the Syr- ian church orders . . . is the need to interpret and commandeer for the Church the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. The ideal enshrined within the text does not at this point map directly onto actual practice. Yet this rhetoric in turn influenced practice and encouraged voluntary tithing.36

More generally, his analysis finds the pivot of these texts in “the adop- tion of the biblical language of tithing by those seeking to persuade the faithful to greater generosity in almsgiving. . . . The language was an important weapon in fundraising.”37 Finn’s conclusion points to the key impetus for the idea of an ecclesiastical tithe owed to the church that would be distinct from free almsgiving. The Old Testament language for obligatory gifts was widely used to encourage Christians to choose to give more. In the eastern evidence, the focus was more specifically on giving to the church (with some excep- tions and the important caveat that the church was then supposed to redistribute some of that as alms). In other words, bishops, facing the vagaries of relying on freewill offerings, tried to improve and regularize their revenue stream. Although property endowments slowly increased in importance, other freewill gifts formed a crucial part of ecclesiastical resources throughout

34 Finn, Almsgiving, 54. 35 Wipszycka, Les ressources, 72, and more generally 64–73, 84–92. 36 Finn, Almsgiving, 54. 37 Ibid., 56.

the late Roman Empire and beyond.38 It is no surprise, therefore, that bishops and other clergy tried to collect more and to instill a sense of obligation in the laity. A Byzantine law, perhaps dating from reign of Anastasius (491–518), outlawed the practice by some eastern clergy of demanding oblations and first fruits like a tax, though it made no reference to tithing.39 Still, the law points to a clerical desire for something like the tithe. In Spain, a council in 589 similarly felt it necessary to forbid bishops from imposing novel fees and taxes on their clergy or others (presumably laity) in their dioceses contrary to ancient custom.40 If a way were found, however, to impose a fixed obligation that could be por- trayed as ancient custom and avoided the equation with free alms, then there were certainly clergy who would have been predisposed in its favor; indeed, it appears that some were already trying to push the boundary of acceptable fiscal behavior. None of the discussions of the eleemosynary tithe noted above nor the other efforts to create obligatory church dues articulated an intel- lectual justification for collecting something like the ecclesiastical tithe. The beginnings of such a justification can be traced to John Cassian (ca. 360–430), who wrote in southern Gaul after living in the Near East, and who would provide important inspiration for Caesarius. Cassian’s first mention of a tithe in his writings on eastern monastic spirituality occurs when he very briefly records a holy Egyptian layman giving a tithe and first fruits to God.41 In a later dialogue, however, he develops some crucial new ideas regarding the problem of obligation, though still keeping within the framework of almsgiving. As Cassian narrates it, a certain Theonas came with other peasants to offer tithes and first fruits for the poor to the monastic almoner, Abba John, who in return preached to them, converting Theonas to the monastic life.42 John explained that the tithe was an expression of the Mosaic law and its imperfect righteousness, which might bring temporal blessings but not full heavenly per-

38 Jones, Later Roman Empire (n. 2 above), 2:894–910; Wipszycka, Les ressources, passim, esp. 29, 89; Sternberg, Orientalium more (n. 12 above), 23–33; Finn, Almsgiv- ing, 36–67. 39 Codex Justinianus 1.3.38, in Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. Paul Krueger and T. Mommsen, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1878–99, repr. 1963), 2:24–25; Jones, Later Roman Empire, 2:895; Wipszycka, Les ressources, 89. 40 These are not tithes, but “angarias vel indictiones” (Toletana Synodus Tertia a. 589 20, in Concilios visigóticos e hispano-romanos, ed. J. Vives [Barcelona, 1963], 12.26). 41 John Cassian, Conlationes 14.7.3, ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 13 (Vienna, 1886), 403. 42 Cassian, Conlationes 21.1–8, ed. Petschenig, 574–81. For the following see Chris- tophe, Cassien et Césaire (n. 23 above), 15–31.

fection.43 Christ called Christians to a higher righteousness, namely to sell all their possessions.44 John offered numerous examples of righteous Old Testament men exceeding commandments, such as Elijah’s celibacy or Abraham’s renunciation of the spoils of war: “None of these were content just to offer tithes of their possessions, but rather they offered themselves and their own souls to God.”45 Tithes stood in contrast to the divestment of all property, as command contrasted with exhortation or as the Law preceded the superior Gospel: “Christ does not therefore compel anyone to those lofty peaks of virtue by the obligation of a command, but he calls him forth by power of free will and inspires him by wholesome counsel and desire for perfection.”46 Cassian offers here a key distinction between acceptable Christians who had to follow a series of commands and atone for their repeated sins (the latter being the standard purpose of almsgiving in patristic thought) and those Christians who fully accepted the love and freedom of the new covenant as monks; obligations and love contrast. Both kinds of Chris- tians might be saved, but more surely the latter and only these truly embraced the Gospel. Since, however, the Gospel relied on love operat- ing freely, its perfection could not be an obligation demanded by justice. Still, “if even those who attend to the older commands of the Lord, faithfully offering tithes of their fruits, cannot yet climb the heights of the Gospel, you can see quite clearly how far from it are those who do not even do as much.”47 Cassian assumed that the Christian laity must pay “tithes” and may indicate a pious practice among some in Egypt of doing so. Caesarius may thus have seen Cassian’s testimony as a precedent offering legiti- macy for his levying of the ecclesiastical tithe. Yet Cassian’s tithes were

43 “Lex enim factoribus suis non regnorum caelestium praemia, sed uitae huius solacia repromisit dicens: qui fecerit haec, uiuet in eis” (Cassian, Conlationes 21.5, ed. Petschenig, 577–78; also 21.2, ed. Petschenig, 574). 44 Cassian, Conlationes 21.3–5, 7, ed. Petschenig, 575–78, 581. 45 “Qui omnes offere possessionum suarum decimas non contenti, sed . . . semet ipsos potius deo ac suas animas obtulerunt” (Cassian, Conlationes 21.4.3, ed. Petschenig, 577). 46 “Non ergo Christus ad illa uirtutum excelsa fastigia praecepti quemquam neces- sitate constringit, sed liberi arbitrii prouocat potestate et salubritate consilii ac desiderio perfectionis accendit. Ubi enim praeceptum, ibi necessitas, consequenter et poena” (Cassian, Conlationes 21.5, ed. Petschenig, 578; also 21.3, ed. Petschenig, 575). 47 “Itaque si etiam hi, qui decimas fructuum suorum fideliter offerentes praeceptis domini antiquioribus famulantur, necdum possunt euangelicum culmen ascendere, illi qui ne haec quidem faciunt quantum ab eo absint manifestissime peruidetis” (Cas- sian, Conlationes 21.5, ed. Petschenig, 578).

still eleemosynary. They were alms, distributed through the agency of the monks; the possibility of alms in addition to tithes never received con- sideration here.48 Cassian’s goal in this conference was the promotion of monastic life, and to accomplish it he actually devalued almsgiving. By relying on the common patristic equation of tithing and almsgiving, he could portray giving away a portion of one’s wealth (i.e., alms) as merely an obligation of the old law and only marginally Christian. In doing so, Cassian preserved a role for free Christian love. He allowed that Chris- tians were obligated to give to others in order to seek forgiveness and to meet the requirements of justice by which God commanded the fruits of the earth to be redistributed. However, in his eyes, to give because one is obligated to give is not the true message of the Gospel; such semi-coerced action cannot express the free self-giving of love. Therefore, the true gift of love had to exceed the obligated gift. For Cassian, this meant giving away everything. This downgraded notion of almsgiving as Old Testa- ment tithe is, of course, a far cry from the ecclesiastical tithe, and telling people to give away everything is a somewhat impractical pastoral theology. Nonetheless, the efforts Cassian made in sorting out obligation and freedom in almsgiving with regards to Christian application of Mosaic law would provide vital building blocks for Caesarius.

Charity and Innovation in the Episcopate of Caesarius Caesarius hailed from a good Roman family near Burgundian Chalon. The fervent religious practice at the monastery of Lérins attracted him as a young man. There he imbibed the teachings of Cassian, as well as acquiring a more general religious formation. Towards the end of the fifth century Caesarius, lacking the constitution for stringent asceticism and perhaps desiring more active ministry, left Lérins for the city of Arles. In this he was not alone. In addition to its role in the development of Gal- lic monasticism, Lérins produced a number of men who later engaged in pastoral work and episcopal reform. Caesarius exemplified this tradition from his election to the bishopric of Arles in 502 until his death forty years later.49

48 In addition to the context (contrasting giving everything with giving something), Cassian uses the term signifying alms (diaconia) in 21.1, 8, 9 (ed. Petschenig, 574, 581): see Du Cange, 3:95, s.v., “Diaconia.” 49 Christophe, Cassien et Césaire, 41–50; Klingshirn, Caesarius (n. 3 above), 16–32, 72–87; Conrad Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000), 81–100. On Cassian’s influence, see especially Christophe, Cassien et Césaire, 48–77. On Lérins, see Ralph Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Reli- gious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul (Washington, 1989), 69–140.

Arles and its neighbors faced a challenging first half of the sixth century. The boundaries of the post-Roman kingdoms were in flux, produc- ing a series of wars in the region. Christianity held a firm place in the urban environment, but the Christianization of the countryside and the simple planting of churches there remained concerns. Meanwhile, religious dissension between semi-Pelagians and Augustinians, along with the ongoing presence of Arian barbarians, threatened harmony among Christians. Caesarius proved himself a proactive and able, if sometimes controversial, leader in the face of these difficulties. He took on politi- cal roles. He spearheaded the Council of Orange in 529, which issued pronouncements on grace, works, and salvation that offered an influential settlement of those disputed questions. He promoted monasticism in Arles, especially for women, writing a rule for their life. He improved the burgeoning system of rural churches and, in the face of conserva- tive opposition, vigorously promoted the right and responsibility of mere priests to preach in them.50 The rise of the rural church was one aspect of the changing economic state of the Gallic church. The Merovingian church enjoyed new heights of prosperity, but the road there was rocky. Bishops and priests engaged in frequent disputes about control of new property and issues of how the priests might be supported, suggesting that some parts of the expand- ing church structure felt a lack of resources even as the net wealth of the church also expanded.51 Priests came from a variety of backgrounds and probably could not count on family income to support them.52 At the same time, in some places enough money was now coming into the church that corruption became a major concern, and needed resources were being siphoned off.53 An important final complication was the fact that in Caesarius’s lifetime a large part of church income came not from property rents, but from the relatively more unstable and unpredictable voluntary offerings of money and movable goods from laity.54 In addition to participating in addressing these issues, Caesarius involved himself heavily in charity, probably even before becoming bish-

50 Klingshirn, Caesarius, passim, especially 137–45; Dominique Bertrand, ed., Cé- saire d’Arles et la christianisation de la Provence (Paris, 1994); cf. Leyser, Authority and Asceticism, 85–90. 51 Klingshirn, Caesarius, 64–65, 100–101; Godding, Prêtres (n. 12 above), 331–41, 353–56. See also J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), 94–106, 123–31. 52 Godding, Prêtres, 3–5, 349–52. 53 Klingshirn, Caesarius, 100–101, 229; Godding, Prêtres, 108–10. 54 Sternberg, Orientalium more (n. 12 above), 23–26, 30–33; Godding, Prêtres, 341– 46.

op.55 He founded the first Gallic xenodochium (hospice) for which we have clear evidence.56 War created impoverished refugees in need of shelter and captives in need of ransom, including pagans whom he ransomed to convert. In his desperation for funds to do so, and to the outrage of some of his contemporaries, Caesarius even hacked up church plate to get the needed silver.57 The fiscal demands of these pastoral and charitable efforts certainly gave Caesarius economic motivation for promoting both tithing and almsgiving in his sermons. Spiritual work required material support and, with income from ecclesiastical properties still sufficient, the introduction of a stable stream of revenue from tithing would have made a very appealing solution.58 As William Klingshirn has lucidly argued, Caesarius approached his office with a very ambitious agenda. He wished to trans- form Arles and the surrounding countryside into a Christian city under him in the face of various kinds of resistance and alternate visions of Christianity and community. His investments in charity and in church infrastructure were a critical element in establishing his influence and power.59 His ostentatious resort to church plate certainly attracted attention in support of these goals.60 However, it hardly offered the basis of a stable long-term budget. In short, Caesarius had every reason to join the ranks of those clerics attempting to collect more money. He was an innovative leader by all accounts, willing to push beyond convention, including perhaps a new way of raising funds. He devoted himself to the problems of ecclesiasti-

55 Christophe, Cassien et Césaire, 43–45; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 90–91, 113–17, 187–89. 56 Sternberg, Orientalium more, 189–90, 196–200. 57 Vita Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis 1.32, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 3 (Hanover, 1896), 469. This is a saintly topos: for example Possidius, Vita Augustini 24, ed. A. A. R. Bastiaensen, Vite dei Santi 3 (1975), 194; but for its likely historicity see Klingshirn, Caesarius, 113–17; Leyser, Authority and Asceticism, 87–88; Dario De Giorgio, “Cesario di Arles e la redemptio dei captivi infi- deles: Vita Caesarii I, 32–33,” Cristianesimo nella storia 26 (2005): 671–82. 58 William Daly, “Caesarius of Arles, a Precursor of Medieval Christendom,” Tra- ditio 26 (1970): 1–28, at 23–24; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 100–101, 113–16, 278; see also Sternberg, Orientalium more, 23–33. Technically, the wealth from tithing could only be used for poor relief, but having a dedicated income stream for that aspect of church ministry freed up other income that otherwise would have been used for it. 59 Klingshirn, Caesarius, passim, esp. 5, 100–101, 116; for parallel episcopal uses of charity, see Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity (Madison, 1992), 71–117; Finn, Almsgiving (n. 2 above), 203–20, 265. 60 W. Klingshirn, “Charity and Power: Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul,” Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985): 183–203; idem, Caesarius, 114–16.

cal charity. And he had the theological training from Lérins to justify religious innovations. It was this combination of skills and motive that allowed him to articulate a new conception of tithing, distinct from that of his immediate predecessors like Cassian and Pomerius, and also distinct in important ways from the variety of predecessors to the ecclesiastical tithe.

Caesarius’s Theology of the Tithe As indicated by the resistance to imposing new ecclesiastical “taxes” in place of freewill alms (as evidenced in the late antique legislation cited the first section of this article), Caesarius had to justify any apparently new fiscal obligation in a convincing manner, especially since he had limited means of coercing those who disagreed. He also faced a genu- ine theological issue that Cassian had highlighted: was almsgiving an act of freely bestowed love and mercy, an obligation imposed by divine law according to God’s justice, or some complex melding of these two distinct, even contradictory ideals? Patristic precedent existed for each solution. The use of the language of tithing for almsgiving potentially implied an obligation along the lines of Mosaic law. This implication had become the basis of Cassian’s interpretation, which Caesarius would have read. Cassian had separated obligation and freedom by moving the issue of freedom from almsgiving to monastic renunciation, but clearly this left the average Christian in an awkward place and seemed to contra- dict the normal understanding of almsgiving as an act of love.61 This move did, however, solve the other problem of how to create room for a Christian to act freely and lovingly if superfluous wealth was a gift from God that the rich were obligated to regift to the poor. Caesarius’s innovative solution to these issues of freedom and obligation dovetailed with his economic needs into a radically simple proposal: alms and tithes were to be two separate categories, with the former linked with freedom and love, and the latter with obligation and justice. Our primary source for Caesarius’s thought is his sermons, which he had collected and circulated during his lifetime. While he edited them before circulation, they reflect his actual preaching in Arles. Although about a third of these sermons are based on reworkings of older patristic sermons, with him also drawing on earlier ideas and language frequently elsewhere, he almost always put his original stamp on them.62

61 See Christophe, Cassien et Césaire, 56–58; Ramsey, “Almsgiving” (n. 11 above), 234. 62 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, ed. Germain Morin, CCL 103–104 (Turnhout, 1953), collects most (238) of his sermons. For background, see introduction to

These sermons were not meant as systematic treatises, but rather short pieces intended to be used to teach a general lay audience basic prin- ciples and persuade them to lead more Christian lives. Nonetheless, it is possible to piece together a systematic theory from the conclusions scattered throughout his sermons and inductively lay out his underlying concerns.63 He commanded tithing in a dozen sermons at greater or lesser length.64 Although he never explicitly specified the audience of his message on tithing, it appears that he envisioned his audience as including the whole community, rich and poor.65 Caesarius often commenced his exhortations to tithe by acknowledg- ing that God gave people all their wealth — a self-evident proposition for a predominantly agricultural society dependent on nature’s whims.66 Even if one’s income came from some other trade, that trade drew on innate skills given by God.67 God required a light rent of one tenth, thus demonstrating his generosity both in not demanding more and in accept- ing tokens that he did not actually need. In this way, he let his people enter into a relationship with him: “For our God, who deigned to give us everything, deigns to ask us for tithes, certainly not for his profit but

Césaire d’Arles, Sermons au peuple, vol. 1, trans. Marie-José Delage, SC 175 (Paris, 1971), 65–208; Daly, “Caesarius,” 8, 20–22; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 9–15. Caesarius, for example, picked up Augustine’s phrase duo genera elemosinarum (corporal and spiritual) in his own original sermons, but without quoting Augustine directly; in one case, he expanded this to tria genera, adding “good will” as a possibility for those who say they are too poor to give materially and have suffered no injury to forgive: Augustine, Sermones de vetere testamento 42.1, ed. Lambot (n. 18 above), 504; Augustine, Sermones ad populum 206, PL 38:1041; Caesarius, Sermones 25.3, 28.3, 30.1–5, 34.5. 63 See the comments and methodology in Daly, “Caesarius,” 17–18. 64 Caesarius included references to tithing in sermons 1, 10, 13, 14, 16, 30, 33, 34, 60, 71, 171, and 229. Even the short passages are normally revealing: e.g., Sermones 14.3, ed. Morin, 71 quoted in the next paragraph. All these appear in the midst of original material. Caesarius, Sermones 33, ed. Morin, 142–47 is his fullest exposition. 65 Caesarius emphasized that tithing is obligatory on all who receive income from any farming or any trade (see following notes). When ordering almsgiving, he sometimes focused on the rich explicitly or implicitly (e.g., referring to silver ornaments or slaves), but he sometimes also singled out the poor to commend their gifts at the altar or to assure them that giving forgiveness was as good as giving bread if they had nothing material to give: e.g., Caesarius, Sermones 14.3, 30.2–6, 31.1, 34.2, ed. Morin, 71, 130–33, 134, 148. 66 Caesarius, Sermones 30.2, 33.1–2, 34.3, ed. Morin, 130, 143–45, 148. 67 Caesarius, Sermones 33.1, ed. Morin, 143–44. Even time was God’s gift and sub- ject to the tithe, as Lent constituted one tenth of the year: Caesarius, Sermones 238.4, ed. Morin, 952.

rather for our own.”68 God gave a return on this offering in the form of material prosperity and bodily health.69 However, if someone neglected that divine law requiring tithing, he both stole another’s possessions and bore the guilt of his neighbor’s starvation or death.70 Such a sinner would suffer not only future damnation, but also the loss of those earthly goods that he strove to keep.71 God received his due through the hands of the poor, though the church had charge of the tithe’s collection and redistribution.72 Tithes were not alms. Christians freely gave the latter in love and so reaped forgiveness: “Give your tithes before anything else . . . and give alms from the nine parts which remain to you. Redeem your sins from those and acquire eternal rewards.”73 Although tithes seem to have carried some minor spiritual benefits like other basic forms of regular religious practice, greater spiritual rewards like absolution stemmed only from almsgiving.74 In this conception of tithing, Caesarius put forward three unusual ideas: (1) tithing and alms were distinct; (2) God demanded a fixed payment of one tenth, as opposed to almsgiving’s discretionary contributions; (3) tithing produced material fruits alongside minor merit, but lacked almsgiving’s spiritual efficacy. In other words, Caesarius innovated by drawing distinctions between Christian tithing and almsgiving. He applied Mosaic law within a Christian framework in order to create an obligation of some gifts, with the result that gifts (alms) beyond the required amount would be given without obligation, from love rather than duty. Therefore those

68 “Deus enim noster, qui dignatus est totum dare, decimum a nobis dignatur repe- tere, non sibi, sed nobis sine dubio profuturum” (Caesarius, Sermones 33.1, ed. Morin, 143). Also Caesarius, Sermones 1.12, 33.1–2, 34.3, ed. Morin, 9–10, 143–44, 148. 69 Caesarius, Sermones 33.1, ed. Morin, 143–44. 70 Caesarius, Sermones 30.2, 33.3, ed. Morin, 130, 145. 71 Caesarius, Sermones 33.2, ed. Morin, 144–45. 72 Caesarius, Sermones 1.12, 10.3, 13.3, 16.2, 30.2, 33.1, 33.3, and 71.2, ed. Morin, 9–10, 53, 66, 77, 130, 143–44, 146, and 301. 73 “Decimas vestras ante omnia . . . exhibete; et de novem partibus, quae vobis remanserint, elymosinas facite. Ex ipsis peccata vestra redimite, et aeterna vobis praemia conparate” (Caesarius, Sermones 14.3, ed. Morin, 71). Also Caesarius, Ser- mones 30.2, 33.3, 34.3, 60.1, 171.3, and 229.4, ed. Morin, 130, 146, 148, 263, 701, and 908. On the rewards of almsgiving, see Ramsey, “Almsgiving” (n. 11 above) 241–47; on the origins of this language see R. Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity (Sheffield, 1993); G. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven, 2009). 74 Caesarius, Sermones 33.1, ed. Morin, 144, though note that the only terrena et caelestia munera specified are health and good harvests. Tithing is listed with other pious practices in Caesarius, Sermones 1.12, 10.3, 13.3, 16.2, and 229.4, ed. Morin, 9–10, 53, 66, 77, and 908. Caesarius, Sermones 33.3, ed. Morin, 145–46, seems at first to mention tithes and alms in connection to forgiveness, but the context clarifies that it is just alms that does this.

voluntary gifts of alms merited spiritual reward, and were not merely the coerced transfer of goods that truly belonged to others (i.e., God and his poor children). Since this distinction is where Caesarius brought in something new, the obvious inference is that his reason for developing his idea of the tithe had something to do with his idea of almsgiving. He never mentioned tithes in a sermon without mentioning (and often contrasting) almsgiving or related good works. Almsgiving was clearly a central issue for Caesarius throughout his sermons.75 The great importance of almsgiving for Caesarius sprang from an Augustinian conception of a community of love created by baptism.76 The Council of Orange, which condemned semi-Pelagianism and at which Caesarius presided, taught that the grace of baptism was wholly unearned and necessary for salvation, and that afterwards good works were done with the aid of God’s grace, but that these works had to be done: “after having accepted the grace of baptism, all baptized Christians, with Christ helping and working with them, if they wish to faithfully labor, can and must fulfill those things which per- tain to salvation.”77 That Christians had to avoid evil and do good after baptism was, of course, standard doctrine, and Augustine had placed a great deal of emphasis on the power of almsgiving. Caesarius pushed this emphasis on the necessity of doing good and especially giving alms even further. Caesarius emphasized in his sermons that no one had any hope of being saved without almsgiving, though baptism was first necessary and, as he frequently noted in passing, almsgiving was done deo auxiliante.78 Caesarius acknowledged, however, that almsgiving did have limits to

75 According to the Library of Latin Texts database, the word eleemosina appears 283 times and across 102 sermons. Caesarius also frequently refered to good works and aiding the poor using other words. 76 Daly, “Caesarius” (n. 58 above), esp. 26. 77 “Post acceptam per baptismum gratiam omnis baptiszati Christo auxiliante et cooperante, quae ad salute animae pertinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter laborare volverint, adimplere” (Concilium Arausicanum a. 529 ‘Definitio fidei,’ ed. Charles de Clercq, CCL 148A [Turnhout, 1963], 63, see also canons 5, 8, 13, 18, ed. de Clercq, 56–60). 78 See especially Caesarius, Sermones 15.4, 157.3–6, ed. Morin, 75–76, 642–45; Daly, “Caesarius,” 7, 18, 20–22; Klingshirn, Caesarius (n. 3 above), 142–43; also Arnold, Caesarius (n. 3 above), 24–66; Malnory, St. Césaire (n. 3 above), 5–13. His enthusi- asm for almsgiving sometimes leads to less nuanced and occasionally outright sloppy language compared to his predecessors: e.g., “ut et pauper per patientiam, et dives per elemosynam possint dei gratiam promereri” (Caesarius, Sermones 25.2, ed. Morin, 112–13). For an example of his increased emphasis, see his sermon 177 on original sin and grace; this is the reworking of Augustine’s sermon 151 (PL 38:814–19), in which he closely follows his exemplar until the end where Caesarius adds a new section

its power, requiring, for example, true penitence, turning away from seri- ous habitual sin, and acting out of love.79 Almsgiving was obviously important, but its importance hinged on its interior aspect, which in turn reflected the freedom given in baptism. God was not some corrupt judge to be bought off with money, but rather true and effective almsgiving had to be a gift of one’s heart.80 God’s free gift of grace freed the baptized Christian’s will to have the power to choose to follow God and show love and mercy.81 Caesarius preached that the new chosen people of the Christians crossed the figurative Red Sea of baptism precisely into freedom.82 Christ chose the cross in love, so enabl- ing us likewise to love our neighbor.83 A Christian’s choice to repay God’s goodness with love or with immorality appropriately resulted in reward or condemnation.84 Almsgiving occupied the pivotal role here and, for Caesarius even more than his predecessors, any conception of almsgiving needed to protect it and its foundation as a free act of love and mercy fulfilling the Gospel. 85 Cassian had eloquently insisted that Christian love had to act freely, not in slavery to a law, and therefore distinguished the legal terminology of tithing from the Gospel; in doing so, however, he had in a sense removed almsgiving from that central place Caesarius wished to preserve for it.86 Cassian’s move had a solid basis, which Caesarius accepted. If everything came from God, then wealth could be held only in trust, through stewardship. The theology of justice impelled the wealthy Chris- tian to give to his needy neighbor, who had a real claim to the donor’s

emphasizing that this fragility of the flesh means a Christian must redeem his sins with fervent prayers and almsgiving (177.5, ed. Morin, 720–21). 79 Caesarius, Sermones 18.7, 30.4, 32.1, 219.2, ed. Morin, 86, 131, 139, 869. He followed traditional doctrine here, though perhaps with slightly less caution than his predecessors: Augustine, In epistolam Ioannis 8, PL 35:2040; Eusebius Gallicanus, Collectio Homiliarum 58.6, ed. F. Glorie, CCL 101A (Turnhout, 1971), 468; Canning, Unity of Love (n. 19 above), 180; Finn, Almsgiving (n. 2 above), 188–90; Ramsey, “Almsgiving” (n. 11 above), 227. 80 Caesarius, Sermones 32.1, ed. Morin, 39. 81 Caesarius, Sermones 149.1, 151.5, ed. Morin, 609, 619. See also Concilium Arau- sicanum 13, ed. de Clercq, 59. 82 Caesarius, Sermones 98.1, ed. Morin, 400–401. 83 Caesarius, Sermones 117.6, ed. Morin, 490–91. 84 Caesarius, Sermones 104.6, ed. Morin, 433. 85 As Augustine had done earlier in a different way: Peter Brown, “Augustine and a Crisis of Wealth in Late Antiquity,” Augustinian Studies 36 (2005): 6–30. 86 Cassian, Conlationes 21.3, 5, ed. Petschenig (n. 41 above), 575, 578. Also Pome- rius, De vita contemplativa 3.25, PL 59:507–8; Ambrose, De officiis 1.30.143, ed. Tes- tard (n. 20 above), 164.

property.87 Since the gift was owed as a debt, paying it hardly seemed meritorious or a matter of free choice. Indeed, the idea of God as dis- tributor of wealth implicitly questioned whether the potential almsgiver actually gave away his own possessions at all or rather merely passed along God’s. Caesarius fully subscribed to this notion of wealth and justice: With the exception of reasonable and moderate clothing and food, what- ever God conveyed to you, whether through agriculture or through your office, he did not give to you in particular. Rather he sent it to you so that it might be paid out to the poor by you. If you will not give, know that you are snatching away another’s possessions.88

At first glance, the almsgiver had nothing to give and was acting under constraint. How then could one freely express love and earn merit through giving, while also paying the claims of justice on one’s goods? Caesarian tithing answered this question. Although Cassian’s answer that indeed the Christian had nothing to give except his own self, by freely taking up a monastic life of poverty and celibacy, hardly offered a convincing solution for most Christians, his explanation of the law as a matter of carnal rewards and as a first step for God’s people made sense to Caesarius. Caesarius understood Christians as the new chosen people succeeding the old Jewish people but still part of the same divine plan.89 Caesarius too believed the Mosaic law led no one to perfection

87 Especially Ambrose, De officiis 1.28.130–32, ed. Testard, 158, and Ambrose, Expositio psalmi 119 [118] 8.22, ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 62 (Vienna, 1913), 163–64. Augustine placed less emphasis on the issue, but see his Enarrationes in psalmos Ps. 96[95].15, ed. Dekkers and Fraipont, CCL 39 (Turnhout, 1956), 1353; Augustine, Ser- mones ad populum 103.5, 208.2, PL 38:615, 1045; also Jerome, In Malachiam 3.8–12, ed. Adriaen (n. 16 above), 936. In general, Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 237–40; Firey, “For I Was Hungry” (n. 19 above), 337–38; Finn, Almsgiving, 232–36. 88 “Quaecumque enim deus, excepto mediocri et rationabili victu et vestitu, sive de quacumque militia, sive de agricultura contulerit, non tibi specialiter dedit, sed per te pauperibus eroganda transmisit. Si nolueris dare, noveris te res alienas auferre” (Caesarius, Sermones 34.2, ed. Morin, 148). Also Caesarius, Sermones 30.2, 33.1–3, ed. Morin, 130, 143–45. Neither Caesarius nor his predecessors advocated communism. They were perfectly content that the rich retain some aspects of their more comfortable standard of living. These others did, however, have a right to at least a suffi- ciency of goods, even if these goods were inferior. One person could eat filet mignon, the other hamburgers, so long as both ate enough: Ramsey, “Almsgiving,” 233–35. 89 Daly, “Caesarius,” 11–18, who calls this “one of the master ideas of his social ethic” (11), and especially Caesarius, Sermones 194.1, ed. Morin, 786–87. Also Bern- hard Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du moyen âge sur les juifs et le juda- isme (Paris, 1963), 49–52; cf. Christophe, Cassien et Césaire (n. 23 above), 60–66. Caesarius even noted the appropriateness that those who understood the law only “carnally” and still violated it received a carnal penalty; he believed this occurred in

without Christ, but “Christ cannot be without the Law, nor the Law without Christ.”90 Mosaic law, when understood in a specifically Christian framework, could therefore be used as a source of truth and especially of elementary ethics.91 The greater perfection of the Christian Gospel then took love to a higher level. Caesarius made his essential innovation here. Instead of contrasting Jewish tithing with the more perfect Chris- tian renunciation of all property, he contrasted tithing with the more elevated act of almsgiving. In so doing, he could appeal to Old Testa- ment exhortations to justice so as to attach the idea of debt and obligation solely to tithing, while leaving almsgiving as an act of meritorious love in the economy of salvation. God demanded the tithe in the Mosaic law, but this demand constituted an act of mercy from God to pave the way for those moved by grace to surpass what he required of them. Cae- sarius imagined God as saying: “If you pay attention to just reasoning, you ought to keep a tenth for yourself and give me nine parts. I do not ask for this; I want to be merciful to you. I give you an example, so that just as I was merciful to you, you too might take pity on the poor.”92 A Christian had had nothing of his own to give to God, since all was from God and owed to him — until God renounced all of that material debt except the 10 percent tithe. In this way, one normally had a legitimate claim to what remained, and with that one could actually give something beyond what Christians were obligated to pay as a matter of debt.93 Tith- ing was fixed in justice, it was “ex debito,” but since God limited our debt to that tax, alms could then be given freely from one’s remaining possessions according to one’s ability and the promptings of love.94 Caesarius spoke of alms in connection with love and mercy again and

the primitive church in the case of Anianas and Sapphira, whom Peter miraculously struck down (Acts 5:1–11): Caesarius, Sermones 125.1, ed. Morin, 519. 90 “Quia nec christus sine lege, nec lex sine christo esse potest” (Caesarius, Ser- mones 106.4, ed. Morin, 442). On the law’s insufficiency by itself, see Caesarius, Ser- mones 102.1, 172.3, ed. Morin, 421, 703–4, and his frequent appeals to Heb. 7:19. 91 Caesarius, Sermones 1.12, 23.4, 37.5–6, 39.2, 39.6, 67.2, 68.2, 100a.12, 107.2, 137.4, 145.3, 161.1, 168.4, and 199.8, ed. Morin, 8, 106, 166, 173, 176, 286, 289–90, 415, 444, 567, 598, 661, 690, and 807. Caesarius often quoted Matt. 22:40 and Gal. 5:14 in support. 92 “Si ad iustam rationem adtendis, tibi debes decimam reservare, et mihi novem partes dare. Nec hoc quaero, misericors esse volo: exemplum tibi praebeo, ut quo- modo ego misertus sum tui, sic miserearis tu pauperi” (Caesarius, Sermones 34.3, ed. Morin, 148); cf. Luke 6:36. 93 In addition, by paying that initial ten percent, we acknowledge our rightful place as debtors to God’s infinite mercy and give God the honor due his majesty and generosity as explained in Caesarius, Sermones 33.1, ed. Morin, 143. 94 Caesarius, Sermones 33.3, 171.3, ed. Morin, 145–46, 701; cf. Sternberg, Orienta- lium more (n. 12 above), 28.

again; not once did he speak of tithes in that way.95 This was the clear and essential distinction between the two. Tithing, as an aspect of law, safeguarded alms as the Christian expression of Gospel love. Almsgiving was still in a sense required, but by way of God’s exhortation and example, not command. No Christian could hope to reap heavenly rewards without imitating God’s mercy and love. Nor could a Chris- tian love and still ignore a neighbor in desperate straits.96 That being said, a doctrine of tithing created room for the exercise of Christian freedom, a freedom rooted in love and enabled by grace. God’s act of mercy in demanding one tenth allowed his people to show mercy by choosing to use part of the remaining nine tenths in charity. They could go beyond the old law and follow the higher urgings of Christian righteousness, even without giving all away.97 At the same time, tithing ensured that justice would be satisfied in two senses. First, a Christian could pay in confi- dence what he “owed.” Second, in a very practical way, the Christian community as embodied in the institution of the church would actually have the resources to aid the poor. Of course, this was not the only possible solution to reconciling obligatory gifts with free ones or justice with love, but it was a clever solution. In this theory of tithing, Caesarius clearly drew upon past precedents. Indeed, one can speculate that the only reason telling people to hand over a tenth of their income had any chance of success was that Christians were used to hearing about tithes in sermons; the shift from eleemosynary to ecclesiastical tithes would not necessarily have sounded that different to an average person, especially as there was no physical enforcement of this new obligation. Indeed, actual practice may not have looked that different to an intelligent outside observer. However, Caesarius did introduce some important ideas. He presented tithes as divine law, and therefore something implicitly open to effective means of enforcement in this life; initially, those real world penalties were left to God to inflict in the form of bad harvests and ill health. In contrast to varying earlier opinions on who should receive the tithe, Caesarius believed only the poor (not the clergy) should benefit, but that the whole tithe had to be paid to the church to redistribute. For unknown reasons, Caesarius concentrated on the tithe, mentioning first fruits in a more haphazard

95 Love: Caesarius, Sermones 6.7, 13.1, 23.4, 29.3, 38.5, 128.5, 146.1–2, 199.6, 219.2, 229.4, and 234.1, ed. Morin, 35, 64, 106–7, 127–28, 171, 529, 635–36, 806, 869, 908, and 932. Mercy: Caesarius, Sermones 34.4, 47.6, 157.3, 158.5, and 228.6, ed. Morin, 149, 215, 642–43, 647, and 904. 96 For example, Caesarius, Sermones 33.3, ed. Morin, 146. 97 Caesarius enthusiastically encouraged those who sought the even higher perfection of monastic life, but one could be fully Christian without doing so.

fashion, largely without elaboration.98 His most important move was, of course, distinguishing alms from tithes. It is possible that Caesarius simply recorded more general trends for which the evidence has otherwise disappeared. Given the differences between himself and his immediate predecessors, notably Cassian and Pomerius, as well as Caesarius’s theological training and forceful personality, it is more likely that the idea of the tithe presented by Caesarius was his own creation.

Varieties of Tithing After Caesarius Caesarius’s sermons played a pivotal role in the development of the ecclesiastical tithe. He presented a coherent and attractive theory, which eventually proved extremely influential, but only with time and diffi- culty. Indeed, an indication that Caesarius’s ideas were pioneering is their apparent initial lack of success and the development of alternatives to his tithe. Perhaps this is not entirely surprising. With only God enforcing the obligation to tithe, people had limited incentive to obey even if told doing so was divine “law.” Without clear sanction in church custom for such dues, the Caesarian tithe probably appeared as merely a greedy and unjust attempt to fleece the faithful. It is a noteworthy fact that Caesarius played an instrumental role in the decisions of several councils, but we have no record of any of them addressing tithing. Caesarius devoted effort in his sermons towards promoting tithing, so one would expect at least a passing exhortation in his conciliar legislation as well — if his fellow bishops had accepted such a practice. The lack of such a canon, especially given Caesarius’s ability to ram through some of his other controversial measures, raises the question of when anyone besides Caesarius accepted his articulation of the ecclesiastical tithe.99 The absence of early witnesses underlines the probability that Caesarius in fact invented his doctrine. A public letter composed by the Council of Tours in 567 urged the people to imitate the example of Abraham in giving tithes, but did so squarely in the old tradition of the eleemosynary tithe. The tithe here is explicitly a synonym for almsgiving, linked with love and the forgiveness of sins: “Therefore if anyone wishes to be placed in Abraham’s bosom, let him not reject his example and lose the prize of alms.”100 Only in 585, over forty years after Caesarius’s

98 He mentions them, without development, near tithing in Caesarius, Sermones 16.2, 33.1–2, ed. Morin, 77, 143–44. 99 Klingshirn, Caesarius (n. 3 above), 142–45, who also notes that Caesarius’s ini- tiatives could be defeated in council (though considering a different case than the one here). 100 “Ergo si quis in Abrahae conlocari uult gremio, eiusdem non repugnet exem- plo et soluat eleemosynae pretium” (Concilium Turonense a. 567 “Epistula . . . ad

death, did the assembled bishops at Mâcon give his ecclesiastical tithe a conciliar imprimatur. This council ordered the payment of tithe to the clergy for redistribution to the poor and captives as part of divine law. Its admonition that the tithe was an ancient custom was slightly disin- genuous, but the council’s querulous observation that few practiced it almost certainly recorded the facts: “Now, however, almost all Christians gradually are shown to be transgressors of the law, since they neglect to fulfill these things.”101 Caesarius’s innovation had just begun to grow and it had an upward climb ahead of it. In fact, no other council would take up the tithe until the eighth century.102 Caesarius’s main competition consisted of the old idea of the tithes as alms, which was deeply ingrained. Even one redactor of Caesarius’s sermons understood him this way, adding his own remark that God “receives the tenth through alms for the poor.”103 As late as the tenth century, one Anglo-Saxon homilist familiar with Caesarius still used the terms “alms”

plebem,” ed. C. de Clercq, CCL 148A [Turnhout, 1963], 198); Sternberg, Orientalium more, 28; see also Godding, Prêtres (n. 12 above), 347–48. 101 “Nunc autem paulatim praeuaricatores legum peni christiani omnes ostendun- tur, dum ea . . . adimplere neglegunt” (Concilium Matisconense a. 585 5, ed. C. de Clercq, CCL 148A [Turnhout, 1963], 241); see also Sternberg, Orientalium more, 28; Godding, Prêtres, 348–49. 102 Sternberg, Orientalium more, 28–29; also Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss (n. 12 above), 63–64. 103 “Ut per elimosinas pauperum accipiat decimum” (Caesarius, Sermones 19.3, ed. Morin, 89). This sermon, attributed to Augustine, is extant in a single eighth-century manuscript unaccompanied by any of Caesarius’s other works. Morin relunctantly accepted its authenticity, claiming that it presented Caesarius’s ideas and style but did not show firm evidence of textual borrowing despite parallels with other sermons (Caesarius, Sermones, ed. Morin, cxxi–cxxii, 87). In fact, this sermon is inauthentic. It abbreviates (often heavily) and rearranges its material with small changes and an occasional insertion of original matter (as is the case in the clause just mentioned), but shows very clear textual dependence. Typical of the redactor’s work is the sen- tence following the one in question: “Symbolum ante omnia et orationem dominicam et ipsi parate, et filiis vestris ostendite: nam nescio si vel christianus dici debet, qui pauca verba in simbolo parare dissimulat” (Caesarius, Sermones 19.3, ed. Morin, 89), derived from, “Symbolum vel orationem dominicam et ipsi tenete et filiis vestris ostendite: nam nescio qua fronte se christianum dicat, qui paucos versiculos in symbolum vel in orationem dominicam parare dissimulat” (Caesarius, Sermones 13.2, ed. Morin, 65). The sources for Sermo 19.3 are as follows: “Quando . . . animae detrimen- tum” (Sermo 50.3, ed. Morin, 226); “Mensuras . . . respuite” (Sermo 130.5, ed. Morin, 538); “Quando sanctae . . . accedere” (Sermo 1.12, ed. Morin, 9); “Quando ad eccle- siam . . . concitare” (Sermo 13.3, ed. Morin, 66); “Nolite . . . diabolica” (Sermo 13.4, ed. Morin, 67); “In ecclesia . . . ecclesiis reddite” (Sermo 13.3, ed. Morin, 66); “quia deus . . . fecistis” (no source); “Symbolum . . . dissimulat” (Sermo 13.2, ed. Morin, 65); “Sed forte . . . possit” (Sermo 130.5, ed. Morin, 538). On problems with Morin’s editorial methods, see Leyser, Authority and Asceticism (n. 49 above), 81–82 n. 3.

and “tithes” interchangeably.104 Others donated a tenth of their property as alms on special occasions.105 The Carolingian Wala accepted his duty to pay the ecclesiastical tithe, but also gave extra tenths as alms.106 Different traditions of obligatory dues developed elsewhere. In contrast to Caesarius’s careful distinctions between Mosaic law and Gospel, the Irish tradition generally felt comfortable adopting sections of Old Testament practice wholesale, including tithing along with first fruits. First fruits were even to be levied on human offspring. These dues possibly only fell on certain individuals, identified in one source as monachi, there meaning “lawful laymen” living in a particular state of dependence under ecclesiastical control.107 In England, the seventh- or eighth-century Iudicia Theodori mention a practice of tithing consistent with the Caesar- ian model, and a 786 legatine synod attempted to impose the developed continental practice on the English church.108 However, that synod’s

104 The Blickling Homilies hom. 4, ed. R. Morris, EETS 48, 63, 73 (London, 1874– 80, repr. 1967), 41; cf. Bede, In Lucae evangelium expositio 4.11.41–42, ed. D. Hurst, CCL 120 (Turnhout, 1960), 242; Christianus [Stabulensis], Expositio brevis in Lucam evangelistam, PL 106:1509B. The transfer of tithe payments to a monastery may have been seen by some Normans as perpetual alms: Beryl Taylor, “Continuity and Change: Anglo-Saxon and Norman Methods of Tithe-Payment Before and After the Conquest,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 83 (2001): 27–50, at 44. 105 Eddius Stephanus, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid 65, Vita Wilfridi I ep. Eboracen- sis, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927), 140–42. 106 Paschasius Radbertus, Epitaphium Arsenii 1.8, ed. E. Dümmler, Abh. Akad. Berlin 2 (1900), 32. Similarly see Rimbert, Vita Anskarii 35, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 55 (Hanover, 1884), 68–70. For a discussion of tithing in relation to charity in the Carolingian and Anglo-Saxon realms, see E. Shuler, “Almsgiving and the Formation of Early Medieval Societies, A.D. 700–1025,” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2010), 246–55. 107 Canones Hibernenses 3 (“Synodus sapientium”), ed. L. Bieler, The Irish Peniten- tials, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963), 166–68, 251–52; Collectio canonum Hibernensis 2.11, 15.9, Die irische Kanonensammlung, ed. H. Wasserschleben (Leip- zig, 1885), 15, 78–79; Colmán Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland A.D. 650 to 1000 (Maynooth, 1999), 240–71, on whom I rely for the Old Irish evidence. This tradition did interact with Caesarius’s ideas, but seems to have developed indepen- dently first (but cf. Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss, 64–66). 108 Iudicia Theodori G 156–58, U 2.14.1, U 2.14.10 and U 2.14.11, Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis, ed. P. W. Finsterwalder (Weimar, 1929), 268, 332–33; Alcuin, Epistolae 3.17, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epistolae 4 (Berlin, 1895), 25–26; cf. Consta- ble, Monastic Tithes (n. 1 above), 24–27; Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss, 66–67. On Theodore’s access to Gallic material: Martin Brett, “Theodore and the Latin Canon Law,” in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence, ed. M. Lapidge (Cambridge, 1995), 123–25, 137. It should also be noted that the Iudicia Theodori are somewhat unclear: Constable, Monastic Tithe, 25 n. 2; F. Tinti, “The ‘Costs’ of Pastoral Care: Church Dues in Late Anglo-Saxon England,” in Pastoral

pronouncements were immediately “a dead letter.”109 Caesarian tithing would not find acceptance there until the tenth century, and even then English tithing had its own peculiarities. The English instead contributed a series of other renders to the church, most importantly “churchscot,” a lighter due paid solely on agricultural products.110 That the Anglo-Saxons developed their own customary dues, unsanctioned by previous Chris- tian custom and unknown elsewhere in the Christian world, demonstrates both the perceived need for regularized offerings and the lack of a uni- versally accepted system like tithing in the west at the opening of the Middle Ages. In the midst of this chaotic landscape, Caesarius’s ecclesiastical tithe slowly came to dominate, first in the Frankish world. Caesarius spent a great deal of energy having his sermons copied and circulated. Since these sermon collections quickly began to pass under the name of Augustine, or occasionally Athanasius, Caesarius’s ideas soon garnered a deceptive veneer of nearly unquestionable authority.111 In this way, the greatest objection to the imposition of an ecclesiastical tax was finally addressed. If “Augustine” testified that an obligatory tithe was the immemorial custom of the church, who in the early Middle Ages would have denied it? And if the state started enforcing the church’s rights, then this collection surely could be seen as a significant and venerable right. That is precisely what occurred in 779 when Charlemagne, in his “Capitulary of Heristal,” placed the power of the state behind tithe collection and, from that time forward, a Caesarian-style tithe had firmly established itself in the medieval world.112 In most respects, the Carolingian tithe really was Caesarian in conception. Most early medieval florilegia on the tithe relied entirely on Caesarius’s (pseudonymous) sermons and the Bible.113 Almost anytime a

Care in Late Anglo-Saxon England, ed. eadem (Woodbridge, U.K., 2005), 29. The most important passage (U 2.14.11) also occurs in our least reliable version and not in the earlier G: T. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori,” in Archbishop Theodore, ed. Lapidge, 153, 163–65. 109 John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 2005), 435–36. 110 “I Aethelstan,” ed. F. Liebermann, in Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–16, repr. Aalen, 1960), 1:146–49; “II Eadgar” 1.1–3, ed. Liebermann, in Die Gesetze, 1:196–99; Patrick Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1999), 306, 314–16; Taylor, “Continuity and Change,” 27–50; Blair, Church, 435–51; Susan Wood, The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West (Oxford, 2006), 510–12. 111 Daly, “Caesarius” (n. 58 above), 8–9; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 281–82. 112 Capitulare Haristallense, 779 mense Martio 7, ed. A. Boretius, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum 1 (Hanover, 1883), 48; Constable, Monastic Tithes, 24, 27–29, 43; Boyd, Tithes (n. 1 above), 26; Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss, 67–68. 113 For example, Defensor Locogiacensis, Liber scintillarum 29, ed. H. Rochais, CCL 117 (Turnhout, 1957), 116–18; Florilegium Frisingense 157–72, ed. A. Lehner,

theologian wished to speak on tithes, he turned to Caesarius. However, the idea of the tithe did continue to evolve. The secular enforcement of the tithe (a development unforeseen by Caesarius) came only after one crucial mutation. In contrast to Caesarius’s initial conception, the poor no longer had exclusive rights to the tithe; rather it merged with the church’s regular income and served all those who had a claim on ecclesiastical resources.114 Our evidence is too sparse to reveal how this change happened, though the well-known equation of the clergy with “God’s poor” no doubt made such a transition easy.115 The fact that this change, when it did occur, greatly increased its utility for bishops and patrons of churches almost certainly played a substantial role in the new eagerness of the powerful to collect the tithe. The doctrine of the tithe later enshrined in canon law evolved from a bold step, made most likely by Caesarius for both important economic and theological reasons. By splitting the tithe from almsgiving, instead of equating the two and contrasting them with the monastic embrace of the Gospel, Caesarius created new possibilities for living out the Gospel commands of love, while simultaneously honoring the demands of justice upon wealth given from above. As other experiments in regularizing lay offerings demonstrate, there was a substantial desire among many churchmen for such a system. Caesarius’s sophisticated theological justification of a new, more literal use of Old Testament language, combined with the accident of his widely disseminated writings being attributed to earlier authorities, enabled his proposal for collecting regular offerings like a tax to wield tremendous influence in future centuries.

Georgia State University

CCL 108D (Turnhout, 1987), 16–17; Pirmin, Scarapsus 24, 29, ed. Eckhard Hauswald (PhD diss., Universität Konstanz, 2006), 98–100, 145–46. By the time that Gratian wrote, Caesarius was supplemented with Jerome’s reference to the (eleemosynary) tithe and the forged decrees of Damasus’s supposed 382 synod: Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss, 57–60. 114 Constable, Monastic Tithes, 43–44, 48. On the Carolingian tithe, see also Ulrich Stutz, “Das karolingische Zehntgebot,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsge- schichte, Germanistische Abteilung 29 (1908): 180–224; Ernst Perels, “Die Ursprünge des Karolingischen Zehntrechtes,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 3 (1911): 232–50; Wood, Proprietary Church, 459–518. 115 That Caesarius’s pauperes were economically poor is indicated by his references to them potentially dying from want: Sermones 33.3, ed. Morin, 146. This shift may well have occured as early as 585: Godding, Prêtres (n. 12 above), 349. See also D. Ganz, “The Ideology of Sharing: Apostolic Community and Ecclesiastical Prop- erty in the Early Middle Ages,” in Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages, ed. W. Davies and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1995), 17–30, esp. 26–27.

COPYRIGHT TRADITIO VOLUME 67, 2012 THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, STORED IN A RETRIEVAL SYSTEM WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER