Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages by Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto © Copyright by Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler 2018 Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto 2018 Abstract This dissertation, ‘Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, investigates changing perceptions of perjury and false witness in the late antique and early medieval world. Focusing on primary sources from the Latin-speaking, western Roman empire and former empire, approximately between the late third and seventh centuries CE, this thesis proposes that perjury and false witness were transformed into criminal behaviours, grave sins, and canonical offences in Latin legal and religious writings of the period. Chapter 1, ‘Introduction: The Problem of Perjury’s Criminalization’, calls attention to anomalies in the history and historiography of the oath. Although the oath has been well studied, oath violations have not; moreover, important sources for medieval culture – Roman law and the Christian New Testament – were largely silent on the subject of perjury. For classicists in particular, perjury was not a crime, while oath violations remained largely peripheral to early Christian ethical discussions. Chapter 2, ‘Criminalization: Perjury and False Witness in Late Roman Law’, begins to explain how this situation changed by documenting early possible instances of penalization for perjury. Diverse sources such as Christian martyr acts, provincial law manuals, and select imperial ii and post-imperial legislation suggest that numerous cases of perjury were criminalized in practice. Chapter 3, ‘Peccatization: Perjury and False Witness in Latin Patristic Literature’, investigates analogous developments in the Latin Christian church. Chapter 4, ‘An Early Medieval Case Study: Perjury and False Witness in the Visigothic Church and Kingdom’, studies the effects of these developments on one early medieval society. A concluding chapter suggests a class-based dimension to these changes; interrogates the nature of perjury; and proposes further avenues for research. Conceived as a thesis in the history of law and religion, this dissertation doubles as an investigation of a prominent feature of late antique and early medieval culture. iii Acknowledgements No dissertation is the product of a single individual, but is the fruit of numerous people working together; and that has certainly been true in this case. Without the collaboration and support of professors, family, and friends, my vision for ‘Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’ might never have been achieved, and to these people I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude. In particular, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Nicholas Everett, and the other members of my supervisory committee, Dr Lawrin Armstrong and Dr Joseph Goering, for the support and encouragement which they frequently showed to me over the course of my graduate studies. Dr Ian Wood of the University of Leeds, whose own research helped to inspire this thesis, very generously agreed to serve as my external examiner, and his helpful critiques and suggestions will prove useful as I carry the project forward. Dr Giulio Silano, my so-called ‘internal external’, first suggested to me the crucial role of the Roman emperor in the development of western perjury norms, and the stress I have laid on this topic is a reflection of the conversation we had together. I would also like to thank Dr Jo Ann Hoeppner Moran Cruz of Georgetown University, my undergraduate supervisor, who first encouraged me to pursue graduate work in medieval history. Special thanks are likewise due to my parents and to an anonymous benefactor, without whose financial support at various times the completion of this degree would have been impossible. My roommates, Kristin Ostensen and Nick Smidstra, lent invaluable emotional support by their presence and their patience, especially during the critical final months of writing and editing. My spiritual director, Rev. Dr Gilles Mongeau, SJ, helped to keep me sane throughout, encouraging me to remember and to hold fast to those things which I knew to be good and true. iv Finally, I would like to thank the ‘friends of my heart’, my Toronto ‘family’ (whoever and wherever they may be) who have formed the most consistent and in many ways the most important part of my life over the last ten years. Ryan Buchanan Allen, Christopher Berard, Emilie Anne Brancato, John Cahill, Nathaniel Jote, Masha Simakova, and David Wagschal has each helped to shape my life (and this dissertation) in his or her own way, and to them collectively and individually I owe more than I can say. This dissertation is respectfully dedicated to Sheila, with whom it began. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………vi Chapter 1 Introduction: The Problem of Perjury’s Criminalization………………………….1 § 1 The Silence of Roman Law………………………………………………13 § 2 The Silence of the New Testament………………………………………23 § 3 Definitions………………………………………………………………..33 Chapter 2 Criminalization: Perjury and False Witness in Late Roman Law………………..40 § 4 Military and Administrative Perjuries: A Different Paradigm…………..50 § 5 Perjury on the Emperor: From the Severan Statute to The Opinions of Paul……………………………………………………………………....68 § 6 Perjury, False Witness, and Forgery……………………………………..86 Chapter 3 Peccatization: Perjury and False Witness in Latin Patristic Literature……….….97 § 7 Perjury and False Witness in the Life and Thought of Jerome of Stridon…………………………………………………………………..107 § 8 Perjury and False Witness in the Life and Thought of Augustine of Hippo……………………………………………………………………135 Chapter 4 An Early Medieval Case Study: Perjury and False Witness in the Visigothic Church and Kingdom…………………………………………………………...156 § 9 The Evidence of the Documents: LV 12.3.15 (Erwig) and Perjury’s Infernalization…………………………………………………………..166 vi § 10 The Evidence of the Canons: Perjury, False Witness, and Conspiracy at the Sixth Council of Toledo (a. 638)………………………………...…195 Chapter 5 Epilogue………………………………………………………………………...215 A Note on the Text, Abbreviations, and Bibliography…………………………………………229 § 11 Abbreviations…………………………………………………………...229 § 12 Primary Sources………………………………………………………...230 § 13 Secondary Sources……………………………………………………...243 vii Chapter 1 Introduction: The Problem of Perjury’s Criminalization King Chilperic went home to his lodging. He sent to us a book of the canons, with a newly copied four-page insert, which contained what appeared to be apostolic canons, including the following words: ‘A bishop convicted of murder, adultery or perjury shall be expelled from his bishopric.’ While these were being read out, Praetextatus stood as if struck dumb. Gregory of Tours, Histories1 In 577 CE, near the northern periphery of the post-Roman world, one of the oldest Christian legal texts to address the topic of perjury made a surprise appearance in the trial of a sitting bishop, Praetextatus of Rouen. According to the Gallo-Roman bishop and historian, Gregory of Tours, Praetextatus had fallen afoul of the Frankish king Chilperic I, who brought forward a copy of the text in question: usually identified with The Apostolic Canons, a fourth-century canonical collection originating in the Greek-speaking east.2 Addressing a wide variety of topics of interest to church councils like the one which tried Praetextatus, The Apostolic Canons sanctioned a number of specific sins and offences, including perjuries, about which Praetextatus was questioned.3 The bishop’s trial, which took place in Paris, lasted several days and culminated in the production of the canon quoted above; following his conviction, Praetextatus was removed from his see and exiled to an island.4 Gregory, an eyewitness to and participant in these proceedings, suggested that the bishop’s punishment had exceeded canonical measure. According to the historian, King Chilperic asked the bishops to formally curse and excommunicate as well as 1 Gregory of Tours, Historiae, 5.18, ed. Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison, MGH SS rer. Mer. 1/1 (repr., Hanover: Hahn, 1951), 222–3: ‘Ipse vero ad metatum discessit, transmittens librum canonum, in quo erat quaternio novus adnixus, habens canones quasi apostolicus, continentes haec: Episcopus in homicidio, adulterio et periurio depraehensus, a sacerdotio divillatur. His ita lectis … Praetextatus staret stupens’ (tr. Lewis Thorpe, Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks [London: Penguin, 1974], 281). 2 C. H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima: Canonum et Conciliorum Graecorum Interpretationes Latinae, i (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1899), 33; Aram Mardirossian, La collection canonique d’Antioche: Droit et hérésie à travers le premier recueil de législation ecclésiastique (IVe siècle), Monographies 34 (Paris: Collège de France, 2010), 65–72. 3 Gregory of Tours, Historiae, 5.18. 4 Gregory of Tours, Historiae, 5.18, 7.16. 1 depose and banish him: ‘King Chilperic demanded … that Psalm 108, which contains the maledictions against Judas Iscariot … be recited over his head [and] that he … be excommunicated forever. … I myself spoke against these conditions, for they were contrary to the king’s