remarks on Dating and localising Lex Baiuvariorum1 tamás NÓTÁRI

Remarks on Dating and LocalisingLex Baiuvariorum 1Tamás NótáriIntroductionLex Baiuvariorum —in addition to the Tasilo cup made around777 2 as material relic— is the earliest written source of theindependent Dukedom of Bavaria prior to its annexation byCharlemagne in 788. It has the closest relationship to LexAlamannorum; 3 yet, it belongs to the so-called south Germanfolk law. This paper intends to analyse the issues of datingand localising Lex Baiuvariorum in the mirror of attemptsmade in the literature on the subject.The questions arising with regard to Lex Baiuvariorumwere addressed in medievistical research from the end of the18 th c. already. Johann Nepomuk Mederer (1734-1803), a formerJesuit, later the professor of the university of Ingolstadt,published his work entitled Leges Baiuvariorum oder ältestesGesetzbuch der Baiuvarier, nach einer uralten Handschrift insTeutsche übersetzt (1793, Ingolstadt) on the basis of the manuscriptowned by the university of Ingolstadt since the 16 thc., at present kept at the Universitätsbibliothek 4 of Munich. 51The present paper was supported by the támop Project Nr. 4.2.2.B-10/1-2010-0015 “Identitäten: Kulturen und Minderheiten im Donauraum”.2See V. H. Elbern, 486; A. Gauert, 214 ff.3See C. Schott, 1978, 1878 ff.; R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 2001 2 , 201 ff.4m s München, Universitätsbibliothek 8 o , 132.5Cf. B. Bischoff, 1960 2 , 249 ff.159

160 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorum(The facsimile of the same manuscript was published byK. Beyerle in his 1926 edition). 6 Regarding the manuscriptfrom Ingolstadt, Mederer established already that as the earliestmanuscript of Lex Baiuvariorum 7 it was presumablycreated at the end of the 8 th c. 8 In addition to this codex,Mederer listed another five manuscripts in his book: themanuscripts from the monastery of Tegernsee, Benediktbeuern,Aldersbach, Oberaltaich and Herrenchimsee 9 —today,these codices are at the Bavarian Staatsbibliothek. (Atpresent, we know of more than thirty medieval manuscriptsof Lex Baiuvariorum, and thereby, besides the eighty-sevenmanuscripts of Lex Salica left to us in eight versions 10 and theapprox. fifty manuscripts of Lex Alamannorum 11 it is one ofthe collections of German folk law that have been left to usin the best form. 12 ) Paul Roth (1820-1892), legal historianfrom Munich, in his dissertation entitled “Über Entstehung derLex Bajuvariorum” (1848, Munich), considers Lex Baiuvarioruma work developed step by step, not made uniform whenbeing edited —he supported this view by further arguments. 13Roth’s view was joined in 1860 by Stobbe, who analysed thelayers of the text. 14 Its first critical edition, made by Savigny’sdisciple, Johannes Merkel (1819-1861), for the MonumentaGermaniae Historica, was published also in this period. 156K. Beyerle, 1926.7E. v. Schwind, 1926, 184.8Mederer, XXX.9Mederer, XXX-XXXIV.10R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 1991, 1931 sk.11C. Schott, 1978, 1879.12J. Merkel, 533-687; E. v. Schwind, 1912, 415-451; B. Krusch, 1924, 38-163;R. Kottje, 9-23.13P. Roth, 1 ff.14O. Stobbe, 156 ff.15m g h ll III.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 161Heinrich Brunner (1840-1915), in his study published in1901 —in line with the thought of the German empire havinggained ground— states that Lex Baiuvariorum came from a7 th c. Merovingian royal law, which has been lost in the meantime,and based on this hypothesis the Bavarian lex wouldbe nothing else than a further developed/shaped provincialversion of Frankish imperial law. 16 The legal historian fromVienna, Ernst von Schwind published the editio of Lex Baiuvariorum(or as he spelled it: Baiwariorum) in 1926 as part ofthe Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which had been heavilyattacked before it was published. 17 To investigate the criticaledition of Lex Baiuvariorum, the m g h set up an independentcommittee in 1920, and as part of that Bruno Krusch (1957-1940) severely criticised Schwind’s work described as “seriousderailment”, and voiced his conviction in 1924 already. 18Krusch refused the thesis of both gradual development setup by Paul Roth and descent from Frankish royal law representedby Heinrich Brunner. 19 In his view, Lex Baiuvariorumwas promulgated in 729 by Charles Martell as an edictum ofthe Frankish ruler, during a campaign in Bavaria; according toKrusch’s hypothesis, by this law forced on Bavaria the Dukedomof Bavaria lost its independence, and the Bavarian Dukebecame the vassal of the Frankish ruler. 20In 1926, Konrad Beyerle (1872-1933), legal historianfrom Munich, published his work containing the facsimile,transcription and translation into German of the manuscriptfrom Ingolstadt, with an introduction amounting to a monograph.21 In such introduction he asserts that Lex Baiuvario-16H. Brunner, 598-621.17E. v. Schwind, 1926.18B. Krusch, 1924, 4 ff. See also E. Heymann, 116-137.19B. Krusch, 1927, 39 f.20B. Krusch, 1924, 271 ff.21K. Beyerle, 1926.

162 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumrum is not based on some royal or duke’s law but goes backto a church auctor, which seems to be supported also by thestrong ecclesiastical character. However, this auctor —inview of the correspondences and overlapping with Westerngothic content demonstrated earlier— most probably did notcome from the Bavarian clergy. 22 Beyerle specifies the monasteryof Niederalteich, that is, the Bavarian monastery knownby him as the earliest Bavarian monastery, which provablyexisted around 740 already, as the place of origin. Traditionconsiders Eberswind the founding abbot of the monasteryof Niederalteich —the name Eberswind implies westernGothic origin— and the monks of the monastery came fromReichenau; all this makes it probable that they might havemediated the western Gothic legal material to the BavarianChurch, which attained a solid structure 23 at that time. 24 So,according to Beyerle’s view, Lex Baiuvario rum is the workof ecclesiastical author(s) or editor(s), and the prologus is toensure that the law should make the impression of a royallegal source. 25 With respect to the ex asse Bavarian legal material,the monks might have asked for the advice of Bavarianiudices, who were, perhaps on the ruler’s express order,available at the duke’s court in Regensburg to the monks whocompiled the legal material. 26 As a matter of fact, this theory,which claims that Lex Baiuvariorum is the product of editingwork of the Church, makes the “folk law” characterof the lex questionable. 27 To sum it up: Konrad Beyerle formulatedthe following statements: Lex Baiuvariorum was created22Ibid., LXVI.23Cf. S. Freund, 89 f.; J. Jahn, 1991, 186 ff.; L. Kolmer, 1999, 13 ff.; H. Wolfram,1995, 257 ff.24K. Beyerle, 1926, LXIX.25Ibid., LXIV.26Ibid., LXXIV.27Ibid., XCI.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 163between 741 and 743; the place of its creation is Niederalteich;its compilers were members of the clergy, who also usedofficial assistance of the duke but proceeded on the groundsof informal assignment.Konrad Beyerle’s position was adopted by Karl AugustEckhardt (1901-1979); 28 Ernst Mayer (1862-1932) returnedto the theory on gradual development, however, he presumedthe existence of a Frankish source from the end of the6 th c. as the basis of the text, which can be traced back toChildebert II, and was built into Lex Alamannorum, LexBaiuvario rum as well as Edictus Rothari. 29 Mayer assertsthat Lex Baiuvariorum assumed its present form during thereign of Duke Hucbert (728-737), on the ruler’s order; thatis, it can be considered duke’s law. 30 Ulrich Stutz (1868-1938)took a position against ecclesiastical influence and overweightof canon law elements, all the more as the dozen of monkswho founded the monastery must have been occupied duringthe organisation of the operation of Niederalteich for longyears by works more common than compilation of the law,such as deforestation. 31 Konrad Beyerle’s theses were opposedmost resolutely by his younger brother, Franz Beyerle(1885-1977), legal historian from Basel, who claimed thatthe ecclesiastical provisions of Lex Baiuvariorum and LexAlamannorum had been made much before the 8 th c. 32According to Franz Beyerle, a significant part of Lex Baiuvariorumhad been created as Merovingian royal law before614, 33 and later on he took the position that it was createdduring the reign of Theudebert I (532-548) already and con-28K. A. Eckhardt, 68.29E. Mayer, 1929, 82 ff.30Ibid., 138, 142.31U. Stutz, 18 ff.32F. Beyerle, 1929, 264 ff.; 288.33K. Beyerle, 1926, 372.

164 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumtinuous novella additions were attached to it up to the 7 th c. 34This theory about Lex Baiuvariorum being created in the ageof Theudebert I, supplied with the novellas of Childebert IIand Chlothar II and reedited during the reign of Dagobert I,was later adopted by Kurt Reindel too. 35 To Franz Beyerle,Lex Baiuvariorum is the proof of the high cultural standardof the late antiquity of the former provinces, and in his viewthe western Gothic elements borrowed from Codex Euricianuscan be attributed specifically to Parthenius, 36 who wasbrought up in Theoderich’s court in Ravenna, all the more asfor a time Bavaria was under eastern Gothic rule, and so theelements of Gothic law could not have been totally alien tothis territory. 37 Accordingly, Franz Beyerle lays great emphasison his conviction that ecclesiastical influence can be considerednegligible in the making of Lex Baiuvariorum, andthis Roman/German intellectual property excellently provesthe presence of Antique cultural heritage in the 6 th c. on southGerman territories. 38The following decades brought the research of Lex Baiuvariorumfurther regarding several details: according to Krauseand Morsak the auctor was most probably a member of theclergy; 39 Harald Siems’s works, in addition to addressing newaspects, properly summed up the more than two centurieslong history of the research; 40 and Isabella Fastrich-Sutty providedinteresting additional information on the western Gothicimpact. 4134F. Beyerle, 1956, 84 ff.; 128.35K. Reindel, 1981a 2 , 244.36D. Liebs, 62 f.37F. Beyerle, 1956, 127 ff.38Ibid., 139 f.39F. Krause, 70; L. Morsak, 201.40H. Siems, 1978, 1887-1901; idem, 2002, 305-315; idem, 1992, 85 ff.41I. Fastrich-Sutty.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 165The creation of Lex BaiuvariorumWith regard to the creation of Lex Baiuvariorum, the first terminusante quem that can be considered certain is the earliestcouncil in Bavaria that can be dated: the Council of Aschheimheld in 756, where reference 42 to two passages of Lex Baiuvariorumwas made. 43 The Council mentions the predecessor ofDuke Tasilo III too, 44 which enables us to make the hipothesisthat Lex Baiuvariorum was created before the commencementof the reign of the last independent Bavarian duke, Tasilo,i.e., 748. 45 Regarding the issue of dating, research has alwaysconsidered the prologus that introduced the law a point ofreference, which gives a general —in certain respect “legaltheory”— exposition on the function of the lawmaker andlawmaking, and, following Isidorus Hispalensis, on the conceptof lex and consuetudo. 46 The final part of the prologus,however, contains a highly specific description that narratesthe alleged historical process of making Lex Baiuvariorum,based on which this act of lawmaking and codification tookplace as follows: Theuderich, Frankish king, during his stayin Chalons, after Chlodwig’s death in 511, set up a committeeconsisting of men well-versed in laws who were to record thelaw of the Franks, Alemanns and Bavarians subjected to hisrule, in accordance with the customary law of each people,42Concilium Ascheimense 12: “De reliquo promiscuo volgo, ut in lege Baiuvariorumconsistere debet, ut de eorum hereditate, exceptis capitalibus criminibus,non alienentur”.43Cf. Lex Baiuvariorum 2, 1: “Ut nullus Baiuvarius alodem aut vitam sinecapitale crimine perdat”; 7, 5: “Ut nullum liberum sine mortali crimine liceat inservirenec de hereditate sua expellere”.44Concilium Ascheimense 4: “De legibus ecclesiarum paterna reverentia conperieminiet nos maxime admoneri oportit, quod tot diffusus orbs oriens occidensqueconservat et precessorum vestrorum depicta pactus insinuat”.45See also H. Wolfram, 1968, 159; f.-r. F.-R. Erkens, 22; p. P. classen, Classen, 235; l. L. Kolmer,1980, 293; M. Becher, 9.46P. Landau, 2004, 30.

166 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumand to replace eliminated pagan elements by Christian ones. 47This was followed by the corrections of the law implementedby Childebert and Chlothar at the turn of the 6 th and 7 thcenturies, 48 then, by the reform carried out with the assistanceof the four advisors involved by Dagobert: Claudius,Chadoind, Magnus and Agilulf and the written promulgationof the legal material considered effective. 49Researchers’ opinions whether the content of the prologuscorresponds to facts are divided. To Bruno Krusch, the prologuswas nothing but a tendentious forgery that legitimisedthe Frankish ruler’s lawmaker’s power over Bavaria, tracing itback to Chlodwig’s death. 50 Franz Beyerle presumes that theprologus was written before 656, that is, during king DagobertI’s life, because the attribute gloriosissimus was given only tohim from among the rulers listed. 51 On the other hand, Mayerbelieves that the prologus might have been created in the 7 thc., and that the narrative passage on Frankish lawmaking wassupplemented only later by thoughts on the nature of the lexand consuetudo, borrowed from Isidorus. 52 On the other hand,it should be established that certain parts of the prologus mostprobably refer to historical facts since we know of lawmak-47Lex Baiuvariorum, Prologus: “[…] Theuderichus rex Francorum, cum essetCatalaunis, elegit viros sapientes qui in regno suo legibus eruditi erant. Ipso autemdictante iussit conscribere legem Francorum et Alamannorum et Baioariorum unicuiquegenti quae in eius potestate erat, secundum consuetudinem suam, addiditquequae addenda erant et improvisa et incomposita resecavit. Et quae erant secundumconsuetudinem paganorum mutavit secundum legem christianorum”.48Lex Baiuvariorum, Prologus: “[…] Et quicquid Theuderichus rex propter vetustissimampaganorum consuetudinem emendare non potuit, post haec Hildibertusrex inchoavit, sed Chlotharius rex perfecit”.49Lex Baiuvariorum, Prologus: “[…] Haec omnia Dagobertus rex gloriosissimusper viros inlustros Claudio, Chaldoindo, Magno et Agilulfo renovavit etomnia vetera legum in melius transtulit et unicuique genti scriptam tradidit, quaeusque hodie perseverant”.50B. Krusch, 1924, 259 ff.51K. Beyerle, 1926, 373 ff.52E. Mayer, 1929, 80 ff.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 167ing that took place during the reign of both Childebert II andChlothar II, and the directio created around 596 can be relatedto the former one and the praeceptio of 584/628 and the edictumof 614 can be related to the latter one. 53 Furthermore, anancient version of Lex Alamannorum was made also duringthe reign of Chlothar II, 54 while Lex Ribuaria, 55 mostly basedon the Salian Frankish law, was made during the reign of DagobertI, around 633. Two of the king’s advisors mentioned inthe prologus are historically identifiable: Fredegar highly acknowledgesthe wisdom and erudition in sciences of Claudius,who filled the office of maior domus in 605, 56 and mentionsChadoind as Dagobert I’s referendarius and commander. 57(Detlef Liebs identifies Claudius mentioned by Fredegar withthe Claudius included in the prologus. 58 ) Regarding Agilulf,we can think of the bishop mentioned by Fredegar concerningthe events of the year 642, 59 and of a bishop of Avignonregarding Magnus. 60 At the same time, we cannot ignore thatother sources do not speak about Dagobert I’s lawmaking ac-53Nr. 7-9, m g h ll 2, Cap. 1, ed. A. Boretius, Hannover, 1883.54Pactus Legis Alamannorum, 21-34. Cf. C. Schott, 1978, 1927; R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 2001, 201.55See also F. Beyerle —cf. m g h LL 1, 2, 2, edd. F. Beyerle-R. Buchner, Hannover,1951, 27—. On the other hand see E. Mayer, 1886, 133 ff.; P. Landau, 2004,32.56Fredegarius, Chronicae 4, 28: “Anno 11 regni Teuderici subrogatur maiordomus Claudius genere Romanus, homo prudens, iocundus in fabolis, strenuus incunctis, pacienciae deditus, plenitudinem consiliae habundans, litterum eruditus,fide plenus, amiciciam cum omnibus sectans”.57Fredegarius, Chronicae 4, 78: “Dagobertus de universum regnum Burgundiaeexercitum promovere iobet, statuens eis capud exercitus nomeni Chadoindumreferendarium, qui temporebus Theuderici quondam regis multis priliis probaturstrenuos”.58D. Liebs, 75 ff.59Fredegarius, Chronicae 4, 90: “Eodemque diae qio ibidem peraccesseratAilulfo Valenciae urbis episcopo et Gysone comite ad prevedendum que agebanturAugustedunum dirixerat”. On Agilulf see E. Zöllner, 1951, 246 ff.; idem, 1965.60P. Landau, 2004, 33.

168 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumtivity covering Bavarian territories, and Theuderich I’s role asAlemannian and Bavarian lawmaker could not be more thanmere legend, for sources give account of the appearance ofBavarians for the first time only one and a half decades afterTheuderich’s death, i.e. 533, and the territory of the later Bavariacould not have been under Frankish authority then. 61With regard to dating Lex Baiuvariorum, Peter Landau paysspecial attention to the column of the introduction, which canbe found in most of the manuscripts: “Hoc decretum est apudregem et principes eius et apud cunctum populum christianumqui infra regnum Mervungorum consistunt”. 62 The Frankishruler from whom the lawmaking initiative set out is not regnumFrancorum but regnum Mervungorum, that is, emphasisis shifted from belonging to the people of the Franks to thedynasty. This emphasis will have any sense only in the eventthat the creator of the text intends to support the Merovings’royal claim —possibly just because it is in danger. 63It is well-known that approximately a century before theCarolingians’ actual takeover already the rulers of the Merovingiandynasty were present in politics merely as puppet kings,actual governance was concentrated in the hands of maioresdomus, and after Theuderich IV’s death in 737, Charles Martell,until his death, i.e., 741, not caring to keep up appearanceseither, did not replace him by a king, and governed theFrank empire for lack of a de iure ruler. 64 The sons of CharlesMartell, Karlmann and Pippin set a puppet king, ChildebertIII, in 743, from the Merovingian dynasty, but after his deathin 751 Pippin had himself crowned king. 65 During the yearsbetween 737 and 743, discord around Charles Martell’s estate61Ibid., 34.62E. Schwind, 1926, 267.63P. Landau, 2004, 34.64E. Ewig, 202 ff.65W. Affeldt, 95-187.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 169evolved between his elder sons, Karlmann and Pippin, andhis son from his second wife from the Agilolfing dynasty,Swanahilt brought with him from the campaign in Bavaria in725, Grifo, who was through his mother a relative of Odilo,who ruled as a duke of Bavaria from 736. Charles Martell’sdaughter, Hiltrud married Odilo, after her father’s death, ignoringher brothers’ opposition, encouraged by her stepmother,Swanahilt, a relative of the Bavarian ruler. 66 Odilo, as CharlesMartell’s son-in-law, most probably supported Grifo’s claim tothe Frankish throne. 67 In 743, Pippin and Karlmann marchedin arms against Bavaria, and this campaign ended with thedefeat of the Bavarians. 68 After Odilo’s death, in 749, Grifoattempted to seize power in Bavaria; several dignitaries, includingthe Alemannian duke, count Lantfrid and count Suitgerjoined him; Pippin defeated the rebels and made the theneight years old Tasilo the duke of Bavaria, under his sister’sguardianship. 69The Bavarian duke, Odilo could well legitimise his oppositionto Charles Martell’s sons by his loyalty to the ruler fromthe Merovingian dynasty even if the throne was not filledat that time. Perhaps, the brothers put the last puppet king,Childebert III on the throne, among others, in order to deprivethereby the Frank/Bavarian opposition of legitimacy. It wasfor this reason that it could have been expressly useful to theBavarian ruler if Lex Baiuvariorum referred to regum Francorumsimply as regnum Mervungorum just as the Agilolfingdynasty’s claim to the throne of Bavaria must have been setout in the law for the same reason 70 because at that time Odilo66K. Reindel, 1981b 2 , 124.67H. Löwe, 1955, 85 ff.; J. Jarnut, 273 ff.; K. Reindel, 1981b 2 , 124.68J. Jahn, 1991, 186 ff.69Annales Regni Francorum a. 748, Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 748, AnnalesMettenses priores a. 749.70Lex Baiuvariorum 3, 1: “Dux vero praeest in populo, ille semper de genereAgilolfingarum fuit et debet esse, quia sic regni antecessores nostri concesserunt

170 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumdid not sit safely on his throne. Based on all that it can bemade probable that Lex Baiuvariorum obtained its final formbetween 737 and 743, and it cannot be considered a royal law(Königsgesetz) because it was made not in a Bavaria subjectedto the Frankish royal power also in terms of public law. 71The date of creation between 737 and 743, presumed byHeinz Löwe and Peter Landau, is supported by the ecclesiasticalinfluence of an extent far exceeding German folk lawsthat can be identified in Lex Baiuvariorum. The text of thelaw makes it clear that its compiler set out of the knowledgeof canon rules and a clearly circumscribed church organisation.72 It was by that time that the church organisation obtaineda crystallised form in Bavaria. Pope Gregory III appointedBonifatius his legate, who determined four episcopalsees eventually in Bavaria: Regensburg, Passau, Salzburg andFreising —these towns obtained a significant role not onlyas secular centres; in the case of Regensburg, Salzburg andFreising their sacral legitimisation was ensured by the activityof missionaries, Emmeram, Rupert and Korbinian too. 73 Hedid not acknowledge the (abbot)bishops acting at these foursees as diocesan bishops —without doubting their bishop’srank— and filled their places by bishops ordained by him:by John in Salzburg, Erembert in Freising, and Gaubald inRegensburg; 74 In Passau, in spite of his reservations, he leftVivilo in his office, which was confirmed by the pope. 75 Itis possible that around 740 —when the first Bavarian moneis;qui de genere illorum fideles regi erant et prudens ipsum constituebant ducemad regendum populum illum”.71K. Beyerle, 1926, LII; P. Landau, 2004, 36.72Cf. Lex Baiuvariorum 1, 12: “De ‘caetereis causis’ praesbiteri diaconi velclerici ab episcopis secundum illorum canones iudicentur”.73H. Schmidinger, 94.74Vita Bonifatii 7; K. Reindel, 1981b 2 , 229 ff.; Th. Schieffer, 180 ff.75Bonifatius, Epistolae, 45; Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2251.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 171asteries were founded 76 — Isidorus’s works were known tothe compiler of Lex Baiuvariorum, and that he used themfor the “legal philosophy” arguments of the prologus, whilehalf a century before there would have been not much chancefor that. 77 Beyond that, the fact that the compiler of Lex Baiuvariorumused Lex Alamannorum too during his work alsosupports dating the work sometime between 737 and 743. 78According to communis opinio, Lex Alamannorum was madeon duke Lantfrid’s initiative sometime between 712 and 730. 79However, Baesecke did not rule out close co-operation betweenthe monastery of Reichenau founded in 724 by Pirminand the duke’s agents. 80 In view of the, most probably quiteclose, kin-relationship between Lantfrid and Odillo, 81 it canbe presumed that Odilo’s program as a duke contained collectionof the legal material as he had seen it implemented in thecase of Lantfrid. 82Peter Landau raises the question whether in their workthose entrusted by Odilo could use any kind of earlier legalmaterial on Bavaria, possibly arising from the age of theMerovings, which in a revised or supplemented form couldhelp them fulfil their task. 83 (In regards to Alemannia it canbe taken for granted that the compilation initiated by dukeLantfrid was actually a kind of renovatio since the manuscriptof Pactus Legis Alamannorum from the early 7 th c. is availableto us.) Heinrich Brunner set up the hypothesis that both76J. Semmler, 294 ff.; H. Dopsch-H. Wolfram, 26 ff.; J. Jahn, 1991, 192 ff.; W.Störmer-H. Dannheimer, 305 ff.77See B. Bischoff, 1966, 171-194.78P. Landau, 2004, 37.79C. Schott, 1978, 1878 ff.; idem, 1974, 135 ff.80G. Baesecke, 28.81E. Zöllner, 1951, 260 ff.; J. Jahn, 1991, 123.82P. Landau, 2004, 38.83Id.

172 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumcertain parts of Lex Alamannorum and the 1 st and 2 nd titles ofLex Baiuvariorum go back to a lost Merovingian royal law.However, he claims that the text of the original law cannotbe reconstructed. 84 His arguments are based mainly on thefact that in defining its own scope of territory Lex Baiuvariorumoften uses the phrase illa provincia, and based thereonBrunner believes that the Bavarian lawmaker would not haveused this somewhat degrading phrase with regard to the independentBavaria ruled by the Agilolfings. 85 At the sametime, in the usage of the first half of the 8 th c —especially inthe usage of the Church, which should be taken into accountregarding the monks who edited Lex Baiuvariorum— theyquite often referred to independent territories as provincia;Pope Gregory III (731-741), for example, used the phrase inBaioariorum provincia when he praised Bonifatius’s achievementsin Bavaria. 86 The pronoun illa standing before provinciadoes not sound special or disdainful, considering the factthat Bavaria was only the place of living and activity and notthe mother country of the clergymen who compiled the textof the law. 87Based on that evidence, it seems to be rather doubtful thatthe narrative on the “history of codification” set out in theprologus can be considered historically authentic. 88 However,if we accept this standpoint, the question might arise whatprefigurations, sources the editor of Lex Baiuvariorum coulduse with respect to the parts of the prologus that were notbased on Isidorus’s Etymologiae. Childebert and Chlothar aslawmakers are referred to by the manuscript of Lex Salica 8984H. Brunner, 619.85Ibid., 569.86Bonifatius, Epistolae, 45.87P. Landau, 2004, 39.88Ibid., 40.89R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 1991, 1959.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 173from Wolfenbüttel already. 90 Two versions of the prologus ofLex Salica —drafted before the first half of the 8 th c., i.e., thetime when Lex Baiuvariorum was made— mentions four men(electi de pluribus viris quattuor), who set the text of Frankishfolk law in a final form in three sessions. 91 So, the narrative onthe four-member committee might have been included in LexBaiuvariorum upon the effect of Lex Salica. Presumably, theauthor borrowed the names of Claudius and Chadoind fromFredegar’s Chronica; 92 here Agilulf’s name most probablycovers a fictitious person referring to the family of Bavariandukes and not a historical person; 93 regarding the name of thefourth man, Magnus, views vary. Konrad Beyerle considersit a well-sounding but colourless and unidentifiable name, 94and Peter Landau connects it with the praefectus praetoriowho acted as a legal scientist around 460 in the court of thewestern Gothic king, Theuderich II, Magnus of Narbonne,who was highly praised owing to his education by SidoniusApollinaris in a panegyricus. Thus, it cannot be ruled out thepossibility that the reference to Magnus’s name may be nothingelse than a kind of allusion to the prototype of the legaladvisor of German rulers. 95 Taking all the above into account,in agreement with Landau, it can be stated that the history oforigin suggested by the prologus does not stand its groundas the source of the creation of Lex Baiuvariorum. However,it provides lots of additional information regarding the legalapproach, education, consciousness of identity of the 8 th c.compilers. To the question whether Lex Baiuvariorum wasalso preceded by a kind of Pactus legis Baiuvariorum —just90M. Krammer, 466 ff.91R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 1991, 1951.92K. Beyerle, 1926, LXIII.93P. Landau, 2004, 41.94K. Beyerle, 1926, LXIV.95P. Landau, 2004, 41.

174 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumas Lex Alamannorum was preceded by Pactus legis Alamannorum—it is not possible to give a reassuring answer or to setup a more or less credible hypothesis either. 96The place of creation of Lex BaiuvariorumRegarding the place of creation of Lex Baiuvariorum, the literaturehighly appreciates the hypothesis set up by KonradBeyerle, 97 currently represented among others by Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand, which states that the place of creation is most probablythe monastery of Niederalteich. 98 Isabella Fastrich-Sutty,when investigating the impact produced by the western Gothicfolk law, by the earliest western Gothic law-book, Codex Euricianuson Lex Baiuvariorum, has made the following statements:the compilers considerably screened the western Gothicprovisions that could not be applied to Bavarian conditions,completely eliminated certain elements and replaced others byex asse Bavarian law material. 99 To carry out this complicatedwork presuming high-level knowledge of the legal material,the compilers needed proper assistants and a library that containedboth secular and ecclesiastical legal materials. 100 If weaccept this statement, then neither the Frankish royal court,nor the Bavarian duke’s court could have been a proper placefor the work of compilation/codification, and Niederalteich didnot have a proper library or scriptorium either. 101If we continue to support the most probable period of creationaround 740, then, in theory, in this period three larger96Ibid., 42.97K. Beyerle, 1926, LXVI.98R. Schmidt-Wiegand, 1991, 1928.99I. Fastrich-Sutty, 140 ff.; 220 ff.100Ibid., 290.101P. Landau, 2004, 44; B. Bischoff, 1980, 5 ff.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 175centres can be possible places of creation of Lex Baiuvariorum:Salzburg, Freising and Regensburg. In Salzburg, a Christianmonks’ community existed in the early 7 th c. already, 102which was reorganised by Rupert —the phrase renovare inGesta Hrodberti might refer to that too 103 — as St Peter monastery.104 On the other hand, in view of the fact that the bishopricwas founded in 739, and that significant literary activitycould start only after Virgil was ordained bishop in 749, 105and that the library of the monastery provably contained legaltexts only after 790, it is not probable that Lex Baiuvariorumwas compiled in Salzburg. Freising is ruled out by the followingarguments. The bishopric was founded here only in 739, adecade after the operation of Corbinianus (717-728), and informationon significant cultural activity is available from theperiod of the bishop Arbeo (764-784); 106 furthermore, inthe 8 th c. Freising was under the direct influence of the Huosigenealogia rather than that of the Agilolfings, which againdoes not make it probable that a code taking sides with thecentral power of the duke was made here. 107 In favour ofthe third town referred to, Regensburg, the following argumentscan be put forward. Although it was made a regularbishopric as the duke’s seat only in 739, its Benedictine monastery,which soon adopted the name of St Haimhrammus(Emmeram), was the intellectual centre of Bavaria around 700already —quite interestingly, it was Romuald Bauerreiß whoraised the possibility for the first time in the literature that LexBaiuvariorum was created in Regensburg. 108 Thus, several ar-102K. F. Hermann, 32 f.103Gesta sancti Hrodberti confessoris, 8.104H. Dopsch-H. Wolfram, 26.105H. Wolfram, 1995, 262; H. Löwe, 1975, 100 ff.106J. Jahn, 1991, 149 ff.; ibid., 1990, 201 ff.107P. Landau, 2004, 45.108R. Bauerreiß, 162.

176 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumguments can be made in favour of the point that Regensburg,or to be more precise the St Emmeram monastery, might havebeen the place of creation of the law, for the monastery had asignificant library in the 8 th c. already.ConclusionsThe earliest known manuscript of Lex Baiuvariorum, the CodexIngolstadensis, created around 800 and kept at the Universitätsbibliothekin Munich, was most probably made inRegensburg or in its vicinity, which proves the presence ofthe text of the law —in the strict sense of the word— on thisterritory. The compilers included the provision in the 1 st titleof the law that solely the bishop shall have jurisdiction on thegrounds of canon regulations over ecclesiastical persons, morespecifically, priests, deacons, and other clergymen, 109 whichmakes it probable that a collection on canon law was de factoavailable to the editors. The collection entitled Epitome Hispanawas already known in Bavaria in the middle of the 8 th c.,which is proved by the fact that it was quoted at the Councilof Aschheim in 756. 110 In 821, Baturich, bishop of Regensburgand abbot of the St Emmeram monastery had a canon law collectionmade by using this epitome, and the 8 th c. manuscriptfrom Copenhagen of this collection was safeguarded in theMiddle Ages at the monastery of Regensburg, and presumablyit was taken there from Gaul around 740. Based on all theabove, there are good reasons to presume that the compilers ofLex Baiuvariorum had some kind of education in canon law, asit is reflected in the relevant passages of the law. 111 Only one109Lex Baiuvariorum tit. 1: “De ceteris causis presbiteri, diaconi vel clerici abepiscopis secundum illorum canones iudicentur”.110P. Landau, 1995, 146 ff.111P. Landau, 2004, 48.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 177locus of Lex Romana Visigothorum published by Alarich II, 112which overlaps with Codex Theodosianus 113 shows 114 directimpact produced on Lex Baiuvariorum, 115 and the provision setout in this passage bans clergymen from living together withalien women under the same roof. In spite of the direct impacton the text being of a low extent, it is a fact that the oldestmanuscript of this code left to us and at present safeguarded inMunich 116 was in Bavaria in the 8 th c. This clearly shows thatas early as then there was some kind of interest in Bavaria inthe work of law mediating Roman legal tradition too. Strongties of Lex Baiuvariorum to the Church are resolutely supportedby the duke’s sovereignty and the Agilolfings’ claim tothe throne, which allows to make it probable —as it has beenestablished by Konrad Beyerle too— that monks were givensignificant help from the duke to carry out the work of lawmaking.117At the end of our paper, we have a good chance of acceptingPeter Landau’s hypothesis that this work relation betweenthe monks and the duke’s court must have been much closerif we presume that the compilers of Lex Baiuvariorum includedthe monks of the St Emmeram monastery located atthe duke’s seat, in Regensburg, rather than the monks of themonastery of Niederalteich. 118 The date of creation between737 and 743 is supported by the ecclesiastical impact of anextent far exceeding that of German folk laws, which can beclearly demonstrated in Lex Baiuvariorum.112See H. Nehlsen, 143-203.113Codex Theodosianus 16, 2, 44.114Lex Romana Visigothorum 16, 1, 6.115Lex Baiuvariorum 1, 12.116m s München Clm 22501.117K. Beyerle, 1926, LXVI.118P. Landau, 2004, 50.

178 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumBibliographyAffeldt, W., “Untersuchungen zur Königserhebung Pippins”, FrühmittelalterlicheStudien, 14, 1980, 95-187.Annales Mettenses priores a. 749, ed. B. v. Simson. m g h ss rer. Germ. inusum scholarum, 10, Hannover-Leipzig, 1905.Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 748, ed. F. Kurze. m g h ss rer. Germ. inusum scholarum, Hannover, 1895.Annales Regni Francorum a. 748, ed. F. Kurze. m g h ss rer. Germ. in usumscholarum, 6, Hannover, 1895.Baesecke, G., “Die deutschen Worte der germanischen Gesetze”, Beiträgezur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 59, 1935, 28.Bauerreiss, R., Kirchengeschichte Bayerns I, St. Ottilien, 1949.Becher, M., “Zum Geburtsjahr Tassilos III”, Zeitschrift für bayerischeLandesgeschichte, 52, 1989, 9 ff.Beyerle, F., “Die süddeutschen Leges und die merowingische Gesetzgebung”,Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, KanonistischeAbteilung, 49, 1929, 264 ff.—, “Die süddeutschen Leges und die merowingische Gesetzgebung”,Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, KanonistischeAbteilung, 73, 1956, 84 ff.Beyerle, K., Lex Baiuvariorum. Lichtdruckwiedergabe der IngolstädterHandschrift, München, 1926.Bischoff, B., Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken inder Karolinderzeit I. Die bayrischen Diözesen, Wiesbaden, 1960 2 .—, “Die europäische Verbreitung der Werke Isidors von Sevilla”, in MittelalterlicheStudien, I, Stuttgart, 1966, 171-194.—, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der KarolingerzeitII. Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen, Wiesbaden,1980.Bonifatius, Epistolae 45, ed. M. Tangl, m g h ee selectae, Berlin, 1916.Brunner, H., “Über ein verschollenes merowingisches Königsgesetz des7. Jahrhunderts”, in Abhandlungen zur Rechtsgeschichte I. Weimar,1931, 598-621. (= Sitzungsber. Akad. Berlin, 39, 1901, 932-955.)Classen, P., “Bayern und die politischen Mächte im Zeitalter Karls desGroßen und Tassilos III”, in Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Vorträge und Forschungen,28, Sigmaringen, 1983, 235.Concilium Ascheimense, m g h ll III, 2, 1, ed. A. Werminghoff, Hannover,1906.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 179Dopsch, H.-H. Wolfram, “Neubeginn oder Kontinuität? Probleme um dieAnfänge vom St. Peter”, in Das älteste Kloster im deutschen Sprachraum-St.Peter in Salzburg, Salzburg, 1982, 26 ff.Eckhardt, K. A., “Die Lex Baiuvariorum. Eine textkritische Studie”, Untersuchungenzur deutschen Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, 38, Bresslau,1927, 68.Elbern, V. H., “Tassilokelch”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters VIII, 1997.Erkens, F.-R., “Summus princeps und dux quem rex ordinavit. Tassilo III.im Spannungsfeld von fürstlichem Selbstverständnis und königlichemAuftrag”, in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8.Jahrhundert. Hrsg. v. L. Kolmer-Chr. Rohr. Regensburg, 2005, 22.Ew i g, E., Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich, Stuttgart, 1988.Fastrich-Sutty, I., “Die Rezeption des westgotischen Rechts in der LexBaiuvariorum”, Erlanger juristische Abhandlungen, 51, Köln, 2001,140 ff.Fredegarius, Chronicae, ed. B. Krusch. m g h ss rer. Merov. 2. Hannover,1888.Freund, S., “Von den Agilolfingern zu den Karolingern. Bayerns Bischöfezwischen Kirchenorganisation, Reichsintention und karolingischerReform (700-847)”, Schriften zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte, 144,München, 2004, 89 ff.Gauert, A., “Das Zepter Herzog Tassilos III”, Deutsches Archiv für Erfoschungdes Mittelalters, 18, 1962.Gesta Sancti Hrodberti Confessoris 8, ed. W. Levison, m g h ss rer. Merov,6, Hannover-Leipzig, 1913.Hermann, K. F., Geschichte der Erzabtei St. Peter zu Salzburg I, Salzburg,1996.Heymann, E., “Textkritik der Lex Bajuwariorum”, in Papsttum und Kaisertum.Festschrift für Paul Kehr zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von A.Brackmann, München, 1926, 116-137.Jahn, J., “Ducatus Baiuvariorum. Das bairische Herzortum der Agilolfinger”,Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 35, Stuttgart,1991, 186 ff.—, “Virgil, Arbeo und Cozroh. Verfassungsgeschichtliche Beobachtungenan bairischen Quellen des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts”, Mitteilungender Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, 130, 1990, 201 ff.Jarnut, J., “Studien über Herzog Odilo (736-748)”, Mitteilungen des Institutsfür österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 85, 1977, 273 ff.Kolmer, L., “Regensburg oder Salzburg? Die Christianisierung der Bayernund die Errichtung kanonischer Bistümer”, in 1200 Jahre ErzbistumSalzburg. Die älteste Metropole im deutschen Sprachraum. Hrsg.von H. Dopsch-P. F. Kramml-A. S. Weiß, Salzburg, 1999, 13 ff.

180 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumKolmer, L., “Zur Kommendation und Absetzung Tassilos III”, Zeitschriftfür bayerische Landesgeschichte, 43, 1980, 293.Kottje, R., “Die Lex Baiuvariorum-das Recht der Baiern”, in Überlieferungund Geltung normativer Texte des frühen und hohen Mittelalters.Hrsg. von H. Mordek, Sigmaringen, 1986, 9-23.Kr a m m e r, M., “Zur Entstehung der Lex Salica”, in Festschrift für HeinrichBrunner, Weimar, 1910, 466 ff.Krause, F., “Die liberi in der lex Baiuvariorum”, in Festschrift für MaxSpindler zum 75. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von D. Albrecht-A. Kraus-K.Reindel, München, 1969, 70 ff.Krusch, B., Die Lex Bajuvariorum, Berlin, 1924.—, “Neue Forschungen über die drei oberdeutschen Leges: Bajuvariorum,Alamannorum, Ribuariorum”. Abh. Ges. s. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-hist.Klasse, Neue Folge XX, 1, Berlin, 1927, 39 ff.Landau, P., “Kanonessamlungen in Bayern in der Zeit Tassilos III. undKarl des Großen”, in Bayern und Europa. Festschrift für Kurt Reindelzu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Hrsg. v. L. Kolmer-P. Segl. Regensburg,1995, 146 ff.—, Die Lex Baiuvariorum. Entstehungszeit, Entstehungsort und Charaktervon Bayerns ältester Rechts- und Geschichtsquelle. BayerischeAkademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte3. München 2004.Lex Baiuvariorum, m s München, Universitätsbibliothek 8 o , 132.Liebs, D., “Römische Jurisprudenzz in Gallien (2.-8. Jahrhundert)”, FreiburgerRechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen, Neue Folge, 38, Berlin,2002, 62 ff.Lö w e, H., “Bonifatius und die bayerisch-fränkische Spannung”, Jahrbuchfür fränkische Landesforscung, 15, 1955, 85 ff.—, “Salzburg als Zentrum literarischen Schaffens im 8. Jahrhundert”,Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, 115, 1975,100 ff.May e r , E., Die oberdeutschen Volksrechte, Leipzig, 1929.—, Entstehung der Lex Ribuariorum, München, 1886.Mederer, J. N., Leges Baiuvariorum oder ältestes Gesetzbuch der Baiuvarieri,nach einer uralter Handschrift ins Teutsche ubersetzt, Ingolstadt,1793.Merkel, J., “Das Bairische Volksrecht”, Archiv der Gesellschaft für älteredeutsche Geschichtskunde, 11, 1858, 533-687.Monumenta Germaniae Historica LL (m g h ll), ed. Johannes Merkel, Hannover,1963.Monumenta Germaniae Historica LL (m g h ll), ed. F. Beyerle-R. Buchner,Hannover, 1951.

svpplementvm v, n o va tellvs, 2013 181Morsak, L., “Zum Tatbestand der Abtreibung in der Lex Baiuvariorum”,in Festschrift für Ferdinand Elsener. Hrsg. von L. Carlen-F. Ebel,Sigmaringen, 1977, 201 ff.Nehlsen, H., “Alarich II. als Gesetzgeber. Zur Geschichte der Lex RomanaVisigothorum”, in Studien zu den germanischen Volksrechten.Gedächtnisschrift für Wilhelm Eber. Hrsg. v. G. Landwehr. RechtshistorischeReihe 1, Frankfurm a. M., 1982, 143-203.“Pactus Legis Alamannorum”, in Leges Alamannorum, m g h ll 1, 5, 1, ed.K. Lehmann-K. A. Eckhardt, Hannover, 1966 2 , 21-34.Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. Ph. Jaffé, Graz, 1956.Reindel, K., “Recht und Verfassung”, in Handbuch der bayerischen GeschichteI. Hrsg. v. M. Spindler, München, 1981a 2 , 244 ff.—, “Das Zeitalter der Agilolfinger”, in Handbuch der Bayerischen GeschichteI. Hrsg. v. M. Spindler, München, 1981b 2 , 124 ff.Roth, P., “Zur Geschichte des Bayrischen Volksrechts”, in Festschrift fürProfessor Dr. von Bayer, München, 1848, 1 ff.Schieffer, Th., Winfried-Bonifatius und die christliche Grundlegung Europas,Freiburg i. Br. 1980, 180 ff.Schmidinger, H., “Das Papsttum und die bayerische Kirche-Bonifatius alsGegenspieler Virgils”, in Virgil von Salzburg. Missionar und Gelehrter.Hrsg. v. H. Dopsch u. R. Juffinger, Salzburg, 1985, 94 ff.Schmidt-Wiegand, R., “Leges Alamannorum”, in Reallexikon der germanischenAltertumskunde, 18. Berlin-New York, 2001 2 , 201 ff.—, “Lex Salica”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters V, 1991, 1931 sk.Schott, C., “Lex Alamannorum”, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschenRechtsgeschichte, II. 1978, 1878 ff.—, “Pactus, Lex und Recht”, in Die Alemannen in der Frühzeit. Hrsg.von W. Hübener, Bühl-Baden, 1974, 135 ff.Schwind, E. v., “Lex Baiwariorum”, m g h ll 1, 5, 2, Hannover, 1926, 184 ff.—, “Kritische Studien zur Lex Baiuwariorum III”. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfür ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 37, 1912, 415-451.Semmler, J., “Das Klosterwesen im bayerischen Raum vom 8. bis zum10. Jahrhundert”, in Das Christentum im bairishen Raum. Von denAnfängen bis ins 11. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. v. E. Boshof u. H. Wolff,Köln-Weimar-Wien, 1994, 294 ff.Si e m s, H., “Lex Baiuvariorum”, hrg, II, 1978, 1887-1901.—, “Lex Baiuvariorum”, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde,18, 2002, 305-315.—, “Handel und Wucher im Spiegel frühmittelalterlicher Rechtsquellen”,m g h Schriften, 33, Hannover, 1992, 85 ff.Stobbe, O., Geschichte der deutschen Rechtsquellen I/1, Braunschweig,1860.

182 nótári / <strong>remarks</strong> on dating and localising lex baiuvariorumStörmer, W.-H. Dannheimer, “Die agilolfingerzeitlichen Klöster”, in DieBajuwaren. Hrsg. von H. Dannheimer-H. Dopsch, Korneuburg, 1988,305 ff.Stutz, U., Konrad Beyerle. Ein Nachruf, Weimar, 1934.Vita Bonifatii 7, ed. W. Levison. m g h ss rer. Germ. in usum schol., 57,Hannover-Leipzig, 1905.Wolfram, H., Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich. Die Conversio Bagoariorumet Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit, Wien-München, 1995.—, “Das Fürstentum Tassilos III., Herzogs der Bayern”, Mitteilungen derGesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, 108, 1968, 159 ff.Zöllner, E., “Die Herkunft der Agilulfinger”, Mitteilungen des Institutsfür österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 59, 1951, 246 ff.—, “Die Herkunft der Agilolfinger”, in Zur Geschichte der Bayern. Wegeder Forschung 60. Hrsg. v. K. Bosl. Darmstadt, 1965.