The episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity

Abstract

The constitution Sirmondiana 1 of 331/3 is seen by a number of scholars as evidence that in the period 331/3–408 bishops had full jurisdiction, i.e. that even against the wish of one party, a case could be brought before his court and lead to an enforceable sentence (without, by the way, the possibility of appeal). Previous to and after this period this was only possible if both parties agreed, which reduces the bishop’s court to arbitration. However, Sirm. 1 cannot be authentic, not just because such an extension of jurisdiction without guarantee of appeal is amazing and contrary to the structure of Roman procedure, but also because the constitution gives the single testimony of a bishop full and conclusive power of evidence. That is contrary to another fundamental rule of Roman procedure, viz. the unus testis nullus testis rule, which rule, Constantine, just before and after the imputed issue of Sirm. 1, strongly confirmed. Particularly this, neglected by those in favour of authenticity, demonstrates that Sirm. 1 may not be considered as authentic. It is a forgery, likely concocted to buttress the claims of the Church in Merovingian Gaul for more power and combined with true constitutions to give it veracity.