Gift Guide

A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300-850


Michael Edward Moore is assistant professor of medieval and European history at the University of Iowa.
Read More Show Less
... See more details below
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (6) from $59.91   
  • New (4) from $59.91   
  • Used (2) from $69.94   
Sending request ...


Michael Edward Moore is assistant professor of medieval and European history at the University of Iowa.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780813218779
  • Publisher: Catholic University of America Press
  • Publication date: 10/26/2011
  • Pages: 456
  • Product dimensions: 6.40 (w) x 9.50 (h) x 1.40 (d)

Meet the Author

Michael Edward Moore is assistant professor of medieval and European history at the University of Iowa.


Michael Moore -- filmmaker, author, on-camera pest to those in corporate power -- has filmed two of the most successful film documentaries of all-time and wrote the top nonfiction bestseller for 2002. But his most famous act on camera may be one that he didn't film himself.

Even those who weren't watching the Oscar telecast in the spring of 2003 must have heard about it during the aftermath. Moore, collecting his best documentary Oscar for Bowling for Columbine and joined by his fellow nominees onstage, proclaimed his dedication to nonfiction in his work and took aim at the fiction he said he saw all around him.

"We like nonfiction, and we live in fictitious times," he said to a mix of boos and cheers. "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or fiction of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

At least it was short.

Moore has been telling truth to power -- or, to his critics, his version of the truth -- long before his groundbreaking 1994 documentary Roger & Me attempted to corner the General Motors chairman Roger Smith on why his company closed its plant in Flint, Mich., in favor of 11 new plants in Mexico.

He founded the alternative newspaper The Flint Voice in the 1970s, started a weekly radio show in Flint, and became the youngest school board member in the country when he ran for office in 1972. He was fired from the liberal magazine Mother Jones, reportedly for liberal activism.

But it was Roger & Me that made him something of an icon for the left. Heavy, sloppily dressed, almost always sporting a scruffy beard and a baseball cap, Moore is an everyman with a camera crew. And he has bones to pick with so many in power: General Motors, Kmart, the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich looks hopefully to Moore as the left's rallying counterpoint to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, a welcome gust of humor from the deadly earnestness of the liberal movement.

"Like Mr. Limbaugh at his least grandiose best," Rich wrote in 2003, "Mr. Moore's persona is more funny than angry, more everyman than show-biz. He is not, as he puts it, ''a didactic, wimpy kind of liberal' -- one of those whiners that makes audiences reach for the remote faster than you can say ‘Phil Donahue.' Mr. Moore may not be subtle as a filmmaker or a polemicist, but the grandstanding glee of his broad strokes is precisely what makes him succeed as a showman."

Anyone familiar with Moore's tone on camera – from Roger & Me to Bowling for Columbine to his short-lived television program TV Nation, sort of an extended, edgy Candid Camera-style prank afflicted on the rich – will recognize him in print as well.

"As someone with a penchant for demagoguery, someone who thinks that the present political structure needs ‘to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control,' Mr. Moore plays to the camera even when he's doing it on the page," Janet Maslin wrote in The New York Times in 2003, reviewing his book Dude, Where's My Country?

In his first book, Downsize This he jabbed at downsizing-happy corporate executives and other piñatas favored by the left. He followed that up with Stupid White Men he examined the new century after the bust of the New Economy and prayed for Jesse Helms to get kissed by a man. And, in 2003, he released Dude, Where's My Country? calling for a regime change in Washington. (One tidbit: The Internal Revenue Service actually has a specific form for tax refunds of $1 million or more. Perhaps some of you have seen it.)

With his first two books, Moore was something of a lone liberal voice on the best sellers lists. By the time his third was released, he had to muscle his way through people like Al Franken and Molly Ivins to get to his audience.

"When Stupid White Men appeared, its brand of name-calling was more of a novelty on the best-seller list. Now it is luxuriantly in flower," Maslin noted in her Times piece. "Mr. Moore will no doubt share a readership with Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (which is funnier), Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's Bushwhacked (which is better informed) and Joe Conason's Big Lies (also better informed), if not with Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out for You? (politically opposite, but no less self-serving). But Mr. Moore, through real conviction along with showboating personality, does make himself the most galvanizing and accessible of the lot."

Liberals rub their hands with glee for equal time against Rush Limbaugh (who termed his own radio program "equal time.") But for some, Moore's brand of rhetoric is good news for the conservatives, not liberals.

"If this book is what passes for a political manifesto, then Tom Paine is truly dead," Alan Wolfe wrote of Stupid in The New Republic 2002. "Moore peppers his book with factoids, weird memos, open letters, bizarre lists, LOTS OF SENTENCES IN CAPITAL LETTERS, and name-dropping accounts of how he happens to know some members of the Bush family personally. It is meant to be satire, I suppose; but the only person skewered is Moore, who proves himself to be the only stupid white man around. Anyone bent on redistributing income in favor of the rich could not get a luckier break than having a critic like Michael Moore."

Good To Know

Moore is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association.

He is an enormous success in Germany. Publishers Weekly in 2003 reported that his book Stupid White Men sold 1.1 million copies during its first year in print in Germany, more than double than in the United States. Even the English version made the Spiegel bestseller list, the only book outside the Harry Potter series to do so.

Moore tangled with his publisher over the content of Stupid. HarperCollins had demanded changes in "offensive" material in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, but, with help from angry e-mails from librarians, the book was released unchanged.

Read More Show Less
    1. Date of Birth:
      April 23, 1954
    2. Place of Birth:
      Davison, Michigan
    1. Education:
      Attended University of Michigan, Flint

Read an Excerpt


Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300–850


Copyright © 2011 The Catholic University of America Press
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-8132-1877-9

Chapter One


* * *

The ensuing chapter comprises an overview of key aspects of episcopal public life, legal activity, and governance. The social stature of bishops and the social doctrine of episcopal councils in Gaul were crafted during the fourth century, a period corresponding to what is customarily termed the Gallican period of episcopal law (314–506 AD). During this period, the political world of Gaul was transformed as the late imperial world of Rome gave way to newly dominant tribal kingdoms, most notably the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, and Burgundians. In the late Roman world, bishops served in the important role of mediating between imperial centers of power and regional communities. The level of education and aristocratic background of most bishops gained for them the cachet of being part of the urban elite.

Later on, bishops would represent their cities vis-à-vis the kings of emerging barbarian principalities, despite the traditional Roman perception, inherited and shared by bishops, that those kings were the leaders of pagan, heretical, and uncouth nations (nationes) or tribes (ethnici). In the rapidly changing political world of Gaul, bishops expressed their understanding of the church as a social and political entity and as having an exclusive right to protected holy spaces.

In the late Roman world the texture of aristocratic life was rapidly changing. Serving as bishops, aristocrats adopted a Christian manner and appearance and established emotional and legal ties to urban Christian communities. The social importance of bishops grew ever more significant in the late Empire and was deliberately and conspicuously advanced by bishops themselves through prominent activities such as magnificent building programs, leadership over cult and community, and unwelcome but vital service as judges in the episcopal court system. Alongside these bishops were many other types of clerics, such as deacons and priests or presbyters, although the episcopate began to distinguish itself more and more.

In their councils, meanwhile, bishops developed a specialized body of law expounding their stature in an official way. In conciliar law we observe the regional actions of this cultural aristocracy partaking in ritualized gatherings in which bishops mutually heightened their stature and laid down legal procedures from which they mutually benefited. The resulting body of law expressed universalized social doctrines and developed a mode of authority looking back to the ancient Christian past.

Aristocratic Temples

Bishops of the late Roman Empire crafted a powerful public image of themselves as pious men leading lives of monastic rigor and personal discipline, and at the same time as men of aristocratic mold who could be relied upon to wield power skillfully on behalf of Christian communities. The image of the bishop was developed as a combination of holy man and governor, a figure whose authority was charismatic but also grounded in law and ecclesiastical history. Although their role as governors of church and society expanded substantially in the course of the fourth century, the bishops often claimed in their councils that their religious stature and governance were ancient prerogatives, based on the decrees of the saintly men of Christian antiquity. Connections to this ancient past were maintained especially in the medium of law.

According to Jean Gaudemet, bishops must have been involved in legal activity from an early period of the church's history. While the earliest phases of episcopal lawmaking and adjudication are not documented, this activity comes into clear view in the early fourth century in the records of councils. Gathering periodically in regional bodies, the bishops discussed and debated problems relevant to their governance of Christian communities, issuing canons to address them. Episcopal law conveyed a complete social vision in its lofty, moralistic language. The legislation of councils offers insight into the mentality of this ecclesiastical and social elite. Episcopal claims to religious authority, an emerging governmental style, and a specialized language may all be found in the conciliar records. By the fourth century, moreover, bishops expected their voices to be heard. They preserved a familiar type of aristocratic leadership, but transposed into a new Christian key, with a new ethical tone. By serving as bishops, the well-educated and wealthy elites of the Empire could shape "alternative notions about leadership and authority in communities." Local elites of the late Empire were adept at mediating between the distant scene of imperial power and the local world of their constituencies. Bishops proved to be well-prepared to take over that mediating role as the arrival of barbarian tribes began to transform the Roman world. The lifestyles and activities of aristocratic Romans had to change, especially inside barbarian settlements.

Thus the imagination and hopes of the Roman aristocracy were turned toward the cool stone interiors of the church, where new opportunities for local leadership and mediation could be mapped out. Ambrose of Milan remained aware that the life of a bishop was distinct from a secular career, although it still involved the exercise of power. An ecclesiastical orientation helped to orient and stabilize an elite whose rise to prominence was in many instances recent. High clerical orders were absorbed into the aristocracy, which accordingly was "cloaked in ... sacred and secular prestige." Social power acquired a new guise with the dominance of these educated, elegant, and withdrawn gentlemen: the bishops maintained a style and appearance quite similar to the stoical ethos of earlier imperial elites, but they now engaged with their clientele in the intense, close-knit communal setting of Christian festivals and religious services.

The governors of the church were held to a seemingly contradictory set of standards. Theological discussions of political power in this period often reflected the ambition of Christian thinkers to serve as the privileged source of doctrine for the imperial state. According to Gregory the Great, the bishop should also live an ascetical life devoted to spirituality so that he could "glimpse the invisible world in contemplation," even while exercising a practical, effective, but nevertheless merciful style of government.

The coherence of episcopal power with earlier elites of the late Roman Empire may also be seen in the energetic building programs of bishops, above all of episcopal churches. Church construction went on at a steady clip during the final crises of the Roman Empire. The fifth century witnessed an episcopal building boom that transformed the topography of Gallic cities. In the apt phrase of Peter Brown, such foundations were "arguments in stone," meant to advertise the security of episcopal government during a period of troubling social and political change. Bishops built other civic structures, notably the bishop's residence, which combined the character of an aristocratic urban household with public spaces for meetings and the reception of visitors: "building patronage was ... a visible assertion of status within the city."

Most bishops had an aristocratic background and were accepted as highly qualified, therefore, to offer leadership for their communities. Most bishops came from curial and senatorial families. The church and its higher offices were an attractive alternative source of prestige and social position for the local aristocracy in Gaul and elsewhere in the Empire. These men were well-known to one another as the bluebloods of society, the "best men" (optimates viri), or even, in the phrase of Symmachus, "the better part of humankind" (pars melior humani generis), possessing a sensitive awareness of rank and hierarchy and always on the lookout for any slighting of their carefully nurtured prestige.

Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne (ca. 461–477) was one such, who relied on the weight of his personal background and his office when he established Rogations processions during a period of crisis in his city. When he built the Basilica of the Holy Apostles in Vienne in about 475, the church took its place in a cityscape already dense with Christian chapels, monasteries, and baptisteries. Bishops such as Mamertus were frequently involved in the basic planning of such building programs, right down to organizing the work of craftsmen and builders. His new basilica was intended to serve as the chief episcopal church of the city, a monument to Vienne's grand tradition of bishops going back to the time of the apostles. He also wished it to serve as a resting place for the bishops of Vienne, whose worthy bodies could be archived there as a tangible record of religious accomplishment and continuity. Indeed, as time went on, the church was overcrowded with the close-set ranks of stone tombs and graves of many bishops. The edifice conveyed a wonderful sense of confidence as Mamertus led his city in dealing with the Burgundians and their kings, who had occupied the city from the middle of the fifth century. The basilica announced that episcopal continuity would be maintained even under the dominance of the heretical Burgundians.

A bishop's cathedral was the centerpiece of his ritual stature in social affairs and his role as judge and governor. The cathedral, baptistery, and bishop's palace, arranged around the edges of the main square or forum in the heart of a city, gave the bishop a central stage of power befitting his governing role. Seated on his episcopal throne (cathedra), with his clergy gathered around him, the bishop faced his congregation much like a civil magistrate seated in one of the former city basilicas. This was a position both lofty and protective. For the bishops of Vienne, rivals of the bishops of Arles for religious prominence in Gaul, the basilica was a great jewel flashing the depth and extent of their significance. From such a center, the bishop's influence could be seen to extend over all Vienne's ecclesiastical institutions and the Christian people whose salvation he safeguarded.

A bishop's preeminence took visible shape in such buildings. The central basilica represented the government of the bishop over his community. Le Goff calls this the "remodeling of space." Episcopal prestige was also demonstrated in legal activities and ecclesiastical struggles. The bishops of Vienne had played a role in episcopal legislation and politics as early as 314, when Bishop Verus, accompanied by his exorcist, Beflas, attended the Council of Arles. In 398 Bishop Simplicius of Vienne sought to challenge the presumptive dominance of Arles before a council in Turin. A generation later Bishop Claudius, his deacons, and his suffragans were at the Council of orange in 441. This was a time of disruption as the invading Alans settled in the region. We know that Bishop Mamertus, in his turn, attended a council held in Arles in 470 to settle a dispute over the theology of predestination between Faustus of Riez and Lucidus. The participation of bishops in these councils gave them a voice in the operation of regional networks of aristocratic government.

The Ancient Canons

Ever since the days of St. Paul, Christian leaders had claimed a unique prerogative and responsibility to assemble and judge and make rules for the Christian community. In the late Empire, there were two types of councils, the big ecumenical or church-wide councils, meeting with the direct patronage and explicit interference of the emperor, and smaller regional councils. The latter were by far the most numerous. The records of such regional councils display many differences of style, relevant problems, and organization. African councils tended to be highly centralized, well-organized events. Councils held in Carthage possessed a special prestige and formed an unbroken order of authority throughout the fifth century. These were grand affairs: Carthage (398) was attended by 240 bishops. Gallic councils, in contrast, were more localized and dispersed, meeting in various cities. As a consequence they were often rather small. The Council of Riez (439) gathered eleven bishops to discuss an austere set of seven canons in this metropole of the old Roman province of the Maritime Alps. Two years later, the Council of orange brought together seventeen bishops. Despite such small numbers of attendees, Gallic councils gave bishops an opportunity to assemble as a privileged group and to forge personal ties with other bishops, sometimes across considerable distances.

As modest as these occasions may seem, given the numbers involved, the bishops presented their activities in tones of high seriousness. As legislators and governors, bishops claimed that it was their role to uphold "authority and tradition"—if need be, even in opposition to the power of emperors and kings. "Let us risk our souls for the flock," Hilary of Poitiers exclaimed, "because thieves came in, and a raging lion walks about." The raging lion in this case was Constantius II, a precursor of the Antichrist, Hilary declared, because of his interference in episcopal action and his promotion of the Arian heresy. The aristocratic groups of southern Gaul attempted to moderate the impact of imperial power and its intervention in the affairs of the church. The participation of bishops in regional governance, as religious figures protected by the sanction of holiness, added the subtle complicating element of religion. In the setting of the episcopal council the bishops of Gaul created and elaborated a legal and moral tradition to which they soon looked back as if it were something ancient and authoritative. By no means was this tradition simply inherited, but it was actively assembled, transposed into a Christian frame of meaning, and expanded.

The ideal of conciliar freedom and the mutuality of bishops were sometimes declared to be fundamental values, for in theory the will of God appeared to a council through the miraculous agreement of the attending bishops. Mutual recognition of episcopal power took the form of acquiescence in the exclusivity of each bishop's territory. It was believed that the Holy Spirit and attending angels were present at such assemblies. The brevity and reticence of council records do not enable us to peer into the actual give and take of debates within the council meetings, but conciliar decisions were always presented as certain and unanimous. While they continued the functionality of regional aristocratic assemblies, the councils possessed a new, distinctive religious dimension, as well.

Despite the claim of unanimity, the canons of many councils appear to record the successful arguments made by one victorious side in a dispute. In a study of the use of the Bible in later Merovingian councils, for example, Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet argued that bishops looked for a confirmation of their ideas and arguments from biblical passages, and did not find in them "an imperative juridical norm." Her findings seem applicable to the Gallic period, as well. In preparing to attend an important and possibly contentious council, it seems that leading bishops would prepare dossiers of legal and sacred texts for presentation. Strategies, debates, and arguments have left for us only subtle traces in the quotation of Biblical texts, as we see in the councils of Macon (581–583) and Lyon (583). The same can be said about the earlier Gallic councils: we know that debates were part of the basic functioning of the councils, but little trace of those debates remain. The presentation of dossiers of texts at Gallic councils is amply testified, and these were seemingly supported by Biblical passages or by collections of canon law. The values of collegiality and unity seem to have dampened the open expression of hostility.

The increasing depth and luster of the conciliar tradition provided bishops with a platform from which to view and attempt to shape the world around them. The legal tradition was crafted so as to offer stability to every bishop, filled as it was with directives and justifications for episcopal government. For that very reason, it can be difficult to distinguish the idealism of episcopal law from the actual activities of bishops. Often the councils were concerned with current problems arising from their governance over clerics, chapels, and monasteries and their control of land and buildings. Beyond this, moreover, Episcopal law had a spacious horizon. The law of episcopal councils included wide-ranging social doctrines regarding the nature of Christian society, which were expressed as the authoritative, communal decisions of episcopal authority. Good power was legal power. The concept of legality was an ancient Roman principle that shaped episcopal understanding of their role as regional judges and governors.

The bishops legislated as governors of the People of God, the Christian society that bishops themselves brought into existence through baptism. As will be seen, this society, the "people of God" (populus Dei), "Christian people" (plebs christiana), or "holy people" (plebs sancta) was intended as a contrasting category to the many clans or tribes (gentes) out of which it was created. In the developing Christian and episcopal social model it was the task of bishops to bring the gentes into the sheep-fold of the Christian people, and subsequently to govern them. New political federations of the Goths, Burgundians, and others were incorporated within the frame of ancient patterns of organized space, which continued to provide, in Christian guise, the unity and interconnectedness of the old Roman regions. Christian space largely adhered to this pattern.

From the fourth to fifth century, one can observe a flexible Christian historical vision: under the still-flourishing Roman Empire many Christians had come to believe that Divine Providence allowed the Roman Empire to arise in order to secure and pave the way for the Christianization of the world, the familiar concept of praeparatio evangelii. With the gradual collapse of Rome and the establishment of new barbarian kingdoms in its place, the historical perspective of Christians was transmogrified into a program of missionary expansion with a more central and independent role for bishops in bringing about the conversion of these barbarian peoples before the approaching end of time. Eschatological energy was added to the magnificence of episcopal government.


Excerpted from A SACRED KINGDOM by MICHAEL EDWARD MOORE Copyright © 2011 by The Catholic University of America Press. Excerpted by permission of THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Preface ix

Abbreviations xi

Introduction 1

1 Governing the People of God 21

2 The Spirit of the Gallican Councils 52

3 Bishops and the "Nations" 85

4 The Dignity of Power 122

5 Occupation of the Center 161

6 Missionary War and Reform of Kingship 203

7 Heresy and Consensus 243

8 A Kingdom of the Faithful 286

9 The End of Unity: The Abomination of Desolation 328

Conclusion: Yoking the Bull 368

Bibliography 377

Index 427

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)