In the prestigious series Collection Haut Moyen Âge, Alain J. Stoclet has published his second monograph on Pippin the Short. Stoclet is planning a total of four chronological volumes on the first Carolingian king, covering the years 714-741, 741-751, 751-768 and post 768 respectively. The first volume, on the period up to the attainment of the mayoralcy in 741, was already published in 2013 under the title Fils du Martel: La naissance, l’éducation et la jeunesse de Pepin, dit le Bref. In addition to the four chronological volumes, Stoclet intends to present a series of detailed monographic studies on Pippin. The book under review here is the first detailed study of this very ambitious project. It deals with the change from the Campus Martius (French: Champ de Mars) to the Campus Madius (French: Champ de Mai), which some scholars postulate for the middle of the 8th century. The volume aims to provide an answer to two questions, namely, on the one hand, what the Campus Martius was in the 8th century, and on the other hand, why Pippin replaced the Campus Martius with the Campus Madius.

The study itself consists of six chapters, which cover a good half of the book. They are followed by over 100 pages of appendices and another 100 pages of bibliography and detailed indices. In the prologue, Stoclet discusses the few sources that report a change from the Campus Martius to the Campus Madius, i.e., a possible reform by Pippin. The Continuatio Fredegarii mentions in passing that Pippin was the first to establish a Campus Madius instead of a Campus Martius. The Annales Laureshamenses report that in 755 the March field was moved to May. Finally, a good 100 years later, Hincmar of Rheims explains in his Vita Remigii that the Franks decided to call the assembly previously named after the pagan god of war Mars the "May meeting", after the month in which kings usually set out for war. The number of sources for this reform is small and the sources hint more than they explain. In what follows, Stoclet therefore goes to great lengths to contextualise and elucidate the character of the Campus Martius and the reasons for Pippin’s reform.

In chapter 1, starting with Du Cange, the author reviews previous research on the understanding of Campus Martius and discusses the mutually exclusive explanations of Campus Martius as referring to a place, a god, or a month. He rightly emphasizes that progress in this question is more likely to be achieved by an intensified study of the material at hand than by hoping for new sources.

Chapter 2 looks for parallels between late antique assemblies and the Campi Martii or Madii of the 8th century. Stoclet concedes that there are no direct parallels, but he emphasizes some not dissimilar aspects. The author also suggests that under the late Merovingians and early Carolingians certain ceremonial elements used during royal elevations would have been repeated annually, even though the sources, as he himself acknowledges, report nothing in this regard. He himself does not consider a connection with the Campus Martius to be convincing, but nevertheless very much worth investigating, since he does not want to exclude the possibility that later sources deliberately kept silent on this issue to prevent the rule of the early Carolingians from appearing fragile.

In chapter 3 Stoclet examines indirect references to Campi Martii by looking for events that took place on or around the Kalends of March but are not designated as Campus Martius in the sources. It is true that not every event on 1 March should be inferred to be a March field. But his statistical analysis discloses a significantly greater production of, for example, Merovingian royal charters at the beginning of March than at any other time of the year. In addition to Frankish assemblies, the author also takes a look at Lombard and Alemannic assemblies on 1 March and 1 May respectively.

Chapter 4 focuses on the Campi Madii. Stoclet interprets the changes to the general assembly in terms of name and date as part of cautious political experiments at the beginning of the Carolingian period. Above all, he refers to regular assemblies in the 760s and 770s. He explains a gap from 768 to 772 with the conflicts between Charlemagne and his brother Carloman. The disappearance of Campi Madii in the sources after 781 is attributed to the establishment of sub-kingdoms in Italy and Aquitaine, which would have put an end to the unified monarchy. He classifies the Campus Madiusin 790 as a deviation from the general rule.

In chapter 5 Stoclet goes back to the Merovingian period and analyses the annual assemblies of the late Merovingian kings reported in the Annales Mettenses Priores and other sources. In Stoclet’s view, the temporal distance of the Carolingian sources, and their intent to denigrate Merovingian kingship render any assessment of these assemblies difficult. However, a strong military character is recognisable, which is why the author expresses doubts about any diplomatic activities taking place at these assemblies due to the need for secrecy of military planning.

In chapter 6 Stoclet deals with calendrical issues. First, he suggests the prohibition of pagan festivals (for example, the unspecified festival on 1 March) at the Concilium Quinisextum in 691/92 as the reason for Pippin’s postponement of the Campus Martius. Secondly, he points to the study of the Quattuor Tempora in the 8th century. Thirdly, he deals in detail with the accusation raised against Louis the Pious at his second deposition that the emperor had summoned the army during Lent.

In his conclusion, Stoclet summarises his reflections and observations and presents an answer to the two central questions mentioned above. For him, neither Campus Martius nor Campus Madiusrefer to a specific place, but to the respective assembly. He sees many indications that the name means "assembly on the Kalends of March (or May)". However, this raises a problem that Matthias Springer pointed out as early as 1995 and that Stoclet cannot solve convincingly in his book. In his essay, Springer dealt, among other things, with the Campi Madii of the 760s and 770s, which, although undated in the sources, can be narrowed down in time by other events. He concluded: “Von keinem der angeblichen Maifelder können wir behaupten, daß es im Mai getagt hätte. Aber alle sogenannten Maifelder, von denen wir wissen, in welchem Monat sie veranstaltet worden sind, haben nicht im Mai stattgefunden.” [1] Therefore, it is very unlikely that Campus Madius refers to a meeting on the Kalends of May.

To the reviewer’s mind, Springer’s thesis is more convincing, according to which Campus Madius is a linguistic corruption of magis Campus (larger assembly), as Jörg W. Busch also emphasises in the most recent article on the subject. [2] More difficult to assess is the question of whether the name Campus Martius refers to the month of March. Springer denies this, too, and refers the name to a place named after the Roman god of war Mars. If the Campus Martius was a firmly established annual assembly on the Kalends of March in the late Merovingian period, it is also striking that quite a few assemblies dated to the beginning of March, such as the synods of Estinnes and Soissons in the 740s, are called by other names in the sources. Also, the question of the relationship of these two synods held each in only one part of the divided Frankish realm to Stoclet’s realm-wide Campus Martius, which theoretically should have taken place at the same time, remains open. These objections cast doubt on Stoclet’s thesis that Pippin moved annual March assemblies to May in order to implement a canon of the Concilium Quinisextum.

The reviewer’s doubts, however, should not distract from the fact that Stoclet has presented an erudite and important study that has brought many details to light, established new references, and recalled little-known texts such as De observatione quattuor temporum, of which he presents an edition and translation in the appendix. The fact that all sources are not only quoted in the original Latin or Greek, but that the original is also accompanied by a French translation, is another welcome decision of the author. The extensive tables (for example, 29 pages of tables in chapter 2 alone) and the eleven appendices testify to the author’s stupendous knowledge of material far beyond the Frankish region alone.

A bibliography and extensive indices round off the book. The bibliography already announces the next two monographs on Pippin planned by Stoclet, namely the next chronological volume on the period as mayor of the palace (741-751) and the next detailed study under the title Anti-Lesne ou: Archevêque, métropolitains et conciles. Contributions à l'étude des cadres supérieurs de l’Église latine du VIe au IXe siècle. Regardless of which of the two books is to appear next, it will certainly be eagerly awaited, and not only by the reviewer.

-------

Notes:

1. Matthias Springer, “Jährliche Wiederkehr oder ganz anderes. Märzfeld oder Marsfeld?,” inRhythmus und Saisonalität, eds. Peter Dilg, Gundolf Keil, and Dietz-Rüdiger Moser (Sigmaringen 1995), 297-324, here p. 322.

2. Jörg W. Busch, “Maifeld,” in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 3, 2nd edition (2014), 1174-1175.