The grand testamentum of Remigius of Reims: Its authenticity, juridical acta and bequeathed property

For over three hundred years numerous historians have argued that the grand testamentum of Remigius of Reims (d. AD 533) was a forgery. Some argued that Hincmar, the ninth-century archbishop of Reims, or Flodoard, the tenth-century archivist of Reims, was its fabricator. The suspected motivation for this invention was the need for church leaders to protect ecclesiastic property from being alienated by Frankish potentes. Due to these opinions, the grand testamentum of Remigius has been almost wholly ignored by scholars of the twentieth century.; However, many of the arguments disputing the testamentum's authenticity were based upon misreadings of the document, misleading etymological arguments, and exaggerations about the anachronism of terms found within the document itself. Analysis of the testamentum using modern diplomatic and prosopographic methodologies has resulted in the repudiation of the arguments used to declare it a forgery.; As a result, Remigius' will reveals new information about this period in two important ways. First, the properties that Remigius describes as in his possession expose crucial evidence for the economic strength and social influence of the archbishop within the civitas of Reims. Secondly, if one accepts the argument that there no longer exists credible evidence showing the document to be a forgery, then numerous acta perdita (lost legal documents) may be reconstructed from direct and indirect references made by the author. A clearer picture of sixth-century Reims, the role Remigius played, and the extent to which Roman legal practices carried on into the Merovingian period now emerges.; Remigius' position as bishop, missionary, and benefactor to the poor is further clarified by examining the location and size of the villas in his possession at the time he composed his will. A new image of the man is revealed---while he was certainly wealthy in comparison to the average Gallo-Roman of the period, he was by no means the richest of his counterparts, as detailed in a property comparison of all Merovingian testators with extant testamenta.