THE SEVENTH-CENTURY KINGDOM 125by the king by virtue of his office in trust for the people and that
which he owned as his personal family property was firmly outlined:
' ... gifts presented to him by way of thanks should not be regarded
as his private property, but as being in custody for the people and
land (gens et patria.). Of all the things acquired by the kings, they may
only claim those parts which royal authority has enriched, but the rest
shall be inherited by their successors in (royal) glory, without it being
disposed of by testament, and leaving aside those personal goods
justly acquired before their reign, which will be received by their sons
or legal heirs'.63
Although the significance may not be fully clear to us, this seems
to be allowing monarchs to take certain profits from their activities
but strictly preventing them from treating royal property, doubtless
in the form of treasure and fiscal lands, as their own. Conversely,
it does also guarantee their own personal possessions from being
absorbed into the fisc. That this law is to be binding on all future
monarchs is made clear: ' ... it will remain in permanence, immut-
able, and none shall ascend the royal throne before having sworn to
obey it in all its parts. This law (lex) and episcopal decree (decretum)
shall not only be complied with in the future, but shall be obeyed in
the present, and any detractor or one who is not a venerator of this
law and decree, be he lay or cleric, shall not only be excommunicated
but also be deprived of his secular office.'64
This was the first time that a council issued a decree limiting the
autonomy of the holder of the royal office, and is evidence of the
strength of feelings aroused by recent excesses in the employment of
royal authority, notably by Chindasuinth. There are other indications.
The same council lifted the excommunications imposed on the
authority of a canon of VII Toledo of 646 on conspirators, and the
bishops justified themselves for breaking an oath they had there been
required to take. They used biblical and patristic citations, including
some from Isidore, to support their decision that an unjust and
unmerciful oath could not be binding. The effect of this was to par-
don the political opponents of the late king Chindasuinth who had
been penalised by his council of 646. Further evidence of the re-
action to the severities of that king after his death came in the form
of a letter of Fructuosus of Braga to King Reccesuinth urging him in
very forcible language to pardon former offenders and to free cap-
tives, and also a civil law of 654 that provided an amnesty for offences
committed against the king since the time of Chintila (636-639).65