In September 506, bishops from across southern Gaul assembled at Agde, a Mediterranean town situated within the Visigothic kingdom of Alaric II. Their gathering, known as the Council of Agde or Concilium Agathense, took place during a period of political uncertainty, religious division, and institutional transformation as the Christian Church sought to preserve its authority in territories that had once belonged to the Western Roman Empire. Presided over by Caesarius, bishop of Arles, the council addressed matters ranging from clerical discipline and the administration of church property to marriage, monastic life, religious observance, and relations between Christian and Jewish communities.
The council’s surviving legislation provides a detailed picture of the responsibilities and concerns of the early sixth-century Church. Its bishops sought to establish consistent standards for clergy, regulate the administration of increasingly valuable ecclesiastical estates, and reinforce religious practices among ordinary Christians. Their decisions also reveal the social inequalities and religious prejudices of the period, particularly in their treatment of enslaved people, Jewish communities, and women entering religious life. Although many of these regulations drew upon earlier Christian traditions, their collection at Agde demonstrated a broader effort to maintain ecclesiastical unity at a time when the political future of southern Gaul remained uncertain.
The council is traditionally dated to September 11, 506, although some historical chronologies assign it to September 10. Its location and timing were significant because the participating bishops operated under a Visigothic monarch whose theological commitments differed from their own. Nevertheless, Alaric II permitted the Catholic bishops to assemble and establish regulations for their churches, illustrating the complicated relationship between religious authority and political power during the final years of Visigothic rule over much of southern Gaul.
Alaric II and the Religious Situation in Southern Gaul
By the beginning of the sixth century, the Visigothic kingdom controlled substantial territories in southern Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula. Its rulers had established their authority over regions where Roman administrative traditions, established cities, aristocratic landowners, and Christian institutions continued to exert considerable influence. Bishops had become particularly important figures in this changing society, exercising spiritual authority while also administering substantial property, supporting charitable activities, and representing their communities in dealings with political authorities.
The religious situation was complicated by differences between the Visigothic monarchy and much of its Roman population. Alaric II adhered to the form of Christianity commonly described as Arian, whereas Caesarius and the bishops who gathered at Agde belonged to the Nicene Catholic tradition. These theological differences created competing religious identities within the kingdom, although political and religious relationships were not defined exclusively by disagreement. Alaric’s decision to permit the council demonstrated that Catholic ecclesiastical organization could continue under a monarch whose religious commitments differed from those of its participants.
The council also convened during an important period of legal development within the Visigothic kingdom. In the same year, Alaric issued the Lex Romana Visigothorum, commonly known as the Breviary of Alaric, which gathered Roman legal provisions for use among his Roman subjects. Although the compilation and the Council of Agde were distinct undertakings, together they illustrate the continued importance of Roman legal and institutional traditions within Visigothic territory.
For the Catholic bishops, however, political accommodation did not eliminate the difficulties associated with governing their churches. The administration of ecclesiastical estates, disagreements over clerical conduct, inconsistent religious observance, and questions concerning episcopal authority required greater attention. The Council of Agde provided an opportunity to address these concerns collectively while reaffirming the religious identity of the Catholic communities living under Visigothic rule.
The Assembly at the Basilica of Saint Andrew
The council is traditionally associated with the Basilica of Saint Andrew in Agde, where bishops gathered to consider clerical discipline, episcopal ordinations, and matters affecting the welfare of their churches. Their first undertaking was to examine the decisions of earlier church authorities, establishing a foundation for their deliberations and presenting their work as a continuation of existing Christian legislation rather than an entirely new body of law.
Determining precisely how many ecclesiastical representatives attended the council has presented difficulties for historians because surviving manuscripts and older reference works do not agree. The evidence assembled by modern researchers identifies twenty-four bishops who attended personally, together with eight priests and two deacons representing absent bishops. Earlier histories sometimes report thirty-five bishops, although this figure should not be confused with the number of bishops physically present. Whatever the precise total represented by the different manuscript traditions, the assembly brought together a substantial gathering of church leaders from across the Visigothic territories of Gaul.
Caesarius of Arles presided over the proceedings and emerged as one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of his generation. Born around 470, he had entered religious life at the monastery of Lérins before becoming bishop of Arles in the early sixth century. His ecclesiastical leadership emphasized clerical discipline, religious instruction, preaching, and the improvement of Christian conduct among ordinary believers. The Council of Agde offered an opportunity to extend these concerns beyond his own diocese by establishing regulations that could be adopted throughout the region.
Under Caesarius’s leadership, the assembled clergy adopted regulations concerning ecclesiastical discipline, property, worship, and Christian conduct. Modern textual scholarship recognizes forty-seven canons as belonging to the original council, although later collections attributed additional legislation to Agde. Taken together, these surviving decisions offer an unusually detailed account of how bishops understood their responsibilities toward their clergy, congregations, and the institutions under their supervision.
Clerical Discipline and the Authority of Bishops
One of the council’s principal concerns was the conduct of those entrusted with ecclesiastical office. Its opening canons addressed clerics who had entered prohibited marriages, neglected their religious responsibilities, or resisted episcopal authority. The bishops sought to ensure that ordination carried obligations extending beyond the performance of religious ceremonies, requiring clergy to conform their personal conduct to the standards established by the Church.
Canon 2 authorized bishops to discipline clerics who neglected their duties or refused to participate properly in ecclesiastical life. Depending on their position and conduct, offenders could face restrictions on communion and temporary loss of their standing, although provision was made for their restoration following repentance. The following canon demonstrated that episcopal authority was not intended to operate without restraint. Bishops who excommunicated innocent people or imposed such penalties for insignificant offenses could themselves be challenged by neighboring bishops, who were instructed to intervene when ecclesiastical discipline was exercised improperly.
The council also reinforced existing expectations concerning clerical sexual continence. Canon 9 invoked earlier papal legislation associated with Innocent I and Siricius, requiring married priests and deacons to abstain from sexual relations with their wives. Clerics who had been unaware of the earlier regulations could retain their positions if they subsequently complied, although they were prohibited from advancing to higher office. Those who knowingly disregarded the requirements after receiving instruction faced removal.
The following canons restricted the association of clergy with women outside their immediate families and regulated the presence of women in clerical residences. These measures reflected the bishops’ concern with maintaining both religious discipline and the public reputation of the clergy. Rather than treating ecclesiastical office simply as a profession, the council presented it as a condition of life requiring particular standards of conduct, personal restraint, and obedience.
The bishops also established minimum ages for ordination. Canon 16 prohibited the ordination of deacons younger than twenty-five, while Canon 17 required candidates for the priesthood and episcopate to have reached thirty. For married candidates entering the diaconate, the council required the consent of their wives and a commitment to the continence expected of ordained clergy. These requirements reflected the belief that ecclesiastical leadership demanded maturity and that entry into religious office could carry significant consequences for existing family relationships.
Disciplinary regulations extended into other aspects of clerical life. Canon 38 restricted clergy and monks from traveling without appropriate letters of recommendation from their bishops, while Canon 41 condemned drunkenness among clerics and prescribed penalties that could include suspension from communion or corporal punishment. The prohibition on divination in Canon 42 was particularly revealing because it addressed the use of religious practices and scriptural texts for predicting future events. The bishops regarded such activities as incompatible with Catholic Christianity and ordered the exclusion of those who practiced or promoted them.
These decisions reflected an effort to strengthen the authority of bishops while maintaining greater consistency among clergy whose responsibilities extended across urban churches, rural congregations, and monastic institutions. The council’s repeated emphasis on obedience and appropriate conduct also suggests that episcopal leaders regarded the enforcement of existing ecclesiastical standards as an important responsibility.
Church Property, Enslavement, and the Protection of Freedpeople
The administration of church property occupied a substantial portion of the council’s legislation, reflecting the growing importance of ecclesiastical institutions as landowners and administrators of wealth. Churches possessed estates, buildings, agricultural resources, donations, and enslaved laborers, while bishops exercised authority over assets that were understood to belong to their religious institutions rather than to them personally.
Canon 4 addressed the wrongful retention of donations and property that had been given or bequeathed to churches and monasteries. Those who attempted to recover such gifts or prevent them from reaching their intended recipients faced exclusion from the Church until restitution was made. Canon 6 similarly required bishops to distinguish between their personal property and gifts received because of their ecclesiastical office, ensuring that donations intended for religious purposes remained with the Church.
The seventh canon established particularly important restrictions on the sale or transfer of ecclesiastical property. Bishops were prohibited from disposing of church estates, buildings, and other possessions without sufficient justification, particularly when those assets provided resources for supporting the poor. When a sale became necessary, the bishop was required to obtain the approval of two or three neighboring bishops, whose involvement provided an additional measure of oversight.
The same canon also addressed the manumission of people enslaved by the Church. Bishops were permitted to grant freedom to individuals considered deserving, and their successors were required to respect that freedom. However, restrictions were imposed on the property transferred to those who had been freed, including a limit expressed in the legislation as twenty solidi and provisions concerning small plots of land, vineyards, and houses.
Canon 29 extended ecclesiastical protection to people who had been lawfully freed from enslavement. When necessary, the Church was expected to defend such individuals against unlawful seizure, dispossession, or oppression. This provision illustrates how ecclesiastical institutions could exercise protective authority over freedpeople in a society where legal emancipation did not necessarily eliminate economic vulnerability.
The council’s legislation must nevertheless be understood within the social conditions of its period. Its provisions did not challenge the institution of slavery itself, and Canon 46 explicitly permitted bishops to sell enslaved people belonging to the Church who had fled and could not be retained after their return. The council therefore combined protections for some freedpeople with regulations that preserved ecclesiastical ownership of enslaved laborers. Its decisions provide evidence both of the Church’s growing economic responsibilities and of its continued participation in the slaveholding structures of late antique society.
Christian Worship, Fasting, and Religious Observance
Beyond ecclesiastical administration, the Council of Agde sought to establish greater consistency in the religious practices of Christian congregations. Its regulations concerning fasting, communion, liturgical celebrations, and church attendance indicate the importance that bishops placed on maintaining shared standards of worship across the dioceses represented at the assembly.
Canon 12 addressed the observance of Lent, requiring Christians to fast on Saturdays as well as other prescribed days while preserving the traditional exemption for Sundays. The following canon established a common time for presenting the Christian creed to those preparing for baptism, directing churches to undertake this instruction shortly before Easter. Together, these decisions illustrate the council’s effort to coordinate religious observance and baptismal preparation across different communities.
The eighteenth canon was especially significant for ordinary Christians because it required the reception of communion at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Those who failed to receive communion on these major Christian festivals were not to be regarded as Catholics. Although this requirement reflected an existing tradition of religious observance, its inclusion at Agde demonstrated the bishops’ determination to reinforce participation in the sacramental life of the Church.
Other provisions regulated where important religious celebrations could take place. Canon 21 permitted religious services in rural oratories under certain circumstances, recognizing that travel to established churches could be difficult for people living on distant estates. However, the bishops reserved major celebrations, including Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, Ascension Day, Pentecost, and the Nativity of John the Baptist, for recognized city churches and parish congregations unless special permission had been granted.
Canon 30 addressed the organization of public worship, requiring consistency in the use of prayers following antiphons and prescribing the celebration of morning and evening hymns. It also required the congregation to be dismissed from evening prayer with an appropriate blessing, demonstrating the importance attached to an orderly and recognizable pattern of communal worship.
The council concluded its original legislation with Canon 47, which instructed the laity to remain for the entirety of Sunday Mass rather than departing before the priestly blessing. Those who left prematurely could be publicly reprimanded by their bishop. This final regulation reinforced the broader objective of encouraging regular participation in Christian worship while ensuring that congregations observed the liturgical practices established by their ecclesiastical leaders.
Marriage, Monastic Life, and Religious Communities
The council’s attention to marriage and religious communities reflected the increasing importance of ecclesiastical authority over family relationships and the organization of Christian religious life. While regulations concerning clerical marriage were directed principally toward ordained men, other canons addressed the conduct of ordinary Christians and established restrictions on those entering monastic communities.
Canon 25 concerned married Christians who abandoned their spouses without presenting an acceptable justification before the appropriate bishops. Those who separated from their wives in order to enter another relationship faced exclusion from communion unless their separation had received ecclesiastical consideration. The regulation placed marital disputes within the jurisdiction of the Church, reflecting the bishops’ determination to exercise greater authority over the circumstances in which marriages could be dissolved.
The council also regulated women’s entry into consecrated religious life. Canon 19 prohibited women from receiving the religious veil before the age of forty, regardless of their demonstrated conduct or religious devotion. Although the surviving legislation does not fully explain the reasoning behind this particular age requirement, the decision reveals the restrictive conditions placed upon women seeking formal recognition within religious communities.
Additional canons established episcopal oversight over the creation and operation of monasteries. Canon 27 prohibited the foundation of new monasteries without the approval or permission of the appropriate bishop, while also restricting monks from obtaining clerical appointments without testimony from their abbots. Monks transferring between communities required permission from their superiors, and religious leaders were expected to respect the authority of other abbots over their members.
Canon 28 required women’s monasteries to be situated at a distance from men’s monasteries, citing concerns about temptation and public suspicion. The provision demonstrates how the bishops sought to regulate monastic communities through physical separation as well as institutional supervision. Their decisions reinforced the authority of bishops and abbots while restricting the freedom of individual religious communities to organize themselves independently.
The legislation concerning religious life also reflected the increasing institutional importance of monasteries within western Christianity. Monastic communities provided opportunities for religious devotion, scriptural study, charitable activity, and the preservation of ecclesiastical traditions, but their expanding influence also created questions about their relationship with established episcopal authority. By requiring the approval of bishops for new foundations and regulating the movement of monks between communities, the council sought to incorporate monastic life more firmly into the existing structure of diocesan administration.
Christians and Jews in Sixth-Century Gaul
Some of the council’s most historically revealing legislation concerned relations between Christian and Jewish communities. Jews had long been established in parts of Roman Gaul, and the survival of Jewish communities under Visigothic authority presented ecclesiastical leaders with questions about religious conversion, social interaction, and the boundaries separating different religious traditions.
Canon 34 established a probationary period for Jewish converts seeking admission into the Catholic Church. Those wishing to convert were ordinarily required to spend eight months among the catechumens before receiving baptism, although an exception could be made for individuals facing a potentially fatal illness. The regulation was explicitly based on the bishops’ suspicion of converts from Judaism and imposed conditions that reflected religious prejudice rather than an equal approach to Christian initiation.
Canon 40 extended the council’s restrictions into ordinary social relationships by prohibiting shared meals between Christians and Jews. The bishops instructed both clerics and laypeople to avoid Jewish banquets and forbade the reciprocal practice of receiving Jews at Christian meals. Their stated justification centered on differences in dietary observance, which they interpreted as creating an unacceptable inequality between the two religious communities.
This legislation was not entirely new. The Council of Vannes had previously adopted a similar restriction, and the bishops at Agde drew upon that earlier precedent while extending the prohibition to the laity. The decision illustrates the increasing willingness of ecclesiastical authorities to regulate everyday contact between Jews and Christians, even in situations that did not involve religious worship or theological disagreement.
These canons provide evidence of institutional hostility toward Jewish communities, but their existence alone does not establish how consistently the restrictions were enforced or how ordinary Christians and Jews responded to them. Nevertheless, their inclusion at Agde demonstrates that religious separation had become an explicit objective of certain Christian leaders in sixth-century Gaul, forming part of a broader development in which ecclesiastical legislation increasingly regulated relations between religious communities.
The Frankish Conquest and the Council’s Historical Legacy
The political circumstances surrounding the Council of Agde changed dramatically within a year of its meeting. In 507, the Frankish king Clovis defeated Alaric II at the Battle of Vouillé near Poitiers, resulting in the Visigothic king’s death and the loss of much of his kingdom’s territory in Gaul. The victory established Frankish control over substantial regions that had previously been governed by the Visigoths, transforming the political environment in which the bishops of Agde had exercised their authority.
Gregory of Tours, writing later in the sixth century, described the conflict in his History of the Franks, presenting Clovis’s victory as a triumph associated with his adherence to Nicene Christianity. His account illustrates how subsequent Christian historians interpreted the conflict through religious considerations, although the war itself took place within a broader struggle for political and territorial control.
Despite these changes, the ecclesiastical legislation produced at Agde continued to circulate. The First Council of Orléans in 511, convened under Clovis, addressed many questions concerning bishops, clerical discipline, and ecclesiastical property that had also occupied the earlier Visigothic assembly. The Council of Épaone in 517 likewise contributed to the development of church legislation in a neighboring kingdom, illustrating how regional councils remained important instruments of ecclesiastical administration as political boundaries changed.
Agde’s influence was also sustained through the copying and compilation of its canons. Medieval manuscript collections preserved the council’s legislation alongside decisions from other Gallic assemblies, allowing its regulations to remain available to later ecclesiastical authorities. One important surviving witness is an eighth-century manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, containing the Council of Agde alongside material from other Gallic church councils. Such manuscripts provide direct evidence of the council’s continuing importance within the developing tradition of Western church law.
The transmission of the council’s legislation has also presented an important problem for modern historians. While the original assembly is generally credited with forty-seven genuine canons, later collections attributed additional material to Agde, sometimes expanding the total to seventy-one. Textual scholarship has demonstrated that portions of this expanded collection were drawn from subsequent ecclesiastical legislation, particularly the Council of Épaone in 517. Consequently, the distinction between the original decisions and their later additions is essential when using the Council of Agde as evidence for the religious history of 506.
Why the Council of Agde Matters
The Council of Agde occupies an important position in the history of Western Christianity because its legislation reveals how ecclesiastical institutions sought to preserve and strengthen their authority during the transition from Roman imperial government to the emerging kingdoms of early medieval Europe. Its bishops operated within a kingdom ruled by a monarch whose theological commitments differed from their own, yet they were able to assemble, deliberate, and establish regulations intended to shape the religious life of their communities.
Their decisions addressed concerns extending well beyond theological doctrine. They regulated the responsibilities of clergy, the preservation of church property, the administration of religious communities, the observance of major Christian festivals, and the relationships between ecclesiastical institutions and the people under their authority. At the same time, the council’s treatment of enslaved people, Jewish communities, and women entering religious life reveals how religious legislation reflected the inequalities and prejudices of the surrounding society.
The council is particularly valuable because its surviving canons record the standards that bishops wished to establish, even where evidence of their actual enforcement remains limited. By examining these regulations alongside contemporary legal texts, subsequent councils, and the writings of early medieval historians, it becomes possible to trace the development of ecclesiastical authority across the changing political landscape of sixth-century Gaul.
More than fifteen centuries after the bishops assembled at Agde, the council remains a substantial witness to the institutional development of the Western Church. Its legislation illustrates the connection between religious practice, property, law, and political authority at a moment when the structures of the ancient Roman world were giving way to those of medieval Europe.
Sources & Further Reading
Council of Agde. “Concilium Agathense” (506). In Concilia Galliae. Latin transcription based on Jacques-Paul Migne’s Patrologia Latina. Wikisource. https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Concilia_Galliae
Munier, Charles, ed. Concilia Galliae a. 314–a. 506. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. Reprinted 2001. https://www.brepols.net/products/IS-9782503014814-1
Mansi, Giovanni Domenico, ed. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Vol. 8. Florence, 1762. https://books.google.com/books?id=3CVPAAAAYAAJ
Council of Agde. “Concerning Slaves of the Church, 506.” Canons 7 and 29. In Internet Medieval Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall. Fordham University, 1998. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/506agdechurchslaves.asp
Guillot, Lucie, Jean-Louis Zapater, and Henri Barthès, trans. “Textes latins et traduction française des canons du concile d’Agde.” In Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006, edited by Jean-Claude Rivière, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, 363–416. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Council of Agde, Concilium Agathense anno 506.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West, Source Record ER900. University of Warsaw, 2017. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=900
Bibliothèque nationale de France. Manuscrit Latin 1564. Eighth-century manuscript containing the legislation of the Council of Agde and other Gallic councils. Gallica. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9066891d
Klingshirn, William E., trans. Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters. Translated Texts for Historians 19. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.38238739
Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Translated by Ernest Brehaut. New York: Columbia University Press, 1916. Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/basis/gregory-hist.asp
Alaric II. Lex Romana Visigothorum, also known as the Breviary of Alaric. 506. Bibliotheca Legum, University of Cologne. https://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/lex/lex-romana-visigothorum/
De Clercq, Charles, ed. Concilia Galliae a. 511–a. 695. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. https://www.brepols.net/products/IS-9782503014838-1
Linder, Amnon, ed. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne State University Press; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997. https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/the-jews-in-legal-sources-of-the-early-middle-ages/
Nemo-Pekelman, Capucine. “Concilium Agathensis [c. 40].” RELMIN: Le statut légal des minorités religieuses dans l’espace euro-méditerranéen. Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes. https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/relmin/extrait40872/
Rivière, Jean-Claude, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, eds. Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Secondy, Louis. “Dans quel contexte religieux s’inscrit le concile d’Agde en 506?” In Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006, edited by Jean-Claude Rivière, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, 163–176. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Chalon, Michel. “Le concile d’Agde: discipline ecclésiastique.” In Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006, edited by Jean-Claude Rivière, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, 209–234. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Barthès, Henri. “Les prescriptions du concile d’Agde en matière de liturgie.” In Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006, edited by Jean-Claude Rivière, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, 279–290. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Chalon, Michel, and Philippe Dias. “Le patrimoine ecclésiastique.” In Le concile d’Agde et son temps, 506–2006, edited by Jean-Claude Rivière, Jean-Paul Cros, and Jacques Michaud, 291–302. Agde, 2008. https://www.etudesheraultaises.fr/publi/archeologie-le-concile-dagde-et-son-temps-506-2006/
Klingshirn, William E. Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/tdc84at6
Barcellona, Rossana. “Concili ‘nazionali’ e sotterranee rivoluzioni: Agde 506, Orléans 511, Épaone 517.” Reti Medievali Rivista 18, no. 1 (2017): 41–66. https://www.iris.unict.it/handle/20.500.11769/19023
Mathisen, Ralph W. “The ‘Second Council of Arles’ and the Spirit of Compilation and Codification in Late Roman Gaul.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 4 (1997): 511–554. https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.1997.0104
Mathisen, Ralph W. “Between Arles, Rome, and Toledo: Gallic Collections of Canon Law in Late Antiquity.” ’Ilu: Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones, Cuadernos 2 (1999): 33–46. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ILUR/article/download/ILUR9999440033A/26709
Freidenreich, David M. Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. https://books.google.com/books?q=David+Freidenreich+Foreigners+and+Their+Food+2011
Shahan, Thomas. “Council of Agde.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01206b.htm