This webpage, albeit bare, is devoted to furthering research into all aspects of the little studied and barely undertsood medieval ecclesiastic known as the archidiaconus, or archdeacon. After working on the history of archdeacons for several years, I have become painfully aware of both my dependence on the Web for research purposes and the Web's almost total lack of information on archdeacons. This is a preliminary attempt at remedying that situation.
        I am currently a PhD student at the Centre for Medieval Studies in the University of Toronto, preparing a doctoral thesis on the history of archdeacons. Specifically, my focus is on the dioceses of Lincoln and Paris. I hope that a comparison of the archdeacons in two rather different regions--though clearly part of the same northern European church--will prove beneficial to our understanding of the medieval church.
 

        The primary geographic and administrative unit that made up the church of medieval Europe was the diocese. Of near or equal importance were the parishes, any number of which made up each diocese. Church government had as its most basic concern the relationships between the diocesan bishop and the parish priest and between the priest and his flock. In order for the churchís primarily sacramental functions to continue, the priests and bishops could not directly operate the ever-expanding machinery of ecclesiastical government. A legion of diocesan assistants, vicars and officials were developed to solve this problem from the earliest days of organized Christianity, but they appear most obviously after the turn of the second millenium with the rise of a clearly international and bureaucratic church. The cog of ecclesiastical machinery with the longest and most complicated history was the archdeacon.
         Open any general or local history of the medieval church and you are bound to find an archdeacon at work: representing a bishop at council, advising a king in his chancery, punishing a wayward priest, instituting a monastery as rector of a rural church, or extorting yet another penny for Peter from a fearful village. The archdeacon has long been a prominentóand usually reviledócharacter in any given church history. On what foundations, though, do descriptions of medieval archdeacons rest? The answer is simple: very shaky foundations indeed, or even nonexistent.
         There are only a handful of studies specifically on archdeacons, and most purport to define one thousand years of archdeacons across Europe in a few pages. This is hardly sufficient exploration of ecclesiastical officers who ran dioceses in their bishopsí absence, challenged bishops in their presence, often became bishops themselves, and who held together the strings of diocesan government and could bring it to a halt with their obstinacy. Moreover, we have little undestanding of those many archdeacons who, thanks to--or in spite of--their office, appear prominently in royal courts, study in and run the schools and universities, and even pen many of the high Middle Agesí most famous works.
        What is needed to better understand the archdeacon are localized studies of specific dioceses, or at least provinces, especially in England and France. Many dioceses and archidiaconates now in present-day Germany and eastern Europe have enjoyed close scrutiny, though these studiesí findings have not been integrated into our picture of the western church. It is also often noted that Italian archdeacons are very different from those of north of the Alps, though with little explanation or specific comparison. As for the study of Spanish archdeacons, and the Iberian church in general, their history has barely been touched in its own right, let alone included in the story of Catholicism.
 

        In simplest terms, an archdeacon is a bishop's assistant in business for which the bishop doesn't have time. Archdeacons acted as the lead deacon in the performance of Mass at the cathedral church, as the bishop's vicar in councils and church visitations and, in the High Middle Ages, as the premier judge in ecclesiastical courts. The first mention of an archdeacon occurs ca. 370. They reached the height of their powers in the 11th through 13th centuries, and they were essentially removed from the church in all but name by the Council of Trent in 1553.
    As is often the case when trying to define anything in the Middle Ages, the "simplest terms" come nowhere near the difficult truth, and archdeacons are no exception. Archdeacons of the years 500, 1000 and 1500 would hardly recognize each other apart from their titles. Most dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "archdeacon" explain only those of around the year 1200, a very good time indeed, but hardly representative of all those who carried the name. The only good definition of archdeacons is, necessarily, about 30 pages long in an obscure dictionary:

          Amanieu, A. "Archidiacre," in Dictionnaire du Droit Canonique, I (Paris, 1935), cols. 948-1004.

Amanieu's entry is very good, and has stood the test of time, but there is still much work to be done, especially on specific dioceses, specific churches, and even on individual archdeacons. His description of archdeacons before the Carolingian era exhausts the sources and can only be improved by closer analysis of his discoveries (or by translation). After the earlier period, though, his work barely touches the vast number of resources in which archdeacons appear.
        While I agree with Amanieu on most of his major points, I have developed my own simple table in order to grasp the essence of an archdeacon in any given era:
 
 

Time Period	Status in the Church	DUTIES
300-700	Archdeacon as lead deacon in an ORDER	Primarily Liturgical
700-900	Archdeacon as holder of an OFFICE	Leader and monitor of Cathedral Clergy
900-1100	Archdeacon as a cathedral DIGNITARY	Judge over clergy in specific area
1100-1300	Archdeacon as independent ORDINARY	Almost a rival Bishop in archdeaconry
1300-1600	Bishop's monitor over churches and marriage	[Gradually reduced to none]