ARCHBISHOP HINCMAR 0F RHEIMS (circa 806~882): HIS IDEA 0F MINISTERIUM IN THEORY AND PRAXIS ' Thesis for the Degree of Ph._ D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY H. HAINES BROWN III 1968 J‘mflm an) J’J.l:{‘\- “11\1 MlLiIigfl :1 Sta te University h I. -IM‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims (circa 806-822): His Idea of Ministerium in Theory and Praxis. presented hg Howard Haines Brown, III has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Jig—degree in His tor}! 7322 52522;— Major professor Dme 29 July, 1968 0—169 (3 2...» .V .., ABSTRACT ARCHBISHOP HINCMAR OF mmms (circa 806-882): HIS IDEA OF MDIISTERIUM IN THEORY AND PRAXIS by H. Hainee Brown III Deepite the widely voiced obeervation that the in- fluential ninth-century Archbishop Hincmar of Rheima ie in need of a comprehensive and up-to-date biography, etudiee de- voted tc thie intereeting figure have tended to be fruitful only to the extent that they were also narrow in ecope. The Preeent inveetigation euggeete that one mJor difficulty hin- dering a eyntheeie of Hincmar'e life without the contradic- tione and inccneietenciee which usually emerge, liee in me- thodology. Furthermore, it goee on to emphaeize the utility of dialectical categoriee for a deeper underetanding of what Ippeare to be a critical theme ehaping the archbiehOp'e life tnd thought—hie theory of public office. For Hincmar. office wae leee an explicit legal de- lineaticn of public action, deeigned to prevent Juriediction- a1 confueion or check pereonal ambition. than the central or- Cl-nizing principle of eocial and political life. Office SUI-nod thie crucial role in hie thought becauee it had the poeitive function of bringing Chrietian valuee and ultimate end. into contact with the concrete realitiee of public life. -1- .I I'll. lull, H. Haines Brown III The fusion of spiritual values and worldly action had increa- singly characterized the early Middle Ages, but until the ninth century, it had not been self-consciously articulated by men deeply involved in shaping the course of political history. Beginning early in the ninth century and reaching its culmination in Hincmar, a coherent and rational theory was elaborated linking office not only a springboard of sal- vation, but a means for the realization of God's will on earth. This theory derived from a characteristically Bene- dictine psychology, whereby there was a turning to Christ-— the source of love. The office holder found that his action in public life was disciplined by the legal definition of his office, and at the same time, his heart was to be direc- ted to God. In the larger social context, the same princi- plee were applied. The secular arm of government provided a discipline for its subjects, while the .sacerdotal office acted as eociet's heart, directing the minds of all toward Christ. The king and the bishop were dialectically united in a single whole (the Ecclesia)—a whole implying neither a separation of church and state nor the absorption of one into the other. However, the major focus of the present study is to ascertain the interaction of Hincmar'e ideas and the course of ninth-century higtory. Two phases of his development are traced. The first begins with Hincmr's stepping into a po- litien of prominence and independence in the West Frankish H. Heines Brown III realm, includes his attempts to direct political life in conformity with his own ideas, and finally, ends with the reasons for his failure to do so. The second phase of Hine- nar'e life here studied concerns the modification of his ideas to suit political realities. This is the case particu- larly with his treatment of the relation of episcopal office to the king, where he not only seeks to reduce the direct involvement of bishops in political affairs, but encourages a greater freedom of royal action. In concluding it is sug- SOsted that while the full development of Hincmar's thought found little echo among his contemporaries, it nevertheless does permit the historian an insight into the categories of thought deeply operative within ninth-century society and extending beyond it into the future. mortarsnop HINCMAR OF mamas (circa 806-882): HIS IDEA OF MINISTERIUM IN THEORY AND PRAXIS By H. Heines Brown III A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1968 -__.—————' 7/” 7 DJ 0; PREFACE No work of scholarship is the fruit of one man's en- deavor, but rather, is a collective effort of may persons— those not only immediately involved in the mechanics of pro- duction or in directing the shaky steps of a world of Mstoriomphflut in the widest sense it is g itself—in awe cer- neophyte in the the product of a civilization contemplatin tainly, but hopefully also in love and self-criticism. I met be more specific, however, and acknowledge the generous help of certain persons (who may not yet have quite recovered), without whose interest, encouragement, and cor- rectio this study of Hincmar would never have progressed. Doctor Richard E. Sullivan of Michigan State University su- Porvieed the entire project, and his intellectual and moral stimulation mixed with Judicious criticism ensured the proper stabilitas to see it through to completion. Unbounded gn- titude is due Doctor Walter Mohr of the University of the Surlend, who besides generously offering such warm hospi— tality as I had no reason to anticipate, gave willingly of his time and advice to direct the present writer toward an ever more critical interpretation of sources and synthesis or data. Finally, the leisure to study and write was assured by the Fulbright Commission, which provided a grant for the academic year 1966-67 in West Germny. - 11 - Tu a.‘ l v 4 -._4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREF‘CE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 11 SOIIRCE EDITIONS O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 O O 0 v INI‘RODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 1 PIRT I. HINCMAR'S IDEA OF MINISTegIUM IN THEORY . . 15 Chapter I. THE IDEA OF OFFICE BEFORE HINCMAR . . . . . . 17 II. HINCMAR'S THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF OFFICE O O O C O O O O O O I O O O O O O 62 III. THE EPISCORAL OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 IV. HINCMAR'S IDEA 0F POLITICAL OFFICE . . . . . 92 PART II. HINCMAR'S IDEA OF MINISTERIUM IN PRAXIS . . 113 Chapter v. THE FATE OF HINCMAR'S IDEA OF gINISTERIUM IN POLITICAL LIFE, 858-860 e e e e e e e e e s 120 VI. THE ANALOGY OF MARRIAGE AND GOVERNMENT IN LOTHAR'S DIVORCE CASE (860) . . . . . . . . 11.5 VII. ‘THE FAILURE OF HINCMAR'S EARLY CONCEPT OF MINISTERIUM e e e s e e e e e s e e s e e s '67 VIII. THE INVASION’OF LOTHRINGIA AS CATALYST FOR A NEWTHEORYOFOFFICE........... 192 IX. THE CONFLICT WITH HINCMAR 0F LAON'AS A CHAL- LENGE TO THE RATIONAL CONCORDANCE OF OFFICES 222 X.THEREVOLTOFCARLOMAN........... 239 XI. THE ITALIAN SUCCESSION'AND THE MYSTIC CONCOR- nwcnororncm.............. 255 XII. THE END OF CHARLIS THE BALD'S REIGN AND THE CRISIS oven rm: norm. OFFICE . . . . . . . 27:. - 111 - XIII. TH: svccsssons or CHARLES THE BALD (877-882): OFFICE CONSIDERED As A PROGRAM OF RADICAL mmmTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 2 93 XIV. CONch ION O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 317 I O O O O O O O O 325 313111um 0 O O O O O O C O O 0 O O O O O I O O O O O 33 2 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY . . . . . . . . . -17- H: mm: Hu~ H: I.-- IV: 5...: an: In: I- 3% .n..\ I. . J.\ I .11 “AK ..a.\ SOURCE EDITIONS FOR WORKS OF HINCMAR Ad Carolum III maratorem. . . Ad 31.n00- 213t11 e e e e e e Ad Ludovicum III ROEMe e e e e Ad s eros ochiae suae . Ad reclusos et sigp‘ lices, praef. Ad reclusoe et emlices. . . . Admonitio alters pro Caroio- mane facts __ I O O O O O O O O O Annales de Saint-Bertin . . . . M Capitula Pistensia, a. 862. . . Collectio do raptoribus . . . e 20' cannon vitiis et virtutibus exercendis. . -_—-——_ 0 O O O O O O 0 De. coercendie militum rapinis . .MoG'3Hg. E229. VIII. nae 1270 .Sirmond, II, 1 88-196 . OMOGOHC E 0. VIII. no. 125. .M.G,H. E ., VIII, no. 37. .Wilhelm Gundlach, "Zwei Schriften des Erzbischofs Hinkmar von Reims,” Zeit- schrift ffir Kirche eschich- 321 X i1§89l. 253-310. 081mond. II. 216-225. .Felix Grat and Jeanne Viol- liard, eds. Annales de Saint-Bertin ( Paris , 1 96h) ,. .M.G.H. Ca it , II, 302-310. QMQGQH. C‘ ito. II. 287-289. .M G.H E ., VIII, no. 126. DC, diversa et multiplici animae rations . . . . . . . . . . . .Sirmond, II, TOO-125. N La divertio Lotharii regs. praef.. . PLinortio Letharii regs. . . .M.G.H.. EE., VIII, no. 131}. .Simond. I. 561-709. m .061..11’ .t c. 111.. mefesngGeH‘. £22.. VIII. no. 108. L’- Occlesiis et «23111:. . . . .Wilhelm Gundlach, "Zwei Schriften des Erzbischofs Hinknmr von Reins,” Zeit- schrift fur Kirchelluiggsohioh- 2. x 1 fl 9 - . r]: .M: “I“ .n... 32 .n... .112 2.... $1.2 .54 a2 .3: LL; xv. v.3]- Xxx .m...\1. max ‘1 D. tide Carlo Cowman. o o o o D. indicio 9.9an frigidao . . . Do iuro metropolitanorum. . . . DO Grain. Elatii o o o o o o a Do gnodoatinationo contra “thOUOQICumo o o o o o o o o mmEtUVIdmm. o o o o o 0 Do "Ea grams. at r0310 m1n1ntor10.......... Do um 01: non trim doitate, pnefOO 0 O O O O O 0 o O O 0 De mm at non trina deitate . . Do vorbia Paalmi CIII . . . .l . Do visions Bornoldi Brash" . . fiiatola Smodi Cariaiaconain . .Sirmond, II, 157-179. .Sirmond, II, 676-686. .Sirmond, II, 719-740. .Maurice Prou, De ordine - latii egiatola Parin, 1 85). .Sirmond, I, 1-h1h. oSimond. II. 225-21‘30 .Sirmond. II. 1-28. .M.G.H. E ., VIII, no. 141. .Sirmond, I, #15-555. .M.G.H. E ., VIII, no. 179. .Sirmond, II, 805-809. OMOGOHOJ capito. II, 427-11141. Exglanatio 1n forculum Salomonia.31rmond, I, 756-771. Inltmctio ad Ludovicum BaIbum. Iuramontum..........o .3 moumndum for the ’1‘r1a1 of 01th‘d Of §01..0n‘. o O O O O I N l 222.0“1‘1111 LV. “Bitu10mm o o 0 Pro. enclosing libertatum do- fomiono........... madam Mottonsil, a. 859 . . .Simond . II. 179-18“ . .Sirmond, II, Bah-38. .Eo PQrQIU. "E111. ngchrift Hinkmnra von Reins 1m Pro- 208 Rothadl von Soiaaonn ' Neuol Archiv, XLIV (1922 , 3-100. .Sirmond, II. 377-5930 .Giovnnni Man-1, Colloctionil conciliorum. . . Paris, 1901-19275. XVI. 755-78h. on G H c. ito. II. “'41-'46. INTRODUCTION Medieval political theory has never failed to command the attention and even at times the respect of those histori- ans and philosophers who have found in the ideas of the past a stimulating subject for study. The quantity of books and learned articles dealing with one or more aspects of what medieval man thought about government would stagger the ima- gination of those not personally involved in ferreting out the riches of this field of inquiry, and yet, the more one becomes acquainted with this literature, the more evident it is that he finds here, perhaps, an exception to the sanguine hape that human knowledge ever advances. Taking the early Middle Ages as rspressntitivs, one is first struck by the paucity of general syntheses of po- litical theory. Despite the large number of really quite ex- cellent studies on a particular person or problem, there ex- ists not a single tome encompassing at once the idea of state Ind all offices within it, both major and minor, with their moral, political, and theological implications. This lack 1| certainly not due to an unwillingness or a disinterested- uses for realizing such a project, but in the nature of the task itself. True, there are a number of inherent difficul- ties. The sources are few: there was little written which did not ungu- may“. problems at the expense of a broader -1- - 2 - vision; and the age was not particularly interested in shaping coherent and fully elaborated tracts explaining what was on its mind for the benefit of future generations. However, it appears that an even more serious stum- bling block hinders the road of the investigator. When the seminal and influential studies of political theory are care- fully read and then compared with one another, there is no mistaking a certain confusion in methodology. A study of the epistemological bases for this scattering of effort lies well beyond the scope of our present task, but it does seem worth- while to illustrate the type of contradictions one faces by reference to a limited number of important histories of medi- eval political thought. Not an uncommon pitfall is the attempt to Judge the meaning of an idea or institution in terms derived from out- side the historical context in which it occurs. A. J. Carlyle's L History of Medieval Political Theory in the West, vol. I, is an especially important instance in light of the wide re- pact which it has won since it was first written. A consci- entious product of a full reading of sources, it nevertheless “ks those questions of the source mterial dictated by a pr.- occupation with the ancient world. Without doubt, legal theory played a crucial role in late imperial political thought, and issues such as the natural condition of van and slavery were critical ones. Is this to say, however, that they were also central to early medieval concerns? Carlyle adequately shows that antique concepts failed to provide a basis for ninth. €02 r“. - 3 .. century political theory. Although it is true that various churchmen, such as Gregory the Great, could give an absolutist ring to statements regarding political authority, Carlyle notes that a “Teutonic” contribution was to limit authority through the idea of contract. But such law, lacking a philo- sophical base, was unable to provide the rational for social order in the ninth century. Carlyle attributed the lack of a philosophical system of political theory to an inability to relate actual conditions of limited authority with the wri- tings of the late Empire and church Fathers. Despite certain conceptions of some lasting value, Carlyle found little in ninth-century thought which avoided confusion, contradiction, and imprecision. Is this dismaying state of affairs due to contemporary irrationality or to Carlyle's assumption that all rational thought has its roots in Antiquity and that Roman concepts of law and sovereignty are adequate yard-sticks for measuring early medieval political ideas? Another very influential book suffering from a similar disability is H. x. Arquillidre's L'Augggtinisme politigue. It should first be noted that "political Augustinism" is not the same as the body of political ideas held by Augustine him- self-a confusing terminology which causes difficulties even for the author. In brief, Arquilliére holds that political Augustinian signifies the fusion of the spheres of Church end State. No one would too seriously argue with the general v... lidity of such an observation of what in fact was occuring in the early Middle Ages, but Mguilliere goes on to associate .. h . this fusion with a centralized and universal authority, either political or religious. This means that the author tends to constrict his attention to men who embody an office having such universal implications: he studies in detail the corona- tion of Charlemgne in 800 A.D. and the ideas of subsequent popes, especially Nicholas I. Arquilliers avoids asking who- ther either aspect of Carolingian history was really central to the preoccupations of the time. Various persons actually disagreed as to the implications of Charlemagne's coronation, to say nothing of the sharp rebuff which Nicholas' involve- ment in political life elicited. Thus, it would be unwise to apply Arquilliére's ob- servations to the age as a whole without first ascertaining the extent to which men associated a fusion of the worldly 0nd the sacred with the centralization of authority. Further- more, there exists a danger in using the term ”political Aug-us- tinism," however much Arquillidre warns against it, for it might suggest an irmnsdiate correspondance between Carolingian concepts and those of Saint Augustine.1 Arquilliéro may well M 1Arquillidrs does this himself. On pg. 151 he trans- lates a passage of Jonas of Orlbans as follows: “Celui qui n'a Pas cette bonne volonte, montre qu'il ne possdds pas la chari- t‘c et c'est pourquoi il ne merits pas de goflter la paix, qui est le Christ lui-m‘me." He then interprets the passage as: "Si nous voulons Jouir d'uns périods de calms et de tranquil- litb, il faut encourager les z‘lateurs de la paix, fills de la charit‘,“ thus confusing Augustinian worldly peace (lack of conflict) with Carolingian peace (Christ's mystical presence in the world). And yet, in a comparable quotation from Pope Nicholas I (pg. 193), he nukes clear that "la paix qui est 10 Christ lui-mOme' fuses the natural concept of Augustine with the spiritual peace of the New Testament (pg. 196). 50: .. 5 - be correct in arguing for a fusion of the worldly and spiri- tual, but in treating it in Classic-Augustinian (i.e., authori- tarian and centralized) terms, he is compelled to exclude from consideration a great wealth of material which might in- deed suggest that these categories were not central to the po- litical thinking of the Carolingian period. The last of these writers grouped together here be- cause of their concern with showing how the early Middle Ages saved certain classic ideas for the benefit of future centur- ies is Louis Halphen. While Arquilliére has deeply influenced anyone mking a study of political theory, Halphsn's ideas have reached a much wider audience because they have been in- corporated into more general texts, one of which, his Charle- 92%! st 1'empire caroli__ngisn, has become for many the stan- dard treatment of Carolingian history. To take a different book, his Les barbares dss grandee invasions aux congu‘tes Muss du XI. siecls, for example, Halphen argues that what lurks the basic demrcation of Antiquity and the Middle Ages is a changed idea of law and state. However, the youthful forces of these new peoples on the European scene had need of being channeled and disciplined, and it was the voice of the papacy which hglpgd them realize this work by promoting the Bonn idea of state. The fusion of these two factors—- Gomnic youthful vigor and the Roman idea of the ordered state-ms especially mked at the coronation of Charlemgne in 800. Like Arquillidre, Halphen has mgnified an event, which to contemporaries was quite ambiguous in its implica- If! RC v1... 5.. Lu. -6- tions and often ignored, into the epitome of the Carolingian achievement . Each of the three authors thus far cited had original and worthwhile contributions to make to our understanding of early medieval political theory, but each has also been so oriented toward Ronnn concepts that he has failed to take seriously enough the medieval contributions which do not fit nicely into the categories of thought forged by Antiquity. The three major contributions of the ninth century to politi- cal thought delineated by Carlyle were also idsas which had direct relevance to the preoccupations of the Empire.2 Be- yond these, in his opinion, there lies no systematic thought, but only ambiguity, contradiction, and faulty thinking. Ar... quillidre posits as the focus of developments the fusion of two Roman categories—~ths sacred and the profane, which he then associates with a very Roman idea, the centralized state. It is not that Arquillis‘re is wrong, but that his categories have confined his attention to matters which may well have been peripheral to what occupied the minds of Europe in the ninth century. Halphen, too, asks questions of this period which are designed to elucidate the extent to which the early Middle Ages passed on Roman concepts, but in so doing, it is Possible he misses the richness and sophistication of contem- porary thought. In his ”L'id‘e d'etet sous les Carolingiem,‘ * 2These are: 1) human equality as a "natural" condi- ‘10n. 2) the sacred character of organized society (govern- ment), 3) the primacy of law, which conditions authority and checks My . 5?. I: 7' I": .’ O, -7- Revue histori us, CLxxxv (1939), 59-70, Halphsn traces an "ob- Jectification" of state in the Carolingian period, where the state ceases being a personal power held by the king and be- gins to represent the welfare of the collectivity for which the king is responsible. Because the Romans came to the same realization, but associated this monarchic minister of the public good with a centralized unitary rule, Halphen has an inbuilt prejudice against local autonomy and self-determin- ation in church and state. If there are obvious dangers in estimating the signi- fancs of ninth-century political theory by contrasting it with the imperial achievement or by seeing it in terms of categor- ies derived from the Ancient World, what alternatives are left? An obvious one would be to understand a given insti- tution or idea in terms of its functional relationship with the whole of a civilization's life and thought. Only by so doing can real objectivity be achieved. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800, for example, might have had far different Iignificance for contemporaries than what the modern historian feels is its relevance to the Roman Empire or the Investiture Controversy. What was the implication of the word "empire" for the Carolingians; how did they relate this to traditional modes of authority: in what manner did it impinge upon their 1mPlicit and explicit values and needs; and what was its sig- nificance in terms of actual power relations and social struc- tures? Only by answering such questions can the true meaning 0f empire be estimated. v, I .0 On] "a .. 8 .. An important attempt to do just this is made by Fritz Kern in his Gottesfl dentum und Widerstandsrecht. Here he seeks to relate constitutional monarchy to the early medieval Weltanschaugg, especially its religious ideas. The concepts of Gottesfldentum and Wider-stand he uses to suggest respec- tively the absolute prerogatives of the ruler deriving from his relationship to God and the right of the subject to check royal action. Thus, they indicate a complex of questions 1y- ing on the border between the theory and meis (action shaped by ends) of state life. Kern feels that objective law formed the natural connection between these two elements and permitted the formation of constitutional monarchy. Because Kern's interest is in constitutional history and he concerns himself with political theory only to the extent that it ser- ves his central aim, there is little reason to enumerate his conclusions. He is here introduced because he integrates con- stitutional history with political theory to yield results very rich for our understanding of the former. Although his use of Weberian typology (Gottes dentum, Widerstandsrecht) introduces factors not subject to scientific verification, th. outcome is a profound and objective description of early medi- sval monarchy . It might be evident by this time that law has played the leading role in modern attempts to grasp the essence of early medieval political theory. However valid this may be for dealing with the Rom Empire or even the thought of the later Middle Ages, there is some question whether Carolingian - 9 - theorists made law central to their conceptions of the nature and ends of public authority. Kern was compelled to place law at the focus of his attention because he was dealing specifi- cally with constitutional history, but had he used constitu- tional developments to illuminate the formation of a politi- cal theory in the early Middle Ages, then he would have had to evaluate the extent to which the Carolingians turned to law for the basis of their concepts and the principle mode of po- litical action. Recently there has been increasing doubt cast on the legalistic interpretation which has characterized traditional scholarship. One of the more influential of these revision- ists is Marcel David. His La souvsrainet‘ et les limites juridigues du pouvoir monarchique du IXo au XV. sidcle stu- dies very carefully actual ninth-century efforts to limit the supreme authority of monarchs. He finds that, rather than turn to juridical sanctions to limit royal action, men of the ninth century preferred to couch their admonitions in terms of morality and theology. The churchmen.who thus turned to ethical preaching and warnings of divine wrath to place a check on royal action were in a position to use law (the Ge- lasian theory) to support their own control of the state, but the interesting point is that they did not follow the impli- cations of canon law to its logical conclusion and preferred to use their authority to check royal power rather than sup- Plant it. David feels, after carefully weighing events of the ninth century, that political action was shaped by force, or at least the menace of force, and that appeals to the law merely added weight to other more effective sanctions. Both Kern and David have opened new avenues of inves- tigation into the early Middle Ages by integrating dimensions of life previously thought irrelevant or peripheral with the focus of study. David, in particular, makes clear that one cannot adequately grasp the political theory of the ninth cen- tury if it is abstracted from the public actions and immedi- ate ends of the persons involved. If, on the other hand, po- litical theory is integrated with both action and with the deeper categories of contemporary thought, then there exists the possibility of a truly objective understanding and a grea- ter appreciation of the sophistication and coherence of ninth- century thought. The present study of political office thus avoids wherever possible a narrowly legal-constitutional de- finition of office as an adequate description of its role in Carolingian life. What is being presented as an alternative is, it is hoped, a sociology of public office. Such a sociological approach would first evaluate the implications of public office per se for the entire fabric of life-an evaluation providing a critical insight into the heart of civilization. In an effort to specify these impli- cations, a recent definition of "office“ suggests the follow- ing: An'understanding of the concept of office depends on the relation of the holder to supra-individual orders: office engages the given limitations of the material and biological world, its responsibilities are deter- '1 CI of - 11 - mined by the duties of custom and cult, and the communi- ty's constitution forms the framework of its social development. At a certain cultural level these norm systems are not only more differentially apprehended, but also agencies are perfected to represent them. wherever their functions are embraced within perman- ent complexes of rights and duties, there arise "offi-S cos" which objectify the obligations of their holders. This interpretation of office as the nexus of ideolo- gy and objective necessity reveals the extent to which a ci- vilization has integrated its ends and values with its con- crete situation. The reality, however, is more complex than suggested by the above definition. Office not only takes cog- nizance of the "duties of custom and cult and the community's constitution," it also becomes part of this cultural tradition, Shaping it in accord with the aims of whoever defines an offi- ce's duties and objectives. Viewed as such, office becomes a dynamic agency for shaping social or political structures and directing society toward specific ends and value systems. Another implication of office not included in the do- finition is the complexity of the ideological situation to which it is responsive. At what may be called for the sake of convenience a “low" cultural level, an office is little more than an instrument for carrying out the immediate aims of someone in authority. ea royal missus may function for no other purpose than as an investigator of some local matter for which the king feels he has responsibility. The ends of this office represent perhaps little more than the personal M 3 H. Zeller, flint,“ Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, I (“.1ng 1eBe. 1957), 001's 51-520 in 0f - 12 - objectives of the monarch. However, at a “higher” cultural level, it is possible for the parameters governing action in office to include ultimate ends and values having little im- mediate relevance to the purposes at hand. If our missus knows that whatever he does must be carried out in a spirit of Christian charity, then he is being responsive to two dis- tinct ideological levels. Office, then, potentially integrates a society's immediate goals with its ultimate ends and value systems. Office thus binds together three distinct levels of reality. First, office must take into account material con- ditions not subject to change. Government, to be successful, nmmt fully appreciate the viable alternatives open to it and try to avoid impossible tasks. A.consciousness of objective limitations (these limits were called necessitas in the early huddle Ages) has direct bearing on the efficiency of social and political action. Secondly, it seems clear that the extent to which office provides norms of action and directs social or politi- cal energies into objectively defined paths toward common goals also strongly influences efficiency. Besides thus in- tssrating the action of ruler and ruled, office likewise makgg 'Iplicit the immediate ends which a ruler seeks by providing instruments for the realization of his aims. Finally, office profoundly increases the efficiency of action by integrating ultimate ends and value systems with - 13 - the immediate and ad hoc goals of government, although this may not be immediately apparent. Social theorists have sug- gested that immediate goals are not isolated entities, but rather, are embedded in a web of ends which are in turn re- lated to society's ultimate objectives. The most efficient means to achieve a given ends often cannot be ascertained by considering that end in isolation, but only when taken in re- lation to all other ends of which a person is aware.“ The optimum way to meet succeas in day-to—day problems is to be fully conscious of their relevance to ultimate ends and values. Another way of viewing this is to realize that the cognitive structure in terms of which man sees the world includes both the means and ends of immediate action as well as his ulti- 5 mate ends and values. Consciousness of final objectives as Part of an explicit ideology has the tendency of integrating action into a coherent whole, without which social and p011- tical action becomes diffused.6 These theoretical considerations serve to emphasize that the net effectiveness of a civilization depends to some extent upon the integration of ultimate ends and values with the agencies of public life. Whether consciously or not, the achieving of these conditions should be an important objec- tive for a society‘s rulers. In the case of the Christiani- n—k “Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (2nd °d-8 New York. 19h9). pp. 3- . 2 0- . 5Kurt Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science (New York, 1951). pp. 60-87. 6Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (New York, 1966), pp. 20.21 0 to 'Q: ti: .. 11. .. zation of Europe, not only was it necessary for those in pub- lic life to be sincere Christians, but ultimtely, the organs of government and social institutions had to be brought into conformity with Christian ideals. In Western Europe, this process was slow, faltering, and perhaps only partially suc- cessful. The present investigation will suggest that the first explicit and elaborated Christian interpretation of political and social life emerged in the ninth century and that this development found its most complete expression in Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims' idea of office. The elements of Hincmar's formulation were not new to the history of Christian (and especially Benedictine) thought, but because of his own inti- mte lmowledge of and involvement in political life, they were fused into a coherent and elaborated theory relevant to the concrete political needs of the day. It is hoped that such a consideration of office in the ninth century will not only provide a conceptual framework for the whole of public life, but even go far toward explaining th. 013013801100 01‘ a dynamic Europe in subsequent centuries. PART I HINCMAR'S IDEA 0F MINISTERIUH IN THEORY The sociological approach to an understanding of office suggested in the introduction invites certain difficulties in presentation. The written line of prose, leading the reader from sentence to sentence, from chapter to chapter, is better suited to analytical reasoning than to dialectical. If one‘s Purpose is to understand political office as the nexus of ideo- logy and practical concerns, then he is faced with the dynamic interaction of various elements, none of which remains fixed in.time. If political history is ever in flux, so too is the development of ideas, and neither can be held fixed while the impact of the other on the develOpment of office is scrutin- ized, for a change in one is likely to produce a change in the whole configuration. In spite of these difficulties, there remains open the possibility of studying the relationship of office with that dimension of life which changes least-—here assumed to be those most bugic'gttitudge toward life and categories of thought by which one sees the world. These would appear to change less I‘Pidly than either overt action or explicit and consciously held opinions. For this reason, the first part of the present study will be static rather than dynamic. It will attempt to - 15 - d1 It id pl 00 L51 l l .“4 - 16 - discover just what Hincmar meant by ”office” in both the ab- stract and the particular, all the while relating the specific idea of office to the broader range of the Archbishop's thought. In.this way the religious (spiritual, theological, moral) im- plications of public office which intimately relate it to man's central ideological concerns will be ascertained. The pluc- king out of the crucial terms, exposing to light their con- notations and associations-—all this is essential before the dynamic analysis of the second part can be hazarded. It was thought wise to introduce the first part with a partial recounting of the development of the idea of office from the Roman Empire to the ninth century. A rather bold undertaking, for the account cannot strive to be either com- plete or definitive. Nevertheless, it did seem useful to pro- vide the reader with some idea of the development of office in the early Middle Ages while at the same time illustrating how a sociological treatment of office might appear if applied to this period. Certain offices important in the Late Empire were intentionally ommitted from consideration, and others which would prove much more relevant to the Carolingian per- iod were treated summarily. °f CHAPTER I THE IDEA OF OFFICE BEFORE HINCMAR The history of the idea of office from the Roman Em- pire to the Carolingian epoch reflects quite accurately the vicissitudes of political and social life in general. The con- tradictions inherent within imperial Rome became manifest in the third century, and despite fourth-century efforts to re- constitute life on a new basis in order to save the fruits of the pax romana, the methods used only exacerbated the under- lying difficulty. One can apply these generalizations to al- nwst any aspect of life and thought one chooses. The old order had been supported by fictions which in the fourth and fifth centuries came to be abandoned by everyone outside the imperial circle, and only Post-Nicaean Christiani- ty offered a solution to the fundamental contradictions of the Roman Empire. But even this new world-view proved ineffectual as long as it remained bound to the ideals of Romanitas-—a set of ideas suggesting that the political order of the Empire con- stituted perfection. Only is those areas of Christian life insisting on a sharp demarcation from.forces trying to pre- serve what‘was left of the old order-in the monasteries and in_the.Aubreeian episcopacy-—was there to emerge a fresh re- selution of the imperial crisis. - 17 - tu of 2b 0'. NJ If?! -18- undoubtedly, Roman imperial government was the spiri- tual heir of Greece, but in fact it was the direct descendant of the Roman Republic. The institutions of imperial govern- ment were derived from old family and tribal customs, and al- though the emperor was supposed to be little more than the em- bodiment of the public will, in fact he increasingly had all the authority of the pater families. As such, the imperium had unilateral authoritarian implications tending to reduce the personal liberty of the citizenry. However, the political thought which predominated in the Empire was imbued with Greek ideas poorly according with the above facts. Hellenic ontology defined two quite distinct nmdes of reality: an ever changing and thus corrupt world of matter and a static a-temporal sphere of metaphysical forms. Salvation consisted in rationally extricating oneself from the material world to win a fleeting communion with the demi- urge. In the dress of Stoic philosophy, these categories deeply penetrated imperial legal and political thought. But the bridging of the temporal and the a-temporal, the physical and the metaphysical, the dynamic and the static, process and order, were impossible by rational means alone, for interme- diates*would have to incorporate mutually exclusive categories. That the Romans‘were apparently able to do this at all was through the use of legal fictions, by which the realities of traditional social and power relations were masked by an ide- slogy borrowed from the Greeks.1 M 1Charles H. McIlwain, The Growth of Political Thought W (New York. 1932). p. 131;. '0 'e - 19 - For the Stoics, there existed a universal transcendant natural law to which the entire cosmos had to conform in some manner. At a hypothetical time in the past, man lived in a natural state, where there existed neither authority, social distinction, nor private property. But in historical time, man fell into a state of vice. Vice was manifested concrete- ly as war, private wealth, and structures of authority, which in turn necessitated a definition of mutual rights and obli- gations-—called by the Stoic theorists ius civile. However difficult it might have been to actually define the content of ius naturals, ius civile was supposed to accord with it. A state or a government which did not embody ius naturals was inconceivable. Such an ideology, however useful it might have been for obscuring the brute realities of life and providing a ra- tionale and conceptualization for political action, never suc- ceeded in gaining firm root. Perhaps the reason.was that the order of reality considered perfect-—the world of Egfiggf—flaa understood mathematically and thus was little relevant to the world of experience. ‘A few brilliant minds, such as Plotinus', were able to contruct complex ladders of being uniting the two orders-the physical and the metaphysical, but for most, the fiction that they were rationally in accord substituted for a true integration of values and worldly action such as took Place, it will be argued, in Hincmar's idea of ministerium. There was a more concrete reason, though, why such a theory remaingd only tentative. Senatorial egoism, encouraged t] - 20 - by the spoils of imperialism, threatened republican political order. The principate, as it emerged under Augustus, checked this unbridled opportunism by monopolizing political life for the central authority. The princeps embodied the law and the virtue of the commonwealth, becoming the nexus of order and process.2 The standard of iustitia followed by the emperor did not derive from sources outside the commonwealth, but from humanitas——a worldly condescending love. The ruler's highest function lay simply in assuring imperial peace as a precon- dition for the common good and the dissemination of Greek cul- ture. The emperor‘s growing monopoly of virtue prevented a generalized idea of office from.becoming independently viable, for the only one which had important theoretical implications was that of the ince s, and from his person all other offi- ces derived. The commonwealth-the res publica-—was little more than the sum of rights and responsibilities of the Roman peo. ple as a‘whole. The duty of one holding an effigigggwithin the government was simply to assure the citizen's rights in a manner comparable to that of the pater familias. In fact, the public officium was the family writ large. Originating as a moral duty in family relationships, the word officium came to signify the defense of another's interests and, in public law, the serving of the public interest.3 The officer's jur- —__ 2For this and the whole question of the ideological implications of Romnitas, I rely heavily on Charles N. Coch- 3151;; Christianity and Classical Guitar. (2nd «1.; New York, is $1 Ii as aII isdiction (officium ius dicentis) comprised the rights and du- ties within the competence of a judicial magistrate. Likewise, the potestas of the officer had its private as well as its public manifestation. In private law, it was the power of the head of the family over its members—-power either in the sense of physical ability or legal right. The public nature of pgtestas was was used to emcompass the rights and duties connected with a particular magistracy.“ The term auctoritas, rather difficult to distinguish from otestas, seems to have implied more a moral rather than legal power. It was used for persons who commanded obedience and respect, and although it originally had some technical legal meaning as a function of context, by the fifth century it had lost 5 any such connotation. The terms ministerium, ministeriales, and minister in the Empire referred to subordinate officials and their activities. Supervised by the magister officiorum, the Eifléfir teriales were appointed by the emperor to fulfill minor func- tions. .A minister could be merely a servant or assistant to an.official of the Empire, although the term might exception- ally refer to a higher official in the civil or military bu- _____ 3Adolf Berger. uEncy¢1opedic Dictionary of Roman Law," Transactions of the American Philoso hical_$ociety, XLIII, 2 lPhiladelphia, 1953’, 307. “Ibis. , p. 6&0. SIbid., pp. 368-69. Wilhelm Ensslin, "Auctoritas und Potestas. Zur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius 1," H13- torisches Jahrbuch, LXXIV (1955). 661-68- fl - 22 - reaucracy.6 Before the reforms of Diocletian, the important provincial and Roman political posts were filled by the sena- torial class, thich, rather than being a paid professional bu- zeaucracy, took upon itself political responsibilities as a natural expression of its class advantage, to further its per- sonal political ambitions, and to enrich itself at the expense of the poorer classes. In order to understand what happened to political of- fice at the end of the Roman Empire and just how a new Chris- tian concept of ministerium resolved the contradictions in- herent in the Empire, it is useful to consider the nature of the so-called ”crisis of the third century.“ This crisis, the resulting widespread alienation, and the attempted imperial solution of the fourth century through.what has been called the "corporative state” (which only deepened that alienation), can be viewed on two levels, the ideological and the material. Ideologically, the crisis of the third century des- troyed the fiction that mankind is perfectable by means of worldly political action alone. The Greek ideal of the cul- tivation of the whole person through political action within the context of the city—state had been incorporated within the Roman imperial eystem.as a dyarchy-—the sharing of power by the princeps and the muncipia. This meant on one hand that the virtue of the princeps ensured the peace in.which the po- lis-ideal of Greece could flourish, and on the other, politi- M 6Berger, 0 .cit., p. 583- t1 -23.. cal freedom and viability within the muncipia themselves. Po- litical office within the cities was the focus of human per- fectability: by volunteering for the responsibilities of of- fice, the urban elite at once worked toward the benefit of the commonwealth and for their own personal development. This is not the place to review the causes of the third-century crisis, but its ideological implications for office are indeed relevant to the questions at hand. The success of Romanitas depended upon a confidence that the vir- tue won through political action was sufficient to counter ill-fortune. This confidence, however, was severely shaken by a number of set-backs which no fiction could hide. Mill- tary, economic, constitutional flaws and failures were only too obvious. Eastern religious ideas suggesting that man was not fundamentally good were receiving ever wider attention. Changed conditions and a growing sense of frustation demanded a willingness to undertake far-reaching reforms, but the idea. logy of Romanitas hindered their realization. The associa- tion of all that was good with unchanging order discouraged the acceptance of dynamic change. The conservatives could only seek to emphasize traditional means and ends at the ex- Danae of flexibility, and the innovators blindly adapted to new circumstances without any firm sense of direction or pur- Pose.7 Men who had once found in the urban administrative of- 7Cochrane, o .cit., pp. 160-61 et passim. N ‘C "1 N] “c t1), - 24 - fices the greatest attraction in life began to despair of meaningful self-realization in this political atmosphere. In- creasingly, they abandoned the cities for the greater securi- ty and rewards of rural life, seeking to create on their huge agricultural estates material and cultural conditions more congenial to their aspirations. The filling of urban offices had always been voluntary, and the empire's very foundation rested on the willingness of an educated urban elite to ac- cept the responsibilities of public office without pay. Their crisis in faith and their alienation from the ideals of 327 manitas meant the inevitable loss of imperial viability.8 Of equal importance for the changing nature of office were the social and material conditions of the third century. Here too, there were fundamental contradictions which became ever more apparent and demanded far-reaching reform. The economic life of the city-state, with its middle class elite, rested upon the exploitation of rural resources. These, how- ever, were sharply limited. The general depression of the rural laboring class (slaves and coloni) meant that thCY were excluded as a possible market for manufactured goods. Fur- thermore, the dependence upon slave labor to exploit the 525;, fundia discouraged technological innovation. The level of ‘Sricultural technology on the imperial farms was surprising- 1? low. Despite these severe limitations on economic resour- ces and despite the financial burden of en ever larger army M 8 Ferdinand Lot, The End of the Ancient World and the W: the Middle 45.21 (New York, 19615. pp. 115-127. 1 8. CO in l! M - 25 - and imperial bureaucracy, the urban centers continued to ab- sorb the wealth of the Empire. Resources, extracted from the labor of an oppressed population, lined the pockets of cor- rupt officials, paid for a vast army whose effectiveness was ever more in doubt, and supported and idle urban population shirking their political responsibilities. This material alienation could not fail to stultify any efforts for con- structive thinking or action.9 The third and fourth-century reforms of Diocletian andhis successors did forestall complete collapse, and, in some respects, it even appeared to rejuvenate political life and culture. This success, however, proved to be ephemeral. Unable to act in other than political terms, the emperors could only make themselves the focus of all political action and abandon the ideal of Romanitas incorporated in the dy- arohy. A "corporative state" replaced the voluntary willing- ness of the populace to support the ideal of Romanitas. A compulsive bureaucratic police-state sought to cover the cracks in the wall by making rigid all aspects of public and even private life. ENeryone was incorporated into the state, 9For the social and economic implications of the ori- sis of the third century, see Mortimer Chambers, "The Crisis of the Third Century,‘ in The Transformation of the noun World, ed. Lynn Hhite (sex-L11" of, 1966). pp. 30-53. Fo""r"' t'h'. social aspect, see also. M. Rostovtzeff, me Social and Eco- nomic Histo of the Roman an ire (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1957’, 1, 502-5 1. For an analysis of the impact of material aliena- tion on both the worker and non-worker, see Karl Marx, The Economic and Philoso hie mnuscri ts of 181m (New form-7361+), pp. 11 -19. The impact of social factors on creative thin- king is suggested by Mannheim, o .cit., pp. 916-97. See also, 1:. M- Schatadernnn, Die Krise der Sklavenhaltero in Vesten des na-ischen Reiches at lo “I th' In} in: - 26 - and it was the state which took over all initiative.1o Although Diocletian sought by legislative means to compel administrators to remain in the city and carry out their public responsibilities, it became increasingly evident that there was no effective way to prevent their striking out for the relative ease and assured income of country estates. The emperor, who had previously, in theory at least, simply car- ried the impgrium.granted him by the senate and thus the peo- ple, now became the state. With this decline in the idea of public service sank also the importance of public office. Rising to take the place of the senatorial class in the ac- tual governing of the Empire were the court officers-men attached to the person and palace of the emperor, having no loyalty beyond that which they owed their monarch. By the time of Constantine, government was by the comitiva, that is, by the "friends“ of the princeps.11 The ultimate failure of Constantine's effort to bar- ness the energies of the Christian religion to revitalize the state is well-known. However, it is important to note that the failure of Remanitas went hand in hand with the failure of the Reman.idea of office. This failure was both the re- sult and in part the cause of the broader imperial collapse, and from it one ascertains the pro-conditions for a reconsti- tution of meaningful political office in the Middle Ages. ‘— A— A ——— 10For the acorporative state," see F. W. Walbank, The Decline of the Bonn mire in the West (10mm. 1946)- 11 Lot, 02.01%” pp. 159 121-270 Tic doc id! Val CO: M lct tou- .. 27 .. The material contradiction implied by the cleavage between the rural producers of wealth and those who controlled it from the cities would have to be absent, for political action uninte- grated with the realities of material and social conditions was inevitably sterile. Furthermore, the basic ideological contradiction resulting from the classic categories of thought (the physical and the metaphysical) would have to be resolved by an entirely new mode of thinking. It will be recalled that the integration of a world view and ultimte ends with immediate political goals provi- ded the parameters originally outlined for a fully developed idea of office. It is for this reason that a study of the de- velopment of a Christian idea of office in the Middle Ages be- comes of crucial significance, for through it one understands how the fundamental contradictions of the ancient world were resolved and the false-consciousness which destroyed effective action was eventually overcome. Following the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which countered the Arian threat (Classicism in Christian dress) to orthodox theology, a new Christian ontology was realized, ha- Vina revolutionary impact on classical thought.12 For the Greek categories of nutter and form, Christianity interposed those of flesh and spirit. Flesh, in contrast with the Greek latter, was not given a negative connotation, but merely neu- __ 125.. Cochranoe 02.0115” for a thorough discussion of the revolutionary nature of Christian thought in the Roman World. See also Sohatadersunn, o .cit., pp. 1314-36, 291. an to th th 8!. - 28 .— tral. As for spirit, this was sharply differentiated from the world of forms which theoretically were intelligible by reason. Spirit was not understood in terms of mathematics, but of energy, light, and love. Because there was no logical contradiction in the union of spirit and flesh, the former was capable of entering the world to bring a freedom and ener- gy to flesh which it did not have before. Christ—the his- torioal prototype of the union of perfect flesh and perfect spirit--came into the world to set men free from the bondage of their earthly condition. Through knowing Christ, man was convinced that being and and becoming could be one; that pro- cess and order were indeed compatible.13 The re-appearance of an idea of office which resolved at least the ideological contradiction of the Roman Empire was that of Christian magistracy. Although th. idea Of Opia- copal office was not fully realized until the third century, it had mch earlier explicit Justification based on the first letter of Clement (circa 96 A.D.). The God-ordained order anticipated by the Old Testament was realized when Christ en- tered the world. Upon ascending into Heaven, He commissioned the Apostles to nurture the order He had initiated, and it was from this apostolic commission that the bishops inherited their responsibility for acting al Judsfifia teachers, and a- COnts of salvation in this still rather amorphous Christian —___i 13A rather nonphietorioei yet highly sophisticated '1position of the philosophical implications of this point can be found in M. c. D'Arcy, The Mind and Heart of Love A Study in Eros and.é£222 (Cleveland, 19325. f: - 29 - community. In the third century, the bishops finally won for themselves the governance of the church; henceforth it was they who, as Cyprian asserted, acted as the vicarius Dei and subjected Christians to their authority.1h To Ambrose of Milan must be given credit for defining the nature of the episcopal office and its relation to the church and secular state. Although the worldly authority of the emperor was to be obeyed, he was by no means head of the church. Ambrose emphasized that the ins sacerdotale could be administered only by the magistrates of the church, and it would be improper for Theodosius to appropriate it. In fact, Ambrose made clear use of his libertas dicendi to castigate Theodosius when he thought him guilty of injustice.15 Although the nature of the episcopal office was to be further refined in later centuries, its essential basis had been firmly laid down by the courageous work of Ambrose. It will be seen that, however much Hincmar was influenced by Benedictine and particularly Gregorian attitudes toward his episcopal role, his idea of the episcopal office depended to a large degree on.Ambrose. Open to God's illuminating grace, the episcopal office related man's ultimate spiritual ends and values to the immediate problem of ruling and directing the Christian community. This fusion of worldly needs with the -_‘ 1“Hans Erich Feine, Kigchliche Rechts‘esohiohte (hth ed.) Kaln, 196“), pp. 37-33. 3- 15 For Ambrose, see Heinz Hfirten, ”'Libertas' in der htmtib—‘libertas episcopalis' im F‘rflhmittelalter,‘ A_I_:_'_____chiv Wchichte, XLV (1963). 1-11.. divine will in part resolved the ideological contradictions of of the Empire by permitting the strength and freedom of the spirit to vitalize a worldly order. In spite of this accomplishment by Ambrose and his successors, the episcopacy in fact failed to reconstitute imp mediately social and political life on a new basis: it was to take quite some time for a specifically medieval world order to arise from the ruins of Rome. Perhaps the reason for this episcopal failure can best be understood when related to the material contradiction of the Roman world. The new monarchy, as inspired by the work of Constan- tine, was less interested in putting the state into the ser- vice of religion than in harnessing the energies of religion to redvitalize the ideal of Romanitas-—an.effort doomed to failure.16 Furthermore, the Christian church had not resol- ved social and economic contradictions. Such matters were still primarily the concern of secular government, and as such the expoitive nature of the late Roman Empire peristed and, indeed, was considerably intensified. Although Christianity nuasured man by the state of his spud rather than the deve1- Opulent of his intellect, such democratic implications failed to change the sharp class distinctions imposing a grinding poverty on the majority and leaving the wealthy few to enJoy a life of pampered ease. As represented by Augustine, the church continued for 1GCochrane, o .cit., passim. ci th th in \ :4. PK iuw: -.w.\.i1 .m... .. 31 - some time to preserve a negative view of social and political life. The function of secular government was to ensure peace and order within which the church could flourish, and although no one could seriously deny the worldly benefit of such aims, they paled in comparison with man's real goal-eternal salva- tion.17 In many respects similar to the original ideal of Romanitas, which saw as the responsibility of imperial govern- ment the enforcement of the peaceful conditions in which po- litical life could flourish, the church of the fourth and fifth centuries provided no radically new plan for the re-or- deringof social and political life. However, within its own sphere, the concept of church office continued to develop. Augustine's Civitas Dei was characterized by three terms: 22.5, 25112, and iustitia, which by the seventh to eighth century, slowly began to influence the idea of royal office.18 However, it was not the episcopacy which provided cru- cial ideas for a new basis of political thought, for, until the late eighth or ninth century, it had lost for the most part whatever leadership it had achieved under the aegis of the late Empire. Certainly, it continued to hold political and economic power, but the failure to utilize these resour- ces for a radical reconstruction of society meant that the 17For the attitude of the church in such. matters, so. Herbert A. Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Au- mtine (New York, 19 3 . 1alhigen Dwig, "Zum christlichen Kbnigsgedanken im Fruhmittelalter," Das Koni seine isti en und rechtli- W (Lindau-Konstanz, 195 , pp. 7-73. This re— I‘il-nl the best work on the penetration of Christian values into the idea of the royal office until Louis the Pious. “b “N h... .. 32 - church had lost its freedom to act. The German monarchies of the sixth and seventh centuries were quite well aware of the church's resources and were quick to enter into a symbiotic relationship which spelled the death of episcopal independence. Church offices were filled by men who were not chosen demo- cratically as before, but were placed there by kings and mag- nates who knew they would be fully responsive to the ruler's political interests. The economic resources of the dioceses were freely tapped by monarchs to serve military purposes, and eventually the entire church fell under the sway of lay Powers.19 It can be argued that there were also positive as- pects of this development, but there is no denying that the Opiscopal failure to realize a new thoroughly Christian poli- tical and social order meant its ultimate loss of freedom in even spiritual matters. This rather dismal picture of the church in the early medieval centuries has its partical exceptions, however. What concerns us here is the establishment of Christian utopian communities in which the whole sphere of humn life was inte. grated by a central purpose; this was Benedictine monasticism, which more than anything else, shaped Hincmar's theory of of- fice, for by bringing ideology into dynamic interaction with worldly activity, the monks provided categories of thought useful- for a viable and constructive idea of public office. h —— 19Ulrich Stutz, Die Ei enkirche als Element des mit- telalterlich-‘ermanischen Kirchenrechts (reprint of 159 5 edition; Darmetadt , 19537 . g, is th: N ha Pr: 7!: - 33 - There is no point in tracing the introduction of men- asticism into the West by men such as Saint Martin and its a- daption there to local conditions and the needs of communal life. If one considers it at the moment when it first began to be a powerful force for change in Europe——in the sixth cen- tury-—the revolutionary nature of this new mode of existence is immediately apparent. To consider first its ideological import, the central role of the Benedictine liturgy forces itself upon our attenp tion. Spiritual salvation was the central purpose in the nmnk's life, and to this purpose a large part of his time and energy was devoted. But lest the obsession for communion with God unhinge the stabilitas of the monk's psychic existence, the whole procedure of prayer was firmly disciplined through a balance of inner experience and outer expression (dance and .One). In contrast to the excesses of the anchorite suffer- ing in the Egyptian desert, the Benedictine monk prayed in the context of norms——social, artistic, and liturgical-—which prevented the abandonment of self. Such a psychology of pra- yer-the integrating of inner spirit with outward form-iay It the heart of the Benedictine tradition.20 The nourishment of the intellect was not altogether 20Excellent for the monastic dynamic psychology aris- ing from a dialectic between an utopian order and an alien- ation from it is Gerhart Ladner's "'Homo‘Viator‘: Medieval Ideas on Alienation and Order," 5 eculum, XLII (1967), 233- 259. Particularly in.regard to liturgy in this respect, see Ildefons Herwegen, Der heilige Benedikt (4th ed.3 Dusseldorf, 1951). pp. 1111-120. - 3h - abandoned in this atmosphere of intense emotional experience. The Benedictine Rule provided for the regular perusal of li- terature relative to the Christian life, and here too, an ef- fort was made to discipline intellectual labor so that it not become perverted into a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Just as the case of liturgical prayer, the whole monk was here involved. Rather than reading silently, the monk read aloud-— masticating the words and digesting this spiritual food into his system. .Again, the peculiar Benedictine ability to enter the world of literary culture in order to transcend it con- tributed to the mystical dynamism which was an important ele- nmnt in early medieval thought.21 However, as suggested above, the monasteries not only provided a resolution of the old ideological contradiction, they also provided a utopian solution for social and political dislocations. The communal nature of Benedictine monasticism was not accidental, but rather, provided a social context without which salvation would have been difficult, if not in. possible. The field of grace in which man lived in relation to his Creator found specification in terms of love-caritas. God's love for man causes Him to extend to the sinner his sa- ving grace; manls love for God unites him with the Divine.22 h 21For the dialectic of action in the world of intel- lect and the opening of the heart to God, see Jean Leclercq The Love of Learni and the Desire for God (New York, 1961;, PP. 33-50 et passim. 22Friendship had a sacramental nature, for contact with a friend was considered contact with Christ, relating Min to both the paradise of Eden and the future Kingdom of.. Christ. Mother.Adele Fiske, ”Paradisus homo amious." Spgcu- (I: -35- Since man's essential nature was believed to be a function of the extent to which his flesh was spiritualized, his will to seek God‘s love and to live in accordance with the dictates of love thus determined the nature of his own being. This had, of necessity, to find expression in mundane terms, for con- trary to popular opinion, the monks were not fleeing the world, but simply marking off an area of life to be brought into con- formity with the celestial order. Without communal life, the monk would have lacked the worldly context in which love of neighbor was possible, and thus be deprived of the world as 23 a spring—board of salvation. With this as its base, Hinc- mar's idea of office forged an essential link between person- al salvation and social context. For economic life, Benedictine observance also had revolutionary implications, although their impact on the rest of society remains a very obscure subject indeed. It appears that the monasteries were the promoters of a high level of agricultural technology, not only because circumstances for- ced them to make the best possible use of undeveloped or re- latively inferior farm land, but also, more importantly, be- A £25,.XL (1965), h36-459, presents the evidence for various idea and symbol associations, but does not distinguish the aPocifically monastic contribution. Lech rcq, 0 .cit., PP-5'7- 75, covers similar ground, but suggests that it was the mouse- teries which carried on and developed the idea of sacramental friendship. 23The idea of an awareness of social involvement for Fursonal salvation survives in rather modified form today. For the Marxist, class-consciousness is a precondition both for understanding one's self and for salvation through revolution. Even for non-Marxists, social involvement is a pro-condition for meaningful thought: see nannheim. c cit.. pp. 86-90. t: 11 'U C 1! \ at New NI. Ax \ - 36 - cause they had a theory of value which encouraged initiative and hard work. Regardless of the social milieu from which the monks derived, when they entered the monasteries they became members of one class-—a class which praised the spiritual value of labor. Just as in the case of prayer and study, the physical labor, whether in field, scriptorium, or classroom, was rigidly organized into a pattern preventing exhaustion on 2h one hand or laziness on the other. Work in the monastic context was to serve a spiritual function, as were the products of labor. Rather than for pro- fit, the products of labor were distributed toward an equi- table support of the monks and their way of life. What was left over from their frugal needs was used for the social wel- fare of the surrounding rural populace, the relief of the poor, and protection of the defenseless. A study of the Rule has even suggested to one noted authority the beginnings of a labor theory of value, where the prices demanded for goods manufactured in the monastery were determined by the cost of production rather than market value.25 As for the distribution of goods, it was to be done "to everyone according as he had need.” M ZhFor the role of monasteries as promoters of an ef- ficient organization.of agricultural labor, see Robert La- gguche, The Birth of Western Economy (New York, 1961), pp. '90s 25Herwegen, o .cit., pp. 125-29. See also for mon- astic economy, J. ambrose Raftis, "Western Monasticism and Ebonomic Organization," Com rative Studies in Society and flute . III (1960-61), 1352-339. - 37 - This consideration of economic theory and agricultur- al technology might seem rather remote from a theoretical for- mulation of office, but it is here being suggested that these are elements fitting into a coherent and integrated whole going far to explain the success and impact of monasticism in the early Middle.Ages. Without resolving these material contra- dictions, monasticism would not have fared any better than the episcopacy in being the source of fruitful ideas for the whole spectrum of medieval civilization. One such example of the suggestiveness of monastic institutions for the broader reaches of society is the influ- ence of the abbot's office. As the earthly representitive of Christ, the abbot's exercise of Justice was comparable to that of divine Justice.26 Yet this absolutist tendency which might seem to have imposed a rigid order on the life of the monks, was in fact softened by the essential love of the abbot for those subject to him, where he was compared to a shepherd ten- ding his flock. This pastoral analogy found sharp echo in Gregory the Great's Pastoral Rule for bishops and in later attitudes toward the royal office itself. The abbot was to be an example of proper conduct and a teacher for the disci- h 26Walter Durig, "Disciplina; sine Studio zum Bedeut- “nesumfang des‘Wortes in der Sprache der Liturgie und der va- “r." Sacris Erudiri, IV (1952), 215-279, emphasizes the im- Ptct of Roman military discipline on ideas contained in the ideal of abbot and in monastic liturgy, and yet, it is a quite distinct discipline from.that of.Antiquity. Roman discipline 'Oueht to shape the person according to some explicit model; Indieval discipline simply corrected a person if he trans- cended certain limits, leaving the person essentially free to creat. himself within those limits. 6r ti; Y0: to - 37L- pline of the monk's life. This mixture of sternness and lo- ving care was precisely that which later characterized the church's ideal of political office, such as is found in Hinc- mar's writings. There were other monastic ”political" practices which ultimately found reflection in lay government. For example, important matters in the monastery were to be decided only after consultation with all the monks. And yet, the monas- tery was not libertarian, for whatever the abbot decided fi- nally to do, he had to be obeyed absolutely. However great the abbot's authority, it arose from the basis of love; how- ever unilateral his decisions, they were initiated by consul- tationr—this represented an integrated and balanced atmosphere of freedom and discipline which cannot be fully understood by rational analysis, and yet, does not seem at all strange in the monastic context. The monastic constitution served high- or spiritual ends, the achieving of which assured the essen- tial freedom of the individual despite his subjection to the yoke of the abbot's discipline. But when historians attempt to understand the same principles in ninth-century political life, they either take the position that men of that time were too naive to be consistent, or else, dispute among themselves Whether or not government at the time was totalitarian. Another manner in which monastic humility resolved problems not easily subject to rational solution.was the Rule's attitude toward specialization of labor. Human nature being what it is, one would expect the more skilled and articulate wt f: a! u .. 38 .. monks to accumlate for themselves status and undue influence in the direction of the monastery at the expense of their less well-trained brothers, and thus at the expense of the carita— tive field in which they lived. However, Benedict warned that it was erroneous to judge oneself by external worldly advan- tages. Such an attempt to create social consciousness through discipline and concentration on love was actually a bold ef- fort to change human nature so that social interaction would not‘be stymied by selfishness. The same objective will be seen to have been an integral part of Hincmar's theory of po- litical office.27 These examples taken from the Benedictine Rule are here raised to illustrate that monasticism revolu- tionized ideas of office-—both as a mode of worldly action and as a structuring of authority-not simply by legal redefinition, but by integrating action and authority with man's highest spiritual ends. When attention is turned from various aspects of church life to that of politics per se, it is clear that the early Germanic kings had even less sense of office than the ineffec- tual emperors they replaced. Beginning as army leaders and supported by the voluntary cooperation of the free warriors u 27A full analysis of the correlation between Benedic- tine thought and ninth-century political theory is not to the Psint here, and examples are merely being cited for the sake of suggestion. Considerably more work remains to be done be- fore the monastic contribution to early medieval life can be fully appreciated, but such a project is outlined in Richard Eh Sullivan, ”Some Influences of Monasticism on Fourth and Fifth Century Society," Studies in Medieval Culture, II (we... tern Michigan University, 19 o 19-3 . - 39 - who made up their comitatus, the kings of the invasion period made little distinction between their own personal and immedi- ate interests and supra-personal responsibilities towards their subjects. with the rise of the king in power through military victory, the comitatus which supported him enjoyed a corres- ponding increase in status. It was not long before the com. bination of royal service and personal wealth made the aris— tocracy a serious threat to independent royal action. Their participation in government was essential, but they appropri- ated for themselves royal dominial prerogatives and, when allied with other members of the royal family who aspired to the throne, presented a block of power which the king sought to counter by any means at his disposal. This task was under- taken by two avenues of approach. One was to create a coun- terbalance to the aristocracy by filling royal offices (the word “office" used here in its narrow sense) with persons of little independent power and another was to make the ducal rank into a strictly subordinate office through bonds of vas- salage.28 The royal agents, however clearly their duties might be defined, remained from the king's point of view mere ser- vants. This is true whether the house or court service was owed the king or some lesser magnate.29 * Nevertheless, these 28Walter Schlesinger, "Herrschaft und Gefolgschaft in dfir germanisch-deutschen‘Verfassungsgeschichte,” Beitggge zur deutschen Vefiassmggschichte (Gtttingen, 1963), pp. 9-52. Fbr the various modes of royal power manipulation, see also 1“’Pold Genicct, "La noblesse dans la socibt‘ m5diivale," M22, eases. mm (1965). 539-560 fr 4- fl ‘ ,- e‘ ‘. 37: - ho - royal officers in fact gained a considerable amount of pres- tige and, whenever possible, entrenched themselves in power by means of their access to the king. Any possible theoreti- cal implications of court offices were of little interest to the Merevingians, for their concern was merely for the powers and duties which each office implied.30 The interesting devel- opments in the idea of office are not found in minor officials, but in the royal office itself. The symbiotic relationship between monarchy and church chant that the royal office took on.a character quite distinct from that of other officials. Ecclesiastical wealth and ad- ndnistrative talent were placed in royal service, and the king, in turn, repaid the favor, at least in theory, with the extension of his protection (mundeburdium) to the church. To- ward the end of the Merovingian period, as the church grew ever wealthier and the kings weaker, the impact of church i- does upon kingship became more marked. Characteristics usual- ly applied to saints and finding expression in hagiographic literature soon became applied to the king, such as a reopen. sibility to punish the wicked.31 h 29m1g. Caseite. PP. 61-620 30For the Germanic side of office, see K. Kroeschell, "Amt," agndwbrtsrbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, I (196k), 150~5h. Sources for non-royal offices are rare in this period, but some ideas can be gleaned from Max Conrat, "Ein Traktat u- ber romanisch-frankisches.Amterwesen," Zeitschrift fflr Rechts- figschichte, G.i.. xxxx (1908), 239-260. 31Beyond Ewig's work cited above: our understanding of this progeny ha. been deepened by Frantisek Graus, Volk, H01?- Ioher und Heili r in Reich der Merowi er (Prague, 19 5 , es- POcial1y pp, '35E-§HS for ER point made here. In neither work, [-3‘ in in 11‘. 331 J0: 00 - Q1 - Signs of a deeper awareness of the relation of Chris- tian faith to political action appears to have been connected with the rise of the Carolingians as mayors of the palace.32 Fbr instance, the so-called Fredegar Continuator, who is our main source for these years, began to suggest that the mayors had the good fortune of divine assistance in carrying out their duties. First with the Battle of Poitiers in 732 and contin- uing thenceforth in rapid succession, the reader meets more and more often such phrases as Deo adiuvante in the royal chronicle as one parameter of political or military action.33 One also increasingly encounters liturgically derived analo- gies between the mayors and Old Testament figures such as Joshua. The penetration of Christian ideas into the Frankish Political mentality cannot be understood altogether abstract- ly, for the political conditions during the reign of Pepin and Charlemagne go far to explain the form and significance of their adoption. Important for these Carolingian attitudes was the old- h however, is the specifically Benedictine contribution recog- nized as such. 32For what follows, I am largly dependent on the im- portant work' of Ewig, c .cit., for the emergent Christian 1- dea of office; and Walter Mohr, 2i: karolin ische Reichsidee (Munster, 1962), for the relation betIuen political events and the idea of state; and Heinrich Buttner, "Aus den Anfang- On des abendlandischen.Staatsgedankens,; die Konigserhebung Pippins,” Das Kbniggum,ed. T. Mayer, pp. 155-167. 33M,G.H“ ss.ggr.her., II, 177. 180. 182. 18k. 187, 188, 190. See for this and other examples of the Christiani- zetion of kingship, Ewig, op.c1t.. pp. 42-43 st passim. - Q2 - or concept of royal legitimacy against which Christian ideas had to compete. This consisted largely of the charisma asso- ciated with the royal family (Geblfitsheiligkeit), which passed from generation to generation. This charisma, however, cannot be understood as the basis of legitimacy in any absolute sense, but rather, as simply a customary popular expectation of high performance from the royal family. The election by the mag- nates of the charismatic family member thought best able to ex- cel ensured a certain direction and control by the aristocracy over the royal hourse and the fate of the land. Despite this opening for innovation, election betrays the fundamentally conservative nature of royal legitimation by its dependence on the past for its strength. Charles Martel's successes, notably that of Poitiers, provided his family with a de facto magic sharply contrasting with that of the last of the Merovingian kings-a sad nonenti- ty rotting away in an obscure monastery. This disparity, on both the Merovingian and Carolingian sides, between the reali- ty of power and a title to accord with it, was one axis upon which Christian ideas of kingship penetrated political life in Francis. Despite all other differences, Germanic and Christian concepts of right order shared sensitivity to dis- Parities between outward form and inner reality. In the Fren- kish context, charisma had to be constantly demonstrated by outward success, and the late history of the Merovingian line WIS proof enough that they were no longer really kings. 0n the other hand, the Augustinian idea of ordo, as found in t! re; - A3 - such figures as Isidore of Seville and Pseudo-Cyprian, insis- ted that a title (nomen) correspond with the inner reality it expressed:”rex enim a regendo vocatur."3h However, as far as the Franks themselves were concer- ned, there was no need to look to the church for any title, for the charisma of the Carolingian house was in itself con- stitutive. In A.D. 7&3 and 7&6, Charles Martel's sons Pepin and Carloman used the term ”regnum nostrum" in their chancel- lory even though by that time the Merovingian puppet-king had been taken out of his monastery and set on the throne as Chil- deric 111.35 Bfittner and, following him, Mchr see in this Phrase a certain indication that the office of mayor of the Palace had become a public responsibility. The turn to a more explicitly Christian concept of the royal office arose less from a need to rationalize de facto rule than from the competition among Charles Martel's sons for the whole inheritance. Each of them——Grifo, Carloman, and Pepin——rea1129d that a propaganda weapon.ussful for excluding the others from power would be PrOVidOd by hi! holding the A 31‘Some authors, such as Jean Joliv t, “Quelques cases do 'platonisme grammatical' du VII au XII s.?' Mblagges Ron; Crozet, I (Poitiers, 1966), 93-99, have argued that the refer- ence to nomen is Platonic in spirit, but this seems to be stretching the philosophical term too far. In fact, it is well to consider if it is really even.Augustinian, but rather Phrhaps a Benedictine concept from the Frankish side and a Graechkugustinian.one from the papal. 35Found in Pepin's charter for St. Vincent in Macon in 7&3 (M.G.H., Diplo.Merov., 103), and Karloman in 7H6 (the ear- liest product surviving from his chancellory)(M.G.H., Diplo. Mer., 102). The significance of this phrase is pointed out by Nttner, 0 .cit., p. 81s 3h. 30: a» P.- ‘ 7 I] .fj' royal title. The final victor in this internal bickering was Pepin, who, in 751, united a claim of de facto success with justifications arising from a Christian context. From Pope Zacharias Pepin obtained a Responsum to his inquiries concerning the propriety of ruling without title- an accomodation which the papacy was only too willing to grant, for immediate outside help was needed to counter the Lombard ambitions to take over the Byzantine shadow power in Italy. This Responsum contributed to a new conept of state, for it made the king protector of a Christian kingdom rather than merely a Frankish kingdom. However, some of the implications of the papal aims did not sit well with the Frankish aristo- cracy, who saw it as endangering the traditionally friendly relations between Francis and the Lombards. Certainly more crucial for the internal affairs of Francia than this rather disturbing document from Rome was Pepin's election to king- ship by his magnatss, whereby his proven effectiveness was fermally acknowledged. There was, however, even within the Frankish domain, some direct impact of the church on Pepin's apotheosis. In addition to election, he was anointed by the Frankish bishops, who thus contributed a specifically Chris- tian charisma to the Germanic. The year 751 rather than 800 marks the revolutionary llPPolimance of ideas defining the basis of government for cen- turies to come. To the Germanic traditions were fused radical Christian concepts such as non-traditional charisma, granted by God through ancintment. Here were planted the seeds of a - 45 - fully Christian concept of political office. All that was needed for it to become dynamic was the introduction of Bene- dictine psychological ideas regarding peace and caritas by such figures as,Alcuin and Benedict of Aniane. But the full implications of the events of 751 only slowly penetrated Francia. The Franks were hesitant to accept papal concepts of state, and, indeed, they never fully gras- ped their implications. Elements of the scheme, however, fol- lowing the papal unction of Pepin in 754 in Rome, began to Penetrate north. Without tracing in detail the history of this papal-Frankish dialogue, one can simply note that by 800, Charlemagne's concept of his office was encompassed by the image of the New David: a divinely appointed ruler over a cho- sen people, whose task it was to realize God's will on earth. The direct contact between king and God made him both £2§,and sacerdos, but priest only in its functional sense of being the agent of God's saving grace. To what extent this constituted an authority over purely religious matters was not at all clear among court circles. Charles felt that his authority, resting on a direct commission from.God, permitted his immediate involvement in affairs both religous and secular. The responsibility for carrying out the renovatio of society in preparation for Christ's second coming, was most definitely his. However, Charles"broad powers were only accepted by the Franks because of his charisma and obvious concern for the interests of the church. Even.Alouin seems to have had a few reservations con- be it -146... cerning the propriety of Charlemagne's sacerdotal responsibil- ities, but as long as Charles behaved as Alcuin though he 36 should, he did not make any objection. However, as Charle- magne grew older and especially when he was succeeded by a son less resolutely independent of church views, the latent epis- copal sense of the church's responsibility for the destinies of Francia arose to make itself heard. The reform effort of Louis the Pious' early years of rule, climaxing in 829, represents views which have come to be 37 known as the church Einheitspartei. Although some of the leading spokesmen were bishops, as were the instigators of an earlier reform movement in 813, their effort appears to have been closely associated with a revived concern for monastic reform. Bishops had traditionally not felt it incumbent upon their office to engage directly in matters of state, and the Justifications for such a broadened sense of responsibility must have arisen from factors inherent in the political situ- at the turn of the eighth century.38 The Ambrosian idea of * 36Heinz Hfirten, ”Alcuin und der Episkopat im Reiche Karla des Grossen,' Historisches Jahrbucho LXXXII (1962). 22-h9. 37The study of the Einheitspartei is exceedingly com. Plox, but the following works are of especial use. The basic study of the idea itself is that of Roland Faulhaber, 22;. Reichseinheits edanke in der Literatur der Karoli erzeit Berlin, 1931 . See also Hans Liebschiitz, "Wesen und Grenzen d0! karelingischen Rationalismus," agghiv fur Kulturgeschichte, XXXIII (1950), 17-h“; Josef Semmler, "Reichidee und kirchliche Gesetzgebung," Zeitschrift ftir Kirchjengeschichte, m: (1960), 37-65; Walter Mohr, "n19 kirchliche Einheitspartei und die Durchfflhrung der Reicheordnungnung von 817," ibid., LXXII (1961), 1-h5; and Joachim Scharf, "Studien zu Smaragdus und “nae." Deutsches Archiv, XVII (1961), 333-3814. 38 Heinz Hflrten, "Gregor der Grofle und der mittelalter- t} episcopal liberty did not consider such action appropriate, nor did any later bishop argue for a new definition of the bishop's office until Louis' reign.39 The reason for this is clear enough , for as long as the bonds of civil society were understood to be worldly, there was no way in which the spiritual action of the church could prove directly efficacious. It was for the king to defend the church, and for the church to pray for God's intercession in behalf of the king. However, with the spiritualization of society-ths substitution of a regpublica christiana for the traditional Kingdom of the Franks——¢he bonds of society were understood to be spiritual. The church Einheitgpartei concei- ved of such a state having caritas as its political and social cement, permitting a close accord between worldly order and the divine will. It was this monastization of society which Opened the way for a direct involvement of the episcOpacy in political affairs. But indeed, this was an episcopacy educa- ted in monasteries and reflecting Benedictine ideas. Hincmar'g early career was itself in many ways typical of the leading figures of the realm.at this time. A number of magnates, in reaction to the theocratic implications of the Davidic kingdom and wishing to profit from -—_._ liche Episkopat," Zeitschrift fur Kircheggpschichte, LXXIII (1962), 16-h1, where the Gregorian concept of episcopal office discouraged political involvement. 3‘91“:Luz Hart“, “Linn”. in der Patriotik—'libertas Opiscopelis' im Frfihmittelalter," Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, KIN (1963), 1-1h. cm '11 to: 51: - 48 - any check to royal effectiveness, Joined with the bishops in working for a more precise definition of Louis' office. This expressed itself as their cooperation in the effort t>consider the royal position as a ministerium.quite distinct from the person holding it.“0 The application of the term ministerium to the royal office rested at the end of a long evolution, starting, as has been mentioned, with its use for the servants of bishops, kings, or royal officials. By 802, however, the term was universally applied to all who had any public respon- sibility. This is seen in the Instruction for the missi of 802, which sought to counter feud: "They will diligently seek among bishops, abbots, counts, abbesses, and our vassals, how concord and amiable relations are to be obtained in the future within each of the offices, and also if there is seen any dis- cord among them. . . ."h1 Significant it is that each, whether bishop, abbot, count, or vassal, has a ministerium, and that friendship is a check to discord. By 823 the imperial office itself had become a minis- terium, and taken together with the ministeria of all other offices, the full objectification of the state in all its ele- ments was complete. But however much the total weight of this ministering ap- l‘o'l'heodor Mayer, "Staatsauffsssung in der Karolinger- 2.11:." Das K6111 tun, ed. T. Mayer, pp. 169-183. “'M G H. Ca it., I, 101: ”Ut diligenter inquirant in- t.” CPieccpie, abbatis sive comites vel abbatissas atque va- lees nostros, qualem concordiam et amicitiam ad invicem habe- Int Pflr singula ministeria, an si aliqua discordia inter ip- '00 eese videtur. . . .' fl pears to rest in our person, actually, it is divided by God's authority and man's organization in such a way that each of you, in his own place and order, knows he has a part in our ministry, and thus, it is fitting that I am the admonitog of you all, and you ought to be the adiu- tores of me. It each person in his own ministry is carried over the same responsibilities of the king—-obvously those which transcend the particular function of office in the fabric of government. If all cooperate under imperial direction, then peace and the "publica utilitas" assured. The pax et concordia motif which did indeed penetrate political life, entering into a functional relationship with the older ideals of iustitia and ordo, reflects less an Augus- “3 inization of state than its monastization. The basic dis- tinguishing characteristic of Benedictine thought is the into- station of a psychology of the spirit with the external mani- festations of life in a dialectic of alienation.hh Worldly u #2 2Admonitio ad omnes regg__ordines, iii (M. G. H., Ca- 21t., I, 303): 'Sed quamquam summa huius ministerii in nostra POrsona consistere videatur, tamen et divina auctoritate et humans ordinatione ita per partes divisum esse cognoscitur, ut “DHBQUisque vestrum in one loco et ordine partem nostri minis- terii habere cognoscatur; unde apparet, quod ego omnium ves- trum admonitor esse debes, et omnes vos nostri adiutores esse debetis.‘ (cap.xiii, p. 305): I'Omnibus etiam generaliter dici- luluhut caritatem et pacem ad invicem habeatis et generalem iussionem nostram generaliter observare decertetis et missis nostris, pro qualioumque scilicet aut ecclesiastica aut publi- ca utilitate vel oportunitate a nobis directis, . . ." “anans M. Klinkenberg, ”Uber karolingische Ffirstens 1g- 801 " Geschichte in.wissenschaft und Unterricht, VIII (1956?, 32-98, attributes the distinctive character of ninth-century lirrors to monastic influence. M"I‘o what extent the Christianization of the royal of- rice under Charlemagne's predecessor! was due to a fundamen- tilly monastic source, is a question too complex to be entered - so - discipline, Justice, and order become means for sharing in Christ's mystical presence on earth. The resulting nearness to spiritual perfection in turn makes all the more clear the inadequacies of the world as given. Augustine had recognized the alienation of man from the world, but provided no psychological dynamic whereby this very alienation compelled one to change the world as it exis- ted. Radical change remained spritual and personal; human ac- 45 tion in history could bear no lasting fruit. With Benedic- tine monasticism, however, the inner spiritual dynamic inte- Grated with worldly action, although at first within the con- fines of utopian communities. Belief in a progressive view of human action, seeking an ever closer conformity between the divine order and the worldly, remained cloister-bound until the Carolingian period. Here, once political action was sub- __ into here. In any case, there seems a close tie between.what has been called “monastic theology“ and the nature of kingship as deleated by Walter Mohr, op.cit., and J. M. wallace-Hadrill, ”The 'Via Regia' of the Carolingian.Age,' in Trends in Hedi- eval Political Thou ht, ed. Beryl Smalls? (OIfOrd- 19 5 . pp. i§;ETT""““""‘JL" uSFor the Augustinian non-progressive view of history, see Theodor Mommsen, “St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress,“ Journal of the History of Ideas, XII (1951), 3h6- 37k, and mor. recently, G. L. Keyes, Christian Faith and the Integpggtation of Histo A Stud of St. Au stine's Philo- lephz of History lLincoln, Nebraska, 1933’, who points out how classic epistemology hindered fruitful understanding of human action in history. Hans J. Diesner, Studien zur Gesellschafts- lehre und sosialen Haltggg Augustine Halle, 195 , pp. 11 - 17 et passim, reveals Augustine's blindness to social reali- ties and tendency to rely on absolute political authority to ensure religious conformity. Augustine thus reflects the 1m. perial .ffort to achiove order by represive political action rather than opening the way for constructive social forces. I11 11 of to V0 - 51 - sumed under the broader cover of respublica christiana, the way for its more positive evaluation lay open. If Alcuin can be taken as representative of one current of opinion at court, there is clear evidence of a compulsion to reshape the world in time for Christ's second coming: a sense of modernity and alienation from the past which asserted the progressive nature of Carolingian political life.u6 To Charlemagne he wrote, "A Neththens is taking shape in Francia, or rather, one even more excellent. For, ennobled by the teaching of Christ, it surpasses all the wisdom of the Academy. While that was merely learned through the Platonic doctrines, and shines by virtue of the seven arts, our academy, being endowed with the seven- fold fullness of the Spirit, exceeds the whole dignity of worldly wisdom. " 2‘7 With Louis the Pious, there was a concerted effort to h6For the modernus idea in the Carolingian period, see Halter Freund, Hodernus und anderer Zeitbe iffe des Mittelal- ters (Kola, 1957 , 1-52. There is a vast bibliography for the Carolingian reform effort. Especially useful are Percy E. Schramm, ”Karl der GroBe: Denkart und Grundauffassungenp—- die von ihm bewirkte Correctio," Historische Zeitschrift, cxcvnI (19611), 306-3145, and Josef Fleckenstein, Dio‘Taii'dm. form Earls des GroBen als Verwirklich der Norma Rectitu- dinis IBigge-Ruhr, 1953,. For the nexus of the will to reform, worldly action, and caritas, see for example, Friedrich Car1 Scheibe, PGeschichtsbild, ZeitbewuBtsein und Reformwille bei Alcuin,’ Archiv fflr Kulturflschichte, XLI (1959). 35-62, and Wolfgang Edslstein, ruditio und Sapentia:" Weltbild und Erziehggg in der Karolingerzeit (Freiburg i.B., 19 5 . h7M.G.H., Epist., Iv, 279: "forsan.Athenae nova perfic- eretur in Francis, immo multo excellentior. Quia haec Christi domini nobilitate magisterio omnem achademicae exercitationis Unperat sapentiam. Illa, tantummodo Platonicis erudite disci- Iflinis, septenis informata claruit artibus; haec etiam insuper aOptiformi saneti Spiritus plenitudine ditats omnem saecularis '3P1entiae excellit dignitatem." CO bi -52... impose a monastic-like descipline on the whole of life. His chief advisor for the first few years of his reign.was Abbot Benedict of‘Aniane, who undertook a fundamental reform of Frankish monastic life, even going so far as to impose a monas— tic rule on the canons of cathedral chapters. There is no point here in.estimating the extent to which Benedictine edu— cation shaped not only the kings and magnates of the age, but the bishops as well. A common complaint was that the monaster- ies resembled kindergartens more than islands of prayer. Hinc- mar himself, as so many other sons of the aristocracy, was sent at a very early age to St. Denis for upbringing. Here, as in many other monasteries, the.Anianian reforms were introdu— ced, and from such an atmosphere came the most influential bishops of Francia. The introduction of the idea of peace into the Carolingian concept of state was a fact of critical impor- tance, and for this reason it is essential to distinguish mon- astic concepts of peace from those of Augustine.“8 For the Bishop of Hippo, peace had two aspects. True peace, as found in.the Civitas Dei, is impossible of realization on earth be- cause of man's fallen nature. Earthly peace, however desirable it might he, should not be understood to contradict Just and necessary warfare. ‘The limited nature of this earthly peace —__¥ hBDiscussing the crucial role of peace at this junc- ture but failing to distinguish Benedictine ideas are H. x. Arquiiiidre, ygfltinieme mlitigue (2nd «1.: Paris, 1955), PP. 170-187, and F. L. Ganshof, ”La 'Paix' au tree haut moyen 0' La Paix, I (Bruxelles, 1961), 397-“13. do tr I\ I‘m m - 53 - is due to its being essentially a function of human nature. If "the most savage animals. . .enccmpass their own species with a ring of protecting peace. . .how much more powerfully do the laws of man's nature move him to hold fellowship and 49 In con- maintain peace with all men so far as in him lies." trast, monastic peace found its focus in love which is Christ and held that worldly peace, because it was an integration of caritas and 11:93, was not essentially different from Heaven- ly Peace. For the monk, then, worldly action becomes a posi- tive good, for through it one participates in Christ's mysti- 50 cal presence on earth. Louis the Pious' contemporaries were to find, however, that a reliance on such monastic concepts of state might have disastrous consequences. The bishops had so shaken the uni- lateral authority of the royal office by hedging it about with nmral criteria that the ever grasping magnates of the realm, and in particular Louis' own sons, were quick to seize the op- portunity to depose their ruler. Once it was granted that the cement of society was spiritual, then as assembly of bishops had all the Justification it needed to both Judge the king and reshape the political order according to their own conceptions. The canonical Justification for the bishops thus asser- h9Quoted from Deane, o .cit., p. 79. See also pp. 15h-171 for a discussion of peace and war, and pp. 137-38 for the heavenly-earthly peace distinction. 50For a crucial example, lying close to the heart of the reforms under Louis the Pious, see Jean Lecleroq, “Les Mu- nimenta fidei' de Saint Benoit d'Aneiane,” Analecta Monastica, I3(o:|.ttd. del Vaticano, 19h8), 21-7h. -54.. ting their authority over the king was based on the so-called Gelasian theory. Although Pope Gelasius himself had no such intention of distinguishing sacerdotal auctoritas from the king's worldly testes, and during the reigns of Louis' pre- decessors there was little room to impose sacerdotal authori- ty, yet the troubles of the second and third decades of the ninth century allowed the church party to take matters into its own hands.51 In 833, led by Agobard, it revolted against Louis because in its opinion he had failed to rule properly. A second such proceeding under Archbishop Ebbo of Rheims went so far as to actually depose Louis and incarcerate him in a unnastery. This shocked public Opinion to such an extent that Iouis was able to recover his throne, and the church Einheits- Egrtei was forced into the background for a number of years. When the party re-entered political life, it was under the leadership of Ebbo's successor, Hincmar, who tried to forge I more realistic, but nevertheless, still fundamentally men- astic concept of society; This consideration of the ideology of kingship during louis' reign‘would be very misleading if the actual power con. ditions were to be ignored. The Carolingian scheme for the reform and revival of society is usually more admired in its conception than in its fulfillment, for neither Charlemagne nor Louis the Pious was able to bring about a lasting renais- sance of culture or political viability. The promise of a unified Europe, forged by the early Carolingians and placed ‘— 51For Gelasius, see Ensslin, op.cit,e PP. 661—68. t1 C! do f1 th - 55 - on an ideological basis by at least 829, proved to be of short duration. .An admirable effort to bring about a reform of re- ligion and culture proved ephemeral, for there were very real limitations on royal power.52 The king's power advantage over the magnates of the realm was very slight indeed, and every conceivable means was taken to assure continued public support-—the preconditions of any royal undertaking. The creation of a loyal aristocracy, dependent on the king for status and wealth, served to check regional magnates, but the greatest care had to be taken lest these men in royal service also become entrenched through the building up of regional loyalties. .Although novel oaths and success in battle may have reinforced royal charisma, an essen- tial reason for the king's constant travelling throughout his realm was to evaluate local power complexes and to grant char- ters in order to build aristocratic support. Despite his name, Louis the Pious was well suited to carry on the traditions of his father. An.able military lea- der, he had already proven his ability as King of Aquitaine. Uhen.he became sole ruler, the attempt to carry out what he felt to be his responsibilities as a Christian monarch by a thoroughgoing church reform would only have increased contemp Porary loyalty to him, for through it, certainly, he would win 52A.useful corrective to the over-emphasis on the ca- Pfi¢1ty of Charlemagne to shape the course of Carolingian hie- t0?! 1- provided, i.a., by Edouard Perroy, ”Carolingian Admin- iltration," in Early Medieval Seoieg. ed. Sylvia Thrupp (Nov York, 1967), pp. 129-1 . g ___—_—‘_,-b if -.—.~- — 56 - God's help. The magnates would see no contradiction between the king's Christian responsibilities and what was for them his principle function, the granting and protecting of politi- cal and economic privilege. In spite of a good start, Louis' character encouraged certain tendencies which ultimately proved destructive to the network of loyalties which ensured his base of power. One 'shortcoming,"which he shared with other members of his house, was being too subject to the affections of women. Charlemagne's indulgent attachment to his dissolute daughters scandalized many at court, and Lothar's love-life became the major crisis of his reign. For Louis, trouble arose because of the passion which he had for his second wife, the youth- ful and attractive Judith of Bavaria. Judith's ambitions for her son Charles (the Bald) induced Louis to revamp his prior 53 commitments for succession at the expense of his other sons. Such family squabbles were famiar enough to men of this period, but this time ideological questions played a role more crucial than had hitherto been the case. The older sons, Iothar and Louis, saw in the idea of respublica christiana a Prepaganda tool useful for countering any further division of the realm. The events in the ensuing struggle are complex and too little understood, but it does emerge that Lethar's unscrupulous effort to capitalize on certain ideas (such as the _—i 53The early Middle Ages were rather insensitive to man's sinful nature, but had a profound appreciation for the imPOrtance of love-an interesting combination. b NV. Mao. sq - 57 - church's right to censure the king's political acts) meant a severe check to Louis' effectiveness. One sees a compliant churchmen in Ebbo of Rheims, who tried to support Lothar's am- bitions by using the Christian idea of supra-personal gagg,to counter Louis' right to act unilaterally. Any such check on the monarch's right to act freely within the political sphere could bode nothing but ill for the traditional base of royal power. The realistic evaluation of the power situation and the complete freedom to manipulate that situation through a distribution of honors would prove difficult indeed if bishOps gathered in council countered roy- al action and even, as in Soissons in 833, removed the king to a monastery, far from the arena of political action. As has been noted, public reaction against Ebbo's and Lothar's scheme was immediate and decisive. The Christianization of royal office, however admir- able it may have been as an intellectual achievement, proved fruitless because it ignored the real conditions of political life. Traditional bases of power could indeed be modified, as the growing use of propaganda and public assemblies suggest, but such changes would have to be developmed slowly and with- out permitting a gap to appear between magnate expectations and royal intentions.5h k shFor Louis' increased political use of public assem- blies, see Joel T. Rosenthal,' The Public Assembly in the Time 0! Louis the Pious,‘ Traditio, xx (1961.). 25-ho. The study of Proplsanda as the nexus of magnate mentality and royal aims hi! never been pursued, although Klinkenberg, o .cit., makes a number of suggestive remarks in this vein. -58- The severe check to royal power experienced during Louis' later years and the struggle following his death be- tween the sons Louis the German, Lothar of Lothringia, and Charles the Bald of West Francia, contributed to a fundamen- tal shift in the basis of kingship. Charles the Bald was only seventeen in 8&0 and had little choice but to turn to the ter- ritorial magnates of West Francia for an assurance of his con- tinued rule. The more or less permanent settlement achieved at Verdun and Coulaines in 8&2 and 8h3 marked the initial suc- cess of a group of interests which sought to substitute for the royal manipulation of honors a mutual interest pact among all fideles as the basis of the king's power.55 The settlement of 843 defining the boundries of the realm represents the product of a commission of magnates ra- ther than unilateral royal action. Henceforth, the state of West Francia was to be a commonwealth assured by the coopera- tion of all orders rather than the personal creation of the king. From the old heterogeneous disunity of the Carolingian realm were now forged three more tightly knit regional uni— ties resting on the interdependence of both secular and ac. clesiastical fideles and the king to ensure the continuance 0! their respective interests against both outside attack and the disturbing influence of private interests on the royal Person. Per benovolentiam the king was to respect the common- __ 55For this and what follows, I rely to a large extent on.the work of P. Classen, "Die Vertrage von.Verdun und Cou- laines, 8&3, als politische Grundlagen des Westfrfinkischen Reiohes,‘ Eigtorische Zeitschrift, cxcvx (1963). 1-35. - 59 - wealth, for he was custodia_pacis caritatisqpe. The impact of Coulaines on West Francia can perhaps best be seen in subsequent legislation. In contrast to his brothers, Charles the Bald produced a series of acts between 8&3 and 856 which carried on the principles of Coulaines into the political events of his reign. There is some evidence that these legislative acts were carefully collected together as a legal expression of the contract between the king and the fideles to guarantee political stability in contrast to the Personal government which had hitherto predominated. Although unanswered questions in regard to this ser- ies of legislative documents abound, there are good indications that they formed a unified whole, the purpose of which was to express in legal form the belief that the king was subject to law and that the law ensured the commonwealth. It is more difficult to ascertain the authorship of the program, although it seems rather likely that Hincmar exerted an important in- fluence. Hincmar had been closely associated with an impor- tant spokesman of the church Qinheitspartei, Abbot Hilduin of Saint Denis, but had also arranged for the reconciliation of fulduin with Louis the Pious after the revolt against the king had collapsed. Furthermore, Hincmar had been active in royal service. expecially in regard to the managing of royal assem- blies, and revealed an exceptional legal ability.. These and other factors all contribute to the hypothesis that Hinemar was an important agent in a movement to re-establish a Chris- tian interpretation of the royal office and of state. Unfor- - 60 - tunately, so little is known of Hincmar's activity before he was appointed Archbishop of Rheims in 8&5, that the verifica- tion and elaboration of any such hypothesis would require a major investigation.56 For this reason, the present project seeks a more li- mited task, that of ascertaining the nature of Hincmar's con. cepts once he had won for himself a more widely recognized and influential position in Francis after defending Charles the Bald's rule from Lothar's attempted coup of 858-59. At no time either before or after this crisis were Hincmar's ideas entirely successful in shaping royal policy, for the old personal concept of royal power through manipulation of hon- ors continued to assert itself. However, Just as Charles' weakness in 8&0-&3 had permitted certain concepts tending to limit royal autonomy to impose themselves, likewise, dur- ing the crisis of 858-59, Hincmar had won for himself such an important place in the royal council that his ideas had gree- ter impact on the course of political events. The present study begins at the point at which this influence becomes manifest, particularly when Hincmar's ex- tent writings began to carry a greater burden of more narrow- ly political concerns. It is hoped that this investigation will show the extent to which a Christian concept of office -__ 56The events of Hincmar's life before his elovation to Rheims deserve careful study. However, until this is un- dertaken, the reader is best referred to the detailed but ra- ther doutdated work of Heinrich Schrors, Hinkmar, Erzbischof you ”1.1” (n.1burg lens. 188“). - 61 - was made fully compatible with the actual basis of royal power, and how Hincmar's ideas interacted with the course of politi- cal events throughout the remainder of his life. If this leads to a better comprehesnion of Hincmar's position, then an understanding of events between 829 and 858 would become great- ly facilitated. CHAPTER II HINCMLR'S THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF OFFICE The usual interpreation put forward by historians to illuminate the ninth-century idea of political office has fol- lowed a familiar course. If one begins with the assumption that Carolingian government was an attempt to submit personal ambition and a complex of overlaping rights to the rule of law and that royal advisers saw as their principal aim the admon- ition of those at the head of state to respect that law, then it is a rather straightforward task to trace in the various sources those characteristics which defined the limits and ideals of office. The prince, for example, should have good character, be brave, Just, and God-fearing—-virtues which were not foreign either to Antiquity or the Renaissance.1 However, merely selecting the ideas of a given writer such as Hincmar and showing how 010301? they resembled an ideal transcending the ages leaves much to be desired if his unique contribution is to be appreciated. In order to grasp fully the implications that such ideals had at the time, it is im. Plrative to put the lists of princely virtues in the context — 1Anexample of this limited approach is that of Lester R. Born, "The Specula Principis of the Carolingian Renaissance," Revue belge de philologig_gt d'histoire, XII (1933). 583-612. He argues that the princely ideal of Hincmar and his contem- Poraries differs little from that of Erasmus. - 62 - -53- of thought from which they emerge. This is particularly true of such a tradition-conscious age as that of the Carolingian, for especially in this period, lengthy tracts were often.writ- ten by weaving together bits and pieces of quotations from the Bible and church Fathers. when the fabric is analysed, each thread is discovered to derive its hue from outside sources, but the whole pattern can only be understood once the elements are restored to their proper place. For these reasons, it is imperative to consider first the parameters of office in the context of Hincmar's entire thought. Once the ideological implications of his idea of office are grasped, it is further necessary to place them into the framework of actual political events, revealing not only how his ideas were relevant to political realities, but also inwwhat way they grew out of public needs. Hincmar's theory of office is fully illuminated only after its theoretical base is unearthed. This base, however, was constructed out of materials available to him for under- standing the political and social world-—ideas derived both from Benedictine psychology and from the old definition of episcopal office. For these reasons, it is essential to con- sider‘what he felt were the nature and ends of human action in the world. A delineation of the perfect state of society is im. portant for an understanding of what Hincmar held to be the Goals of political life, for a myth of an idealized past pro- - 6h - vided an objective for positive action. Although the early years of Louis the Pious' reign and the Apostolic era were considered periods which contrasted favorably with the diffi- cult times cf the later ninth century, the most theoretically significant epoch was that of the Church in Paradise. Hincmar believed that prior to Adam's fall the vari- ous tribes or nations lived together in a state of concord, for they‘were one in God. The natural order—-the will of God which man unquestioningly obeyed-—was the basis of this unity, and explicit law would have been superfluous.2 This natural order in Paradise was characterized by 22x, caritas, and 223: cordia-terms which serve as keys to an understanding of the normative relation between men and God, either as realized in Paradise or as the goal of political action. It will be shown how Hincmar's use of these terms was characteristically Bene- dictin. e Hincmar, in common.with traditional Christian attitudes, looked upon God as caritas and the source of all goodness.3 L; 2De raptu viduarum, cap. v: "Cuius rei imitations eti- am.sancta eoclesia antiquitus solemniter et venerabiliter cus- todivit, eos qui in illa velut in paradise Dei coniugio copu- landi eesent, divina benedictione et missarum celebrations con- insens. Quae videlicet honesta et religiosa coniunctio, Dee austere ooepta, et eius benedictione firmata, etiam inter gen- ‘9': Quae nullam legem acceperunt, nullam Dei habuerunt noti- ti‘mu legitimo ordine et naturali lege servata est. Nec un. qunm.rem pacis, oaritatis atque concordiae, per discordiam, et violentiam, et impietatem fieri licitum fuit.‘ This oneness with God-mot conceiving of God as other-than—self—assured the concordance of will. It is not nature which is “natural," but the absorption of all into Godr-a spirit of love. Any re- lation of this to Stoic thought is strictly coincidental. 3ngpraedestinatione, cap. xix: 'Sed et caritatem, -65— Since these divine characteristics are found naturally in.every individual, man loves God and therefore seeks to realize an ever more complete union with Him.“ Therefore, this love which man has for his Creator induces a corresponding desire for car- rying out His will in the form of good works. In the exercise of his free‘wil, man has the capacity for doing good, but only through God's grace has he the desire to act in accordance with God's will.5 Thus the relationship between concordia_and cari- 223 is very close, for it is through an accordance of God's will and that of man that the individual is filled with caritas and consequently, is motivated to do good.6 Just as concordia relates the form of man's acts to the divine will, so caritas unites their spirit with Him. Hincmar makes no essential distinction between.world- 1y love and love for God, and in fact, both express man's de- * quia una est, quia Deus caritas est. . . ." Ad reclusos et simplices, praef.: "Sed Dominus natura pius et fons bonitatis et pietatis origo. . . ." “De praedestinatione, cap. xxix: ”Qui ergo mente integ- ra Deum desiderat, profecto iam habet quem amat. Neque enim quisquam posset Deum diligere, si eum quem diligit non haber- st." 5M;G.H., Epp., VIII, 30: ”Per liberum arbitrium gra- tiam subsequimur, ut bene agamus: gratia adiuvamur, ut bene agere possimus. . . ." 6Hincmar'wrote in the acts of the §ynodus Mettensis, “a 359. cap. vi: "Et cum mala cuncta bonis sequentibus dilu- antur, tantum est discordia malum, quae, nisi extincta fundi- tus fuerit, bonum nullatenus sequi, evangelio teste, permit- tat; et caritas est, quae operit multitudinem pecoatorum, sine qua, etiamsi quis corpus suum tradat ad ignem, nihil ei nisi ad damnationis iudicium proderit.” The Latin word concordia will henceforth be used to indicate the relationship between mln'l'will and the divine order. di fl ti V0 id: tht be to: the - 66 - sire for union with Christ: Behold the crucified Christ is given to the peoples of the world! But how do the people approach Him? By chasing after in faith; by the eagerness of the heart; by hasten- ing love. Love is your feet, of which you have two-iove of God and love of neighbor, and since you are not lame, with these two feet you hasten to God. It has already been suggested that a prerequisite of salvation being worldly action in a social context was a uniquely Bene- dictine contribution to Western thought, and Hincmar here re- flects the same inclination to sanctify social relations. It was Hincmar's contribution to make this social context a poli- tical one as well, for caritas also necessitated bringing the worldly ordo into an ever closer accord with the divine will. If a state of concordia exists, as was the case before Adam's fall, then the resulting situation is characterized by the term 225. To resist the will of God is to disturb £25 and be removed from the source of saving grace.8 23x.is not sim- ply ”peace" in the sense of the absense of conflict, but ra- * 7De cavendis vitiis, cap. xii: "Ecce gentibus datur crucifixus Christus. Unde accedunt gentes? Fide sectando, cords inhiando, caritate currendo. Pedes tui caritas est. Du- 08 pedes, id est dilectionem Dei et proximi habe, ut non sis claudus, et istis duobus pedibus curre ad Deum." The Latin term caritas will henceforth be employed to emphasize its theological implications. 8Opgsculum LN. capitulorum, cap. xxxvi: "Quorum per- ditionem evidenter catholica demonstrat ecclesiae, quae ut Pro haereticis, ita coniunctim et pro schismaticis orat, ut ad fidei et pacis redeant unitatem, sciens haereticos et schis- maticos in haeresi ac schismate in permanentes regnum Dei non intraturos: quia nisi ad iudicium, in scissura mentium Deus non est, ut beatus dicit Gregorius. Deus quippe in unitate "ta et illi eius habere gratiam merentur, qui se ab invicem Per sectarum scandals non dividunt." lar m sit Jor. m Vil -57.. 9 ther, the concordance of all creation in God's beneficence. The pg§_man enjoyed in Paradise was sundered by the fall, wherein man abused the freedom of his will by pridefully adopting ends which were not in accord with those of God.10 This identification of self as other-than-God, called super- bia, enabled man in the freedom of his will to appropriate to hdmself God's creative nature and bring meaning to his world- ly situation not in accord with the divine will.11 Whenever M 9De rggis pgrsona, cap. ii: "Pax enim populorum est, tutamen patriae, immunitas plebis, munimentum gentis, cura languorum, gaudium hominum, temperies aeris, serenitas maria, terrae foecunditas, solatium pauperum, hereditas filiorum, et sibimetipsi spes futurae beatitudinis.” Hincmar here quotes Jonas' Capitula diversarum sententiarum, cap. xx. which in turn makes use of Pseudo-Cyprian. Henceforth, the term 22x will be used to signify a world in accord with God's will and thus spiritualized by his mystical presence, rather than the narrower sense of ”peace" as the absence of conflict. 10Mansi, XV, 565: ”[Adam] autem diabolo invidenti Quia illuc erat homo terrenus per debitam obedientiam ascen- surus, unde ipse cecidit per superbiam angelicus spiritus, et mendacia suadenti plus credens, quam voluntati conditoris sui obediens, abusus arbitrio libero deservit Deum, et desertus iuste a Deo peccavit ac cecidit, et per posse bonum vincere Potuit velle malum." 11M,G.H.I £22., VIII, &7: "Scimus tamen, quia sunt nonnulli, qui, dum plus sapere quam oportet sapere student, a proximorum pace resiliunt, dum eos velud ebetes stultosque contempnunt. . .ut quisquis habere sal sapientiae studet, cur- et necesse est, quatinus a pace concordiae numquam recedat." De diversa et multiplici animae rations, praef. (Sirmond, II, 75577-7Et quia mens humans vicina est Dec, non autem quod De- us est hoc ipsa est, agit congruenter, . . .“ Hincmar quotes Ore cry in nggculum LV. capitulorum, cap. xli (Sirmond, II, 537 : ”Cor quippe carnale, dum huius vitae gloriam.quaerit, humilitatem respuit: Et plerumque ipse homo qui irascitur, discordantem sibi reconciliari appetit, sed ire ad satisfac- iendum prior erubescit. Pensemus facta veritatis, ut videa— nms quo iaceant nostrae pravitatis actiones. Si enim membra Iummi capitis sumus, imitari eum cui connectimur debemus.“ 'Erubescat ergo humans superbia, confundatur quisque si non satisfaciat prior proximo. quando post culpam nostram, ut ei reconciliari debeamus, . . ." co: to: dit - 68 _ man seeks to work for ends which are contrary to God‘s wishes. he plunges into darkness and he and his works are spiritually dead.12 For this reason, positive action in the world is a direct function of man's spiritual state.13 This being the case, the active participation of the sacerdotal office in po- litical life is essential, for the reformation of the Ecclesia (the entire respublica christiana) is contingent upon the ac- cord of spiritual and worldly action. Just as in the monas- tery, the whole of society must be restored to an utopian con- dition approximating that of Paradise.1h As long as discordia existed, this reform effort had to be carried on within an explicit structure of law and au- thority expressing in worldly terms the norms of proper con— duct. Although men might be naturally eQual, the fact that they had sinned led to the loss of their freedom.15 Not only L. ___ _ L 2De cavendis vitiis, cap. vi: ”Sicut more exterior ab anima dividit carnem, ita more interior a Dec separat animam. Umbra ergo mortis est cbscuritas divisionis, quia damnatus quiBQue, cum aeterno igne succenditur, ab interno lumine tene- bratur." The Freudian implications here are interesting. 13De divortio Letharii, praef.: "Et 'si oculus'——id est intentio cordis——Jsimplexwfuerit, totum corpus'——id est omnis actio-—Jlucenda erit; si autem ipsa intentio tenebrosa fuerit, iam tenebrae, quae in actions erunt, ut modum, ita et nomen tenebrarum pene excedunt.“ 1“De ecclesiis et capgllis (ed. Gundlach, p, 107), s51 autem ecclesia vetusta aut destructa ita in pristinum statum restaurari vel emeliorari non potest, ut consecratione non 1n- diseat, videtur nobis. . .ut propinquissimus et conveniens lo- °ul obtinendus sit ab episcopo, ubi ita ecclesia a novo f1.ri Fm'81t.‘ut ibidem nullum sit corpus humatum, et ita consecrari valest (like a bride for the groom—Christ)." 150pnsculum LV. capitulorumo cap. xiv: "Liquet, inquit beatus Gregorius, quod omnes homines natura aequales genuit, 30d variants meritorum ordine, alios aliis culpa postponit. Ip- 81.1 mi an ti: 001 COT be - 69 - did this mean the subjection of one man to another, but of all men to law.16 For example, Hincmar observed that only through a reverent observance of regulations could the tranquility of universal peace be assured.17 However, this was no deadening authoritarianism, for, Just as in the monastic context, sub- mission to the discipline of authority brought one strength and freedom. The authority structure imposed on man had the func- tion of a correctio-—to direct each person toward union and concord with God.18 The nature of authority had to take into consideration the nature of man himself if its action was to be efficacious, that is, it had to correct man both spiritual- ly and temporally.19 —— Hincmaribuilt upon a theoryelong-deve1- sa autem diversitas, quae accessit ex vitio, divine iudicio dispensatur, ut quia omnis homo aeque stare non valet, alter rbgatur ab altero." 16Pro ecclesiae libertatum (Sirmond, II, 332): "quia homines omnium gentium, etiam et Iudaei Christianae legis in- imici, passim legum suarum iudicantur iudicio, bubulcus, quo- que, et oubulcus, atque opilio, habent legem" De ordine pala- Iii, cap. viii: "Cum enim dioitur nulli liceat leges nescire’ vel quae sunt statuta contemnere, nulla persona, in quocunque ordine mundane, excipitur, quae hac sententia non constringatur!" 179!.iure metropolitanorum, cap. viii: 'Quoniam univer- lae pacis tranquillitas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua canonibus reverentia intemerata servetur.” 18De divortio Letharii, inter. xii, resp.: "Rages enim et sacerdotes subditorum prave acta corrigunt. . . .” In 22 regis persona, cap. xxv, Hincmar quotes Pseudo-Cyprian: "Rogem correctorem iniquorum esse oportet, . . ." "Undecimus gradus a- buaionis est plebs sine disciplina, quae dum disciplines exer- citationibus non servit, Deum absque disciplinae rigore non e- vadit.” 19Mans1, xv, 565: God made man "in animem viventem, id est factam animam rationalem, factam carnem vivificantem, atque in duabue, et ex duabus, ecilicet spiritus ac luti, substantiie 1n.unitete pereonae subsistentem. . . ." V0 3,5." -4 I- 35?: o H l I!) - 7o - oping within Christianity stating that when Christ came into the world he was both king and priest over the community of believers-the Ecclesia. But when He ascended into Heaven, Eb distributed this rule between two offices, pristly authori- ty and royal power.20 Both the priest and the king formed ordines to fulfill distinct offices which accorded with the nature of their participation in God's grace.21 Thus each had a distinct mode of action. While the priestly authority worked to save souls by actio spiritalis, the power in the hands of laymen accomplished the same task through actio_par: nalis.22 A careful consideration of this distinction between worldly and spiritual action helps clarify what Hincmar felt to be the difference betweeniauctoritas and otestas, and M — zogpistola synodi carisiacensis, cap. xv: ”quia idem Deus in carne veniens, qui solus rex fieri potuit et sacerdo- tes, et in caelum ascendens suum regnum, id est ecclesiam, in- ter pontificalem auctoritatem et regiam potestatem gubernan- dum disposuit. . . .” The term Ecclesia will henceforth be used to distinguish Christ's kingdom as a unified entity bound by the divine love from "Church" in the narrower sense of the Organized body of all Christians in the world. 21Admenitio alters, cap. 1: "duo sunt, quibus princi- paliter, una cum specialiter cuiuscumoue curae subiectis, mun- dus hic regitur, auctoritas sacra pontificum, et regalis potee- tee, in quibus personis, sicut ordine sunt divisa vocabula, ita sunt divisa in unoquoque ordine ac professions ordinatio- nnm officia. Quamvis enim membra veri regis atque pontificis secundum participationem natures, magnifies utrumqus in sacra generositate sumpsisse dicantur, . . ." Hincmar here makes ulaeof Gelasius' eighth letter to the Emperor Anastasius and MOtatuS, IV, 11s 22Ibid., "sic actionibus propriis, dignitatibusque dis- tinctis officia potestatis utriusque discrevit, suos volens nndicinali humilitate salvari, non humana superbia rursus, . . .intercipi. . .quatenus spiritalis actio a carnalibus distaret incursibus. . . .“ The-idea of the distinction of actions is taken from Gelasius' Tractatus, IV, ii. _ 71 - 23 hence, key elements in his idea of office. By working though spiritual action, the priestly order became the mediators of God's grace. Their concern was less the real possibilities inherent in man's situation in the world than the will of God. For this reason, they spoke with God's authority, inviting men to transcend their worldly si- tuation.2h In this manner, the efforts to reform the church by freeing it from worldly responsibility meant a more acute appreciation of the need to prevent a dilution of Christian ideals through accommodation.with the attitudes of men pre- 25 occupied soley with worldly concerns. This does not mean, however, a desire to escape worldly burdens, but on the con- trary, the recognition that mundane action is fruitless if not intimately related to man's ultimate ends. Good works, Hincmar observed, mean little if they are not undertaken in a spirit of caritas.26 Also, should man seek Justification in *— 23Hincmar seeks to avoid the dualist implications of the Gelasian theory by attributing to both worldly and spiri- tual action the end of saving souls. The bishop and the king thus do not have distinct purposes, but rather, each has its own way to achieve a common end. 24nd clerioos palatii (M.G.HL, Eppi, VIII, 67): "et ad Duos episcopos, qui eos corrigant atque diiudicent, divina auc- toritate rsdire mandabo." 2SAdmonitio altera, cap. 1: "et ideo militans Deo mini- me so negotiis sascularibus implicaret, ac vicissim non ills rebus divinis praesidsre videretur qui esset negotiis sascu- laribus implicatus, ut st modestia utriusque ordinis curaretur, nu extolleretur utroque suffultus, et competens qualitatibus Ictionum specialitsr professio aptaretur." 26qusculum LV. capitulgrum, cap. xxxix: “quia quaeli- bOt in nobis bone opera fuerint, si caritas desit, per malum discordiae locus aperitur in acie, ut ad feriendum nos valeat houtie intrars." - 72 - terms of the world rather than in love of God, his virtues count as nothing.27 Because the bishops directed their admon- itions toward a transcendence of the situation in which man found himself, their office can be described as positive in its effect. Hincmar, in fact, looked to the episcopal order as the most appropriate source for the renovatio which would restore the conditions of life in an approximation of these existing in the primitive Church of Paradise.28 The potestas of secular rulers is distinguished from priestly auctoritas by its use of worldly means rather than spiritual action. When Hincmar observed that subjection to the king was necessary for one's salvation, he undoubtedly re- cognized that there had to be someone who defined the limits and obligations of the subjects action in the‘world.29 He did not even exclude himself from the obligation to obey his king. for he recognized that all power is derived from God.30 * 27Ibid., cap. liv: ”Attendendum est etiam, quae nobig vsrscundia tunc erit in conspectu totius humani generis, omni- umque virtutum caelestium confundi, at post confusionem quae nos poena sequetur, cum animam immortaliter morientem reatus involuet, et indeficienter deficientem carnem gehenna con. sumet, si radices cordis huic saeculo perseveranter infixas habuerimus. . . .” 28See note 1h above. Thus Hincmar envisaged a radical transformation of society by the united action of worldly die- cipline and spiritual admonitionr-a transformed world where there would be no social distinctions, no government authori- tYo ne‘war, and no exploitation of one man by another. 29Hincmar wrote to Pope Hadrian (Sirmond, II, 696): "Quia non nos concredemus, ut aliter ad regnum Dei pervenire non Possimus, si illum, quem ipse commendat, terrenum regem nonhabuerimus.“ Note that the king's means are worldly, but the effect of his action is spiritual. 30De ecclesiis et ea ellis (ed. Gundlach, p. 93); y “'33. - 73 - The king participated in the work of renovatio, but in a way which was distinct from spiritual action. It was his task to restore the honor and peace of the realm and church, and, as the context of Hincmar's statement indicates, the reign of Iouis the Pious was to serve as a model.31 Hincmar makes the distinction between the spiritual action of episcopal office and the worldly action of the poli- tical ministerium yet clearer when he describes their obJec— tives. The bishop, wielding the doctor's scalpel, heals by severing the diseased member from the healthy, while the king punishes the evil-doer with the sword of Justice.32 While both offices contribute to the task of spiritual renewal by the negative means of punishing those who fail to meet their Obligations, it is only through grace that the Christian is able to find Justification before God. It is the bishop's and the king's task to encourage all men to turn toward this gift of grace 'which pervades society and is Open to all men. ”faciam, quod iubetis, sciens ab apostolo commendatum, ut 'om— nis anima (id est omnis homo) potestatibus sublimioribus sub- _ dita sit; non est enim potestas nisi a Deo.‘ Et iterum dicit: ‘Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae prOpter Deum sive regi tamquam praecellenti.'" 31De ordine palatii, cap. 1: ”ad institutionem istiua iuvenis st moderni regis nostri, et ad reerectionem honoris et P8618 Ecclesiae ac regni, ordinem ecclesiasticum st dispositio- nem domus regiae in sacro palatio, sicut audivi et vidi, demon- Otrem. . . ." .Hincmar was born in circa 806 and came into con- taet‘with the center of Carolingian government at about the timo Louis inherited the throne. Before 814, it is unlikely that Hincmar either saw or heard much of court activity. 32De divortio Lotharii, quaes.vii: ”episcopus medicin- 311 mucrone, ut membrum putridum a sanis abscidere, et rex iu- diciali gladio impios debet de terra perdere. . . ." C) CH 0f - 7h - It had long been realized that the positive character of the sacerdotal order gave it a more important responsibili- ty and that the secular powers had not only to honor the spiri- tual, but obey it when political action impinged on matters of Christian responsibility. Hincmar evoked the Gelasian theory to point out that the bishops were ultimately held responsible for man's temporal activity and thus their authority in the world was the greater.33 He also reinforced this priestly su- periority by noting that it was the bishops who consecrated kings and not visa versa.3h It should be noted that neither here nor anywhere else does Hincmar try to suggest that saving grace flows through the sacerdotal office alone and that this is the basis of priestly superiority. Rather than hold a modern view of the division between church and state, the Carolingians maintained the obJectives 0f the priestly and temporal order to be the same—~the salva- tion of man. But no discussion of episcopal or political offi- ces can disregard the sharp distinctionnwhich characterized the means by which the two orders strove to achieve their common end.' The bishops, through the spiritual action of moral admon- ition strove to revive the body of the Ecclesia to make it A 33De fide Carlo servanda, cap. xxxix: "auctoritas sa- cra pontificum, et rsgalis potestas: in.quibus tanto graviue Fwndus est sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divine rsddituri sunt examine rationem.” Buln writing to Louis III in regard to the freedom of Opieoopei election, Hincmar noted (Sirmond, II, 198); am pom tificss reges ordinare possunt, reges autem pontificss conse- Orare non possunt.“ "Non ergo dubueratis ita inverecunde quali- cumque pontifici scrivere, vestrae ditioni commissum.” worthy of the consecration of the Lord's second coming. The kings, on the other hand, sought to define the worldly situa- tion in which their subJects worked for their salvation, em- phasizing the disciplinary nature of government and enforcing the authority structure. These two themes-the effort to spe- cify, strengthen, and elaborate man's worldly situation and the desire to transcend temporal concerns in favor of spiri- tual rebirth—were the central attitudes forming Hincmar's idea of public office. It is well to recall the essentially Benedictine na- ture of Hincmar's ideas. Both king and bishop wield unques- tioned authority over their respective spheres of responsibili- ty, imposing a discipline necessary for worldly order. How- ever, this discipline becomes the agency of spiritual rebirth, and as such it necessitates a total reconstruction of public life toward an utopian ideal in which law and authority would be superfluous. The means (discipline) and end (freedom) are not not isolated from one another, however, for both are united by an all-pervading caritas. Unlike Augustine's Civitas Dei, the utOpia for which Hincmar strove was not in- imical to the world. CHAPTER III THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE Among the various church offices, only the episcopal proves especially relevant to a study of political ministerium. The two dignities within the sacerdotal order were the bishop and the minor office of priest.1 Various members of the sacer- dotal order were in common the healers of souls.2 The priests, however, played a minimal role in political life. Directly subject to the bishops, they were generally restric- ted to fulfilling their sacramental functions and had neither the education nor the opportunity to speak out in any signifi- 3 cant way. The monastic order could also find ample prece- L; 1Admonitio altera, cap. iv: 'Iesum Christum, qui. . . dues in sacerdotibus ordines constituit, in summis videlicet pontificibus, et in minoris ordines sacerdotibus, qui nunc presbyteratus funduntur officio. . . .' The word ordo has a variety of meanings and can only be understood in context. Net only does it refer to a mode of life (as that of laymen or churchmen), but also the diffsrentiations of rank'within the maJor social divisions and even the duties associated with l lpecific office. See Niermeyer, Medias latinitatis lexicon 2.1mm. (Loidon. 1960- ). pp. 745-147. 2nd presbyteros (M,G.H., Epp.. VIII, 60): ”Sicut vobis Iaepe dixi, sacerdetes medici sunt spiriteles et infirmi ho- mines sunt peccatores. 3It seems clear, in light of the palace's importance for the continuity of Carolingian political life and of the Inform party's concern for the palace clerke' manner of life, that there was a profound connection between the activities of these clerks and the growing constitutional instability under Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald. However, a study of - 76 - - 77 - dent for taking an active role in political life, especially as royal advisers. But Hinemar, in approving the referee seek- ing the enforcement of the Benedictine Rule, felt that the sphere of monastic activity should not extend beyond the clois- ter. If for some reason the monk was compelled to assume the office of teaching in the broader world, it was to be largly by setting an example of virtue.“ The office of teaching was the particular responsibil- ity of bishops, who had neither the practical restrictions of priests nor the theoretical hindrances of monks to prevent their engagement in worldly activity. Certain ideas, long im- portant for the definition of the episcopal ministerium, were ever more extended to the idea of political office in the ninth century. The belief that the personal character of the priest or bishop was irrelevant to the efficacy of his offi- 5 cial functions was of importance. This careful distinction between the person who filled an office and the office itself this phenomenon i s excluded from this study because it does not impinge directly on the idea of political office. De una et non trina deitate, cap. 1: ”Debsnt ergo fratrss ac filii nostri menachi, viri religiosi, attendsrs professionis suae regulam, in qua scriptum est, Octavus hu- nulitatis gradus est, si nihil agat monaehus, nisi qued com- munie monasterii regula, vel maiorum cehortantur exemple: st, Nenus humilitatis gradus est, si linguam ad loquendum prohi- beat monaehus, st taciternitatem habens, usque ad interroga- tionem non loquatur. Si autem necessitas doesndi parrochiam sxegerit ut per saeerdotes menachos vsrbum fiat ad populum, episcepus et eanitatem.ssnsus, st catholicam fidem, . . .1n sis probere debet, et sic ad doctrines officium provoeare. 5Ad pggsbyteros (M.G.H.. £22., VIII, 60): 'Et lioet nos peecstorss simus, tamen.dignatione Dei officium ssnandi Peecatorss suscepimus: sicut seeps medici oorpore infirmi per ”‘Siaterium medicines infirmos solent sanare.‘ -73- was the central idea behind the objectification of political office arising from the reforms of Louis the Pious. If a bi- shop acted improperly, specific charges were to be brought against his person in such a way that the episcopal authority itself remained intact.6 Another traditional idea associated with church offi- ces, exercising an important influence on political theory, was that proper conduct within office is objectively defined. Hincmar warned his fellow bishops to observe the specifications in divinely inspired laws which indicated how to live and what to teach. .A violation of this definition of their office 7 meant endangering the unity of the Ecclesia. Hincmar saw this as a schism within the church, for offices were the ob- Jective manifestation of worldly conduct in accord with God's will. To ignore the definition of one's ministerium.would have been to resist God's peace by acting at variance with the __ 6De praedestinatione, cap. xxxvi: ”qued utrumque ob- servare valebit, qui tempus, locum, personam, causamque secun. dnm rationem discreverit, quiscumque talia, sicut cathelicor- um dectrina redarguentes supra ostendimus, contra rectam fi- dem scripsit, contra episcopalem auctoritatem tanta praesump- lit. de principali dignitate indigna significavit. . . ." 7De ordine palatii, cap. vii: "Habet quippe ordo sa- cerdotalis leges divinitus promulgatas, qualiter quisque ad culmen regiminis, videlicet episcopatus, venire debeat, at- Que ad hec recte perveniens, qualiter vivat, . . .et recte do~ cons. . . .“ "Quia non minus in sanctarum traditionum delin- quitur eanctiones quam in ipsius Domini iniuriam prosilitur. Quad tale est, quia, ut sacra monstrat auctoritas, cognate Hunt schisma et heresis, ac, si aliis verbie dicatur, non mi- nus schismaticus delinquit, cum prevaricatione sancterum re- Sularum per contemptum se ab unitate sanotae Ecclesiae, quae °°rpus Christi est, dividit, quam haereticus, qui de Dec, ca- Pite'videlicet ipsius Ecclesiae, male sentit." H-OoaH'U - 79 - concordia of all offices.8 One of the terms often used by Hincmar to describe the episcopal office is pastor. Although the implications of this word are important for an understanding of the office, its use is neither original with Hincmar nor even restricted to the sacerdotal order. Unlike the true pastor, the paid helper a- bandons the flock at the wolf's approach and places his own 9 welfare above that of the sheep. Another use of the shep- herd analogy is Hincmar's observation that one who attains the pastoral office by climbing the fence into the sheepfold instead of entering by the door of canonical election reflects a greedy lust for domination rather than a desire to follow the responsibilities of the pastoral office.10 The implication of this analogy seems to be the ne- cessity of humbling one's own personal interest to the objec- tive responsibilities of office-to shun the superbia which *- 8QEEsculum LV. capitulorum, cap. xii: "Hinc etenim PIX et oharitas mutuo se invicem complectuntur, et manet fir- ma concordia in alterna at Dec placita dilectione sinceritas, Quia unumquodque tunc salubriter completur officium, cum fu- erit unus ad quem possit recurri praepositus.“ Hincmar hgr. is quoting Gregory's letter to the bishops of Gaul. 9Examples of the contrast between pastor and mercen- ary are found in De fide Carlo servanda, cap. viii and De oo- orcendis militum ra' p'inis (m. VIII. 63)- 10De pagedestinatione, cap. xxxvi: “Ergo qui contra sacros canones, Spiritu Dei per organa sua conditos, et to- tius mundi reverentia oonsecratos, ad Ecclesiae regimen pro- vehitur, non intrat per ostium in ovile, sed ascendit aliunde, ‘0 Per hoc fur est et latro." WA se namque et non ex arbi— trio summi rectoris regnant, qui sua cupiditate accensi cul- men reginimis rapiunt potius quam adsequuntur.” -80- introduces discord. Not only should the bishop not place self- ish interests above his objective obligations, but equally im- portant, he ought not to use his office as a means for exer- cising his personal potestas.11 This is a useful reminder that potestas can refer to the worldly power of bishops, which, however subject to spiritual responsibilities, remains very real. Hincmar observed that all having a responsibility for correcting others, and not simply bishops, priests, deacons, and rectors of monasteries, should be called pastors. In fact, there is no one who really leads a private life, for all men have responsibility at least for their own thoughts and deeds-their "spiritual sheep."12 Hence, everyone has an ob- Jective office comparable to that of pastor since he corrects either himself or others in accordance with objective norms.13 * 11Ad presbyteros (M.G.H., Epp., VIII, 62): “non mea po- testate secundum.hominem, sed secundum divinum ministerium, illum excommunicabo." 12De cavendis vitiis, cap. v: "an enim soli pastures, Opilcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi, monasteriorum rectores sunt intelligendi, sed et omnes fideles qui vel parvulae suae domus custodiam gerunt pastores recte vocantur, in quantum suae do- mui sollicita vigilantia praesunt. Et quicumque saltem uni vel duobus fratribus cotidiano regimene praeest, pastoris eis- dem debet officium quia in quantum sufficit, pasoere eos depi- bu's et hortando, inorepando, arguendo, corrigendo debet. Imo unusquisque, qui etiam.privatus vivere creditur, pastoris ot- ficium tenet, et spiritalem pascit gregem, vigiliasque nostis custodit supra illum. . . .' Hincmar specifies ”spiritual sheep" in De ragtu viduarum, cap. iii: I'non solum episcopi et sacerdotes in sedibus, sed etiam reges in.regnis et palatiis suis, et regum comites in civitatibus suis, et oomitum'vicarii 1n plebibus suis, et quicumque patresfamilias in domibus suis, 1n-unun dives ac pauper, in mente et actibus suis.” 13m. universal subjection of all men to law, discussed - 81 - The implications of this attitude are manifold. An imposition of objective norms on the definition of office as- sures the integration of Christian ends and values with any carrying out of public responsibilities. If taken seriously, it would provide a dynamism to structures of public authority. The idea was not new to ninth-century political thought, but by making the idea of ministerium universal, Hincmar was sug- gesting a radically new concept of mankind. In his view, no longer should anyone consider himself a private person, for each has objective responsibilities. Even the serf, wont to act as though bound by nothing outside the customary demands of his lord, now was to take cognizance of his spiritual res- ponsililities, to share in the distributive authority of so- ciety, and thus find himself socially integrated into the Christian commonwealth. Unlike the term pgg£g£_which emphasizes the relation- ship of the bishop's person to his office, the implications 0f ggctor ecclesiae suggest the office's objective resp°nsi- bilities. In the Carolingian epoch, laymen were at times rectors of the palace or even rectors over the material inter- ests of monasteries. Abbots, too, were considered rectors.1h For Hincmar, however, the term was most often applied to indi- cate the doctrinal responsibilities of bishops.15 Even though * in a later chapter, provides the objective definition of th: situation in which all men'work for their salvation. The defi- nition of office is simply the legal Ripect of action.in office. 1“See Niermeyer, Opacit., pp. 892-93, and also the pr.- ceeding note. De una et non trina deitate, cap. 1: "monasteri- orum rectores, qui vocantur abbates. . . .' - 82 - the king might order a bishop to define doctrine, nevertheless, the task was done as a function of the episcopal effice.16 The bishop's role as rector gives little indication of the nature of his mdnisterium except that it represents a responsibility: to correct others in conformity with their Christian duty. The distinction between the terms pastor and rector is that the former defines the relationship of the office to the field of caritas, while the latter implies inner-worldly authority. The bishop's pastoral responsibility is positive in that it seeks to unite those under his care with Christ, while his task as rector is negative and disciplinary. When Hincmar spoke of his office as that of doctor, he attributed to it characteristics which brought it into im- mediate relation.te political life. To teach and admonish were duties done in Christ's name and represented a fundamen- 17 tal responsibility and power of the episcopal office. In one way teaching resembled a sacrament, for it facilitated the saving action of grace. Hincmar felt that God spoke not only -._— 15For example, as in De pgaedestinations. cap. xxxi: "Sunt et alia, quae vocum novitatibus delectantes, undo sibi inanes comparent rumuscules, contra fidei catholicae verita- tem dicunt." "Et plura alia, contra quae orthodexes Ecclesiae catholicae rectores necesse erit sollerti studio vigilare." 16Ibid., Epistela ad regem: "Nunc vero, quia certi su- mus, cuius compositieni debemus de saepenominatis quaestieni- bus responders, servatis relatienum absolutionibus contra ees quibus a vestra deminatione pro imposito nobis ministerio iusi Iumus reddere rationem. . . ." 17Ad.clericos__palatii (MiG. H.. £22., VIII, 66). ”Tame“ Pro ministerio imposite admeneo vos cum.Paule apostolo, et eb- tester in Christo et per Christum. . . .“ directly to men's hearts, but also through the admonitions of the bishop into their ears.18 The subject matter of episcopal teaching was for Hinc- mar usually either moral admonitien or the interpretation of divine law. Bishops should indicate to everyone just what is anathema, and if necessary, undertake to collect the law and 19 pronounce upon it. But this legal competency of the epis- copal order had implications extending beyond sacred law alone, for public law should conform to the divine.20 Since the bish- ops themselves were obliged to make their admonitions con- form to Scripture, the fulfillment of the office of doctor en- tailed a constant effort to bring temporal law into conformity with God's will.21 Thus the positive tendency of the sacerdo- tal auctoritas to bring the world into accord with non-temper- al ideals was realized in the episcopal office of doctor. Late in life Hincmar seriously qualified these views, but this change had best be treated in the Praxis section of the pr.- senm work. 18Ad Ezesgzteros (M.G.H.. $22., VIII, 62): "Deus omni- potens, qui per me ista lequitur in auribus vestris, per se haec lequatur in cordibus vestris.“ 1S’Cvollectie de rapteribus, admonitie: ‘Episcopus autem omnibus dieere debet, quid sit anathema. . . .“ “Sod et plura, si necesse fuerit, episcopus quisque colligere et dieere pro- curabit." 2one raptu viduarum, cap. xii: "Quamquam in.regne Christiano etiam ipsas leges publicas operteat esse Christian- tl. cenvenientes videlicet et censonantes Christianitati.“ 21Denna et non.trina deitate, cap. i: 'caveamns qui alies cerrigere et decere debemus, ut non sacrilege saeras 'Oripturas interpretemur. . . .“ - 8h - The bishop's obligation to speak out and admonish was hardly a new attribute of the episcopal office, but Hincmar firmly insisted upon the fulfillment of this duty. His epis- cOpal authority entailed dictating to kings their religious duty and the tenets of the faith.22 But it was also the ru- ler's obligation to listen to such admonitions, although Hinc- mar seems to have had difficulty securing the king's attention during his later years.23 If indeed the bishop truly acted as doctor and the king dutifully obeyed the episcopal admon- itions, then the way was open for a highly dynamic and con- structive interaction of the royal and episcopal offices. The implications of the bishop's doctoral role in political life become clearer when viewed in light of the close tie between Spiritual action and the power of reason. The human being is composed of a hierarchy of elements 22De divortio Letharii, quaest. vii: "Tandem do his, Quae in hac epistola pervenisse ad nos memeravimus, quantum Domino inspirante, ex sanctarum scripturarum atque catholi- oorum patruxn docrina, pro nostra mediocritate sensimus, cem- POllente veritate et superimposite ministerie diximus, nulli- us sanae praeiudicantes sententiae, nec dehenorantes auctori- tatem.‘ De praedestinatione, cap. xxxvii: "De hec autem unde certi sumus, et quae sine periculo licet multis sint cognita togere silentio non valemus, quaeque pro ministerie nobis im- Posito his quae praemisimus subiungere ex auctoritate ecclesi- astica conmonemur, opportune impertune volentibus et nolenti- bus ingerere procuramus.” 230s divortio Letharii, quaest. vii, resp.: 'Sed neque imperiale est libertatem dicendi negare, neque sacerdotale Quod sentias non dieere." De visiene Berneldi (Sirmond, II, 806): 'Et vidi ibi iacere demnum nostrum Karolum regem in lu- to ex sanie ipsius putredinis, et manducabant eum vermes, at 1am carnem illius manducatam habebant, et non erat in corpore ipsius aliud nisi nervi et ossa. Qui vocans me ex nomine mee dixit. . . . Vade ad Hincmarum Episcepum, et die ei, quia illius et alierum fidelium meorum bona consilia non obaudivi, ideo ista quae vides, pro culpis meis susteneo." -85- wherein the heart rules the ”rational spirit" and the spirit in turn rules man's body-his actions, thoughts, words, and deeds.24 In an effort to achieve union.with God, each element of man's nature strives to obtain the perfection of the char- acteristic which it shares with God: his heart becomes filled with God's love; his spirit, with a faith in God's truth; and 25 his action, with His goodness. Justification requires the union of all three aspects of human nature with God, for should one of these remain discordant, the others accomplish nothing.26 Each element has the help of outside forces which ZADO divortio Letharii, inter. xiii, resp.: "quia vic- ta anima a libidine carnis sit care, sicut et corpus recte gubernatum spiritale appellatur.. Animus tamen est, qui aut victus inlecebris totum heminem carneum facit, ent in vigore naturae suae manens, carni praestat ut spiritalis dicatur.” Ibid., praef.: "Et 'si oculus'-—id.est intentio cordis-—"sim- plex fuerit, totum corpus‘-—id est omnis actio-"lucida eritv si autem ipsa intentio tenebrosa fuerit, iam tenebrae, quiae in actione erunt, ut modum, ita et nomen tenebrarum pene ex- cedunt.‘ Mansi, XV, 566: "et verus homo anima rationali et humans earns in unitate personae subsistens. . . ." 25De una et non trina deitate, cap. xiii: "Ipsa autem visie intellectus est ille qui in anima est, adspectus ani- mae ratio est." De_praedestinatione, cap. xii: "sed opera- tione malorum; cuius eperationis initium est infidelitas, ecilicet desertio veritatis, sicut initium salutis fides esse dinoscitur donata gratis largitoris.” 261bid , cap. xxxiii: "et quicumque credere voluer- unt, ac fidei congruis eperibus vivere studuerunt, per pas- sionis eius mysterium redempti atque salvati sunt: qui autem credere noluerunt, neque fide dignis eperibus vivere studu- erunt, ipsi se. . .a redemptione preposita alienos fecerunt." Ds‘una et non trina deitate, cap. xiii: "Et haec est vere per- fecta virtus, ratio perveniens ad finem suum, quam beata vi- ta consequitur." Egplanstio in ferculum Salemonis (Sirmond, Is 757): "Sique menstratur a Domino, quia qued bonum velumus, °°81tamus, loquimnr et agimur, et Dei est per praeventem gra- tism. et nostrum est per liberi arbitrii subsequentem obedi- entiam." "Quia scientia sine caritate inflat, caritas autem cum scientia sans aedificat.” th bi ki - 86 - aid it in directing itself toward God. God's grace fills man‘s heart with love just as His Word illuminates the rational spir- it with truth. These two aids to salvation work through spiri- tual action, but the third, discipline, corrects man's thoughts, words, and deeds through worldly action. A ggncordia within the psyche thus requires the outside aid of not only grace, but also of the discipline of worldly authority and the priest's appeal to the rational power by moral admonition. Clearly, both the king and the bishop must make their actions accord with God's will, for otherwise, the subject will be mentally disturbed and his actions fruitless. Having clarified the essential role of the word in the episcopal office, it follows that the chief task of the bishop was to provide the king with moral admonition, for the king was subject to no earthly discipline but law. Even the king's ggrrectio of his subjects, however, was not entirely independent of episcopal cooperation, for if law-the objec- tive criteria of normative actienr—was to be an effective in- strument of correction, then it should accord with the divine will. The king is thus obliged to consult the bishops as to the conformity of his acts.27 Important in understanding the full impact of the episcopal office on royal action is Hinc- mar's belief that the efficacy of the king's acts and intel- lect are a function of the state of his soul.28 The advisory ¥ _ 2 7De regis persona, praef.: ”Obaudientes praeeeptum Domini per prophetam.iubsntis, 'Interroga sacerdotes legem meam,‘ super quibusdam capitulis me consulere vobis placuit." 2 8This is because of the effectiveness of action and - 87 - role of the bishop is essential to political office, for the king receives caritas through the word, his actions are brought into concordia with the divine will, and his rule thus parti- cipates in God's 225,29 The superiority of the episcopal office over the roy— al stems from manfls ultimate judgment in Heaven as well as from the primacy of the soul. In the daily activities of po- litical life, however, this relationship between the two of- fices becomes more complex. Ideally, the accord between spiritual and worldly action excludes the possibility of con- flict. Once the bishop has recognized the competence of the thought and the intention of the heart are mutually interde- pendent. For example, in De cavendis vitiis, cap. iv: 'Et effugium in dolore constrigente, ad orationem atque sapien- tiam oculis aperientibus sapientia minime proderit, quia hic, ubi operari debuerunt et potuerunt, operandi tempus amiserp unt, ubi a.voluptate clauses cordis oculos habuerunt." De re- 8 rsona, cap. iv: “Quid enim prodest habere sapientiam, si consilium neges? Si consulendi intercludas copiam, clau- sisti fontem, ut nec aliis profluat, nec tibi prosit.” Effec- tiveness of action ("modum" in the above quotation from De di- vortio Letharii, praef.) is a function of the state of the heart. This train of thought will not be pursued in the pr.- sent study, although relevant to the episcopal office, because it concerns the king's person rather than his office. 29Qpistola synodi Carisiacensis, cap. ii: "quia non nostra scripsimus, mandavimus, diximus, sed quae dictante caritate, quae Deus est, in litteris sacris invenimus, et quae naturae insita recognoscimus. Casterum.quae contra illa, qua. scripsimus, mandavimus, diximus, acta sunt vel aguntur, natur- alis legis morbus et vitium etiam a minus sapientibus esse dinoscitur.” De cavendis vitiis, cap. xii: "Sed quia, nisi lit intue qui doceat, doctoris lingua exterius in vacuum la- borat, obsecranda est nobis divina clementia, ut quod per nos loquitur in auribus vestris, per sancti Spiritus organum infundst cardihus vestris. . . .” Hincmar wrote in the acts at thes odus mettensis, a. 859, cap. 1: "divinus Paulus dicit: 'Legatione fungimur pro Christa, reconciliamini Deo,' 108ttione pro Christa fungentes vos, fratres cariseimi. 1e- Gntos Deo amatae pacis. . . .” -88.. king——the concordance of his acts with the divine will-—then the priestly authority willingly submits to royal power.30 There are limits, howover, for the extent to which political action should interfere in ecclesiastical matters, and the cooperation of the two offices does not imply an identity or fusion of the means at their disposal. Here, the definition of royal office and the restrictions of divine law specify how much the king can involve himself in church matters with- out hindering its spiritual action.31 In the ninth century, the most sensitive areas regar- ding episcopal liberty were the absence of free episcopal election and the subjection of church property and offices to secular interests. Hincmar emphasized that the outcome of episcopal election was an expression of the divine will. The king, therefore, should not capriciously hinder the operation 32 of the bishOp's spiritual action. Moreover, in regard to the~entangling responsibilities of feudal obligation, Hincmar -—_‘ 3one ecclesiis et capellis, praef.: "Et quoniam.ves- tra regia a Dec constituta sublimitas sacerdotali religioni et cordis et corporis cervices devote inclinat, competens esse dinoscitur, ut et pontificalis auctoritas regiae digni- tati cum omni pietatis officio se submittat. . . ." 31Hincmar‘writing Charles the Bald noted (Sirmond, II. 331): "solerter providere debetis, no extra ministerium vestrum, sicut Deo gratias hactenus providistis, manum in se. cerdotalem.ordinem, et in his quae eidem ordine Spiritu; ;:ncti dono commissa sunt, contra praeceptum Domini exten— tue." 32In the context of the freedom of episcopal election, Huncmar observed (Ad Ludovicum III regem, cap. v): "Et quon. 1am sine sancto spiritu ministerium episcopale non.agitur, non sit vobis love in.episcopis contristare spiritum sanctum insisted that the bishop's tongue was an instrument of salva- tion, and as such, unbound by worldly oaths.33 The liberty of spiritual action.characterizing the episcopal office had important implications for constitutionp a1 history. The royal competence extended no further than the king's realm, and with the multiplicity of kingdoms withp in.the Ecclesia, there naturally arose questions which could not be handled by unilateral royal action. The unity of the Ebclesia was essentially spiritual, and should disagreements arise which the monarchs could not amicably settle among themselves, it was incumbent upon the bishops, the wielders 3h of spiritual authority, to take a leading role. In 858, for example, Louis the German attemptd to force a restoration of a unified political rule by military means. He had nearly fulfilled this ambition and was awaiting the crown confirming his-nswly won position when Hincmar, in the name of the West 33Epistola szgodi Carisiacensis, cap. xv: "Et nos episcopi Domino consecrati non sumus huiusmodi homines, ut licut homines saeculares, in vassallatico debeamus nos cui- libet commendare. . .aut iurationis sacramentum. . .debeamus quoquomodo facere." "Et lingua episcopi, quae facta est per Dei gratiam clavis caeli, nefarium est, ut, sicut saecularis Quilibet, super sacra iuret in nomine Domini et sanctarum in- vocations, nisi forte, qued absit, contra eum scandalum.ac- ciderit ecclesiae suae. . . ." 34De ragtu‘viduarum, cap. 1: "Quamwis enim potestas I"0811i. temporalis divine iudicio in hoo Christianorum regno 3d praesens videatur divisa, una est tamen in omnibus et ex omnibus Christo Domino protegente ecclesia, unus Dominus, una fides, unum genus electum. . . ." “Cum ergo omnis popu- lus Dei, tanto pretio redemptus et adunatus, unus grex sit sub uno pastors, et omnes huius gregis pastores per unitatem fidei, . . . tanta necesse est sint caritate uniti, tanta 'Piritus societate copulati, ut invicem onera sua libentissi- "0 compartiantur et portent. . . ." Frankish bishops, warned him that royal deposition.was a mat- ter decided upon only by God's will as discovered in a church council.35 Another area of direct involvement of the episcopal office in political life was the anointment of kings. Through episcopal unction the king received from Christ his noggg,and thereby was obliged to act in a manner consonant with the Christian implications of his office and not as a private person.36 Only the positive action inherent in the episcopal office could produce such a profound change in the royal sta- tus. :And yet, Hincmar was not trying to assert the sacramen- tal role of the episcooal laying on of hands as an explicit 35Epistola synodi Carisiacensis, cap. xv: ”Si enim sapientia vestra dignum iudicat loqui et tractare cum vicino regs eiusqus fidelibus, secedente de ista parts regni domno nostro, fratre videlicit vestra, multo magnis nos oportet ex- Pectare tempus canonicum, et cum fratribus et comprovinciali- bus archiepiscopis et episcopis loquamur, quia generalis can- as imminet totius cisalpinae ecclesiae." For these events and Hincmar's relation to them, see Joseph Calmette, La diplo- matie caroliggienne (Paris, 1901), pp. 191-9h et passim. 36De divortio Letharii, inter. xii, resp.: "Et non dicant reges, hoc de episcopis et non est de regibus constitu- tum: sed attendentes quia si sub uno rege ac sacerdote Chris- to, a cuius nominis derivations Christi Domini appellantur, in populi regimdne sublimati et honorati esse desiderant, cuius honors, st amere, atque timers, participatione magni no- minis domini et reges vocantur, cum sint homines sicut et ceteri, st partem.cum hisimtregno caelorum habere volunt, qui lacro peruncti sunt chrismate, quod a Christi nomine nomen accepit, qui exinde unxit sacerdotes, prophetas, reges, st martyres, ille unetus oleo laetitiae prae consoritibus suis, qnique fecit eos in baptismate reges et sacerdotes Deo nos- tro, et genus regium, ac regale sacerdotium, sscundum apes- tolos Ioannem.et Petrum: intelligent et credant se in ooulis 3'1 Privari regii nominis et officii dignitate, quando si illud placitum Deo fuit qued manu firmaverant, faoiunt cone tr! manna suae conscriptionem, licet illud nomen.usurpent an. ts oculos hominum.terrena st instabili potestate. . . .' - 91 - check on royal power. Outside the field of writing coronation ordines, later to be discussed, he said very little about the participation of bishops in king-making, and it seems he be- lieved the laying on of hands to be more or less a symbol of the royal assumption of an especial responsibility to God.37 Hincmar spent far greater time and effort arguing for and carrying out what he felt to be the essential role of bishops in public life-the moral admonition of those holding politi- cal office. This would seem to indicate a tacit de-emphasis of the spiritually unique position of the king, for the "magic” which the king receives from God comes to him in a manner si- milar to that accruing to any other officer and, in fact, to any other person. The truth of this hypothesis will become more fully evident when the theoretical implications of Hinc- mar's theory of political office are considered and then its application in Praxis. -_.-_ 37Hincmar‘wrote for Charles in the Capitula Pistensia, a. 862, cap. 1: ”Quia illum Spiritum sanctum, qui requisvit luper adiutorem in oportunitatibus, in tribulatione, Christan dominum nostrum, et quem per impositionem manus episcopalis 1n consignatione accepimus, contristatum malignis eperibus a nobis QfngV1mu.e e e e" CHAPTER IV HINCMLR'S IDEA 0F POLITICAL OFFICE The church reform party under Louis the Pious had ad- vocated the objectification of royal office-—that is, the pa- rameters of office were to derive from objective law rather than personal interest. The church party suggested that the king's first responsibility was to God and, in particular, the carrying out of God's will for the Ecclesia. From the church‘s viewpoint, this theory of royal office was undoubtedly very attractive, and the bishops took care to develop further its various implications for political life. However, this Eéflr Egithartei flew in the face of political reality, for how- ever much the king might sincerely observe his Christian re- sponsibilities, the basis of his power remained personal and little relevant to church ideals. Although the bickering among Louis' sons provides only further proof of the essentially personal bonds which tied the magnates of the realm to whichever member of the royal family could promise the most honors, the result of their con— flict so weakened the monarchy that its personal base of pow- er began to give way. The implications of this collapse have filready been discussed in regard to Charles the field's early Y'firfl. and it was concluded that the understanding reached at Coulaines sought to establish a commonwealth in‘which the ver. -92.. - 93 - ious orders of society participated for their mutual benefit. It'would appear that this partially removed the prior contra- diction between church political theory and the realities of political life. The way was open once again for an objective theory of kingship-an ‘which insisted on the king's willing- ness to compromise his unilateral and personal control of po- litical life. Hincmar's theory of office in fact insisted on just such a denial of personal interest, at least as an end in it- self. He felt the office holder should not seek to bend the will of God to his own human and fragile ends, for it would have been only self-frustrating and conducive to digcardia.1 Therefore, there was nothing worse in government than the ru- ler who forgets that his office serves God rather than him- self. Far a king to enter office in search of worldly bene- fit is nothing less than usurpation.2 Such a greedy misuse of office is an expression of that superbia which in Para- dise drew man's intentio away from union with God. For Hinc- mar, superbia was the key factor in political instability and —-_ 1In a letter to Louis III, Hincmar wrote (Sirmond, II, 189): "Et nan debetis inflexibilem Dei voluntatem, qui si mutat sententiam, nan mutat consilium, ad humanam et fragil- em'valuntatem vestram velle inflectere, quad fieri non po- test: sed vestram valuntatem Dei voluntati subdere. . . . Si enim a divine voluntate humans voluntas vestra perseveranter, Quad non permittat Dominus, discardaverit. . . ." 2De divortio Letharii, quaest. vii, resp.: "Quie nemo fimplius delinquit in populis, quam qui perverse agens ordinem Principatus usurpat." "Et ut honoree et beneficia adulanti- bul tribuat, laudatur peccatar in desideriis animae suae, et qui iniqua agit benedicitur, et mortuus a mortuis in morte POI-ima sepelitur. . . .” -94.. and failure.3 Each office holder must enter into his responsibili- ties in full awareness that his privileged position is justi- ‘fied only by acting for God. He should grasp the entire im- plication of his office, both as to how he should act and for whom he acts.“ In other words, each officer is obliged to keep in mind the definition of his office lest it become per- verted by improper ends and thus lead to his damnation. The orientation of the officer's intentio toward God and a careful definition of the ministerium itself do not com- plete Hincmar's theory of office. In addition to these, de facto power acts as a disciplina for the correctio of man through.worldly action.5 These three factors-real power, love, and objective definition of office-—are necessary for —; 3Instructio ad Ludovico Balbum, cap. viii: “quia post- quam radix omnium malarum cupiditas in regno ista exarsit, ut nullus aut pens nullus honorem aut aliquod bonum sine pretio Posset adquirere, aut tenere, aut securitatsm habere, pax st consilium, et iustitia, atque iudicium, sicut necesse fuerat, locum in ista regno non habuerunt.” If the material advanta- 803 placed in the hands of the ruler serve personal greed, then there can be no peace, collaboration, or justice in the realm. “De ordine_palatii, cap. iii: "Sancta Scriptura in omni ordine et professions unicuique administratari praeci- pit, ut intellegat cuncta quae ait. Quoniam, si intellegit administratio quam gerit unde exordium caepit, solliaitius satagit, ut de administrationis talento sibi credito ration- em redditurus.” Writing to Charles the Bald (Sirmond, 11, 331): "solerter providers debetis, no extra ministerium ves- tmm s e e attendntiae” 5The idea that government is a discipline to correct Dinners is found in Jonas' CapitulLdiversarum sententiarum, 0&P. xiv, and repeated by Hincmar in De regis pgrsona, cap. xriii: 'Quia etiam disoiplinam exercendo in improbos et per- Vbrsos, non odii sui rancore, vel vindictae suae livore, sed "Iore iustitiae st divinae vindictae Christa serviat.” - 95 - effective government.6 Clearly, the responsibilities of of- fice engage man's whole being, for the intentio of the heart, the voluntas of the rational spirit, and bodily ggtig.find corresponding political expression in the devotion of the ends of office to God, in the definition of office, and in the exercise af'worldly potestas. A discussion of Hincmar's idea of political office cannot avoid devoting much time to the office of king. Des- pite the ever dwindling power of ninth-century monarchs, the royal dignity continued to enjoy an important theoretical po- sition.7 The bishops were concerned not only with the royal office, but also with the personal wisdom and forcefulness of the monarch, upon.whom depended the stability and viability 6Ad Carolum III imperatorem, cap. v: ”Et non salum regi, sed et omni qui in dominationis est potestate, tria ne- cessario habere oportet, terrorem ecilicet, ordinationem, et amorem. Nisi enim ametur Dominus, et metuatur, ordinatia illius constare minime poterit. Per beneficia ergo et affa- bilitatem procuret ut diligatur, at par iustam vindictam, non Propriae iniuriae sed legis Dei, studeat ut metuatur. Et in his et aliis omnibus princeps semper Deum cogitet, et illi adhaereat: quia, nisi conditori suo pertinaciter adhaeserit, et ipse, et omnes qui ei consentiunt, cito deperient." 7The belief that political and military success and, in fact, even the fruitfulness of nature were profoundly af- fected by the virtue of the king had long been current. Hinc- mr in De re is ersona, cap. ii. quoted Jonas' Capitula,which .in turn quote ss o-Cyprian: "(royal virtues] haec regni Prosperitatem in praesenti faciunt, et regem ad caelestia reg- na meliara perducunt. Qui vero regnum non secundum hanc le- gem dispensat, multas nimirum adversitates imperii tolerabit. Idcirca enim pax saepe papulorum rumpitur, et offendicula eti- am de regno suscitantur, terrarum quoque fructus diminuuntur, et servitia papulorum praepediuntur, multi et varii dolores Prosperitatem regni inficiunt, . . . hostium.inoursus provin- cias undique vastant. . . .” However, this attitude is a °firry-over from pre-Christian Irish paganism and perhaps is a Poor indication of Carolingian mentality. - 96 - of the government.8 His leading position made him an example of moral virtue, encouraging a greater sense of responsibility 9 in the lower orders. The king was to protect the churchr—an essential agen- cy for the work of salvation. Because it was dependent upon material resources, the church looked to the monarch as 92¢ fensor ecclesiae, thus obtaining the peaceful conditions ne- cessary for its pastoral responsibilities.1O At times Hincmar sounds very much like Augustine, for it is the king's task to stand at the head of the church as defender of its constitu- tion, so that ”human peace"-even though less sweet than "di- vine peace“-be assured.11 However, there is an important 8Divine help seems to have contributed in two ways to aid men achieve success in their office. Hincmar's accept- ance of trial by water (see De iudio aquas frigidae) clearly entails divine action in history on the objective level. Yet, Very important in the context of Hincmar's thought is his rs- cognition that the Holy Spirit gives the officer psychologi- cal support, particularly through ensuring good Gestalt. A thorough discussion of this point lies outside the scope of this study. However, worth noting here is that Christ's Peace provided mental stability and effectiveness. Hincmar noted in writing to his nephew (Migne, P.L., cxva. 562): "Et multis modis hac illac vadis fluctuando sicut arundo a vento agitata, videlicet animo fluctuante, quae nullius gravitatis POndere es stabilitus." 9§pistola synodi Carisiaagpsis, cap. xi: ”Super quen- tos enim estis in regni culmine, tantorum moribus debetis servire et sicut lucerna super candelabrum in dama posita bo- nitatis example monstrare, quia omnium oculi in vos debent in- tenders." 10De fide Carlo servanda, cap. viii: "aves autem no- bis commissae, quia sine pastors errabunt vel dispergentur, et facultates ecclesiasticae, quibus sustentari debent, velut relictae sine custodibus, diripientur ac vastabuntur, si de- qurit virtus principis, cuius potestate defendantur, vel cus- todss, qui pro ovibus st earum alimoniis principi et defen- sori ac tutori ecclesiae suggerant." - 97 - distinction between.Augustine's idea of worldly peace and Hincmar's. Far Augustine, as already noted, peace in this world had little value in itself and certainly was of an en- tirely different order than the true peace of the Civitas Dei. Hincmar was heir to a richer and more truly medieval concept, however, for he followed the Benedictine-Gregorian view that the peace of worldly political order and caritas dialecti- cally interact to ensure human salvation.12 Worldly peace is not only a precondition for the action of grace, it is the consequence of that grace. Furthermore, Hincmar saw other important ways in which the royal office had a positive role in the work of sal- vation. .As rector_pqpuli, the king provided the same disci- line as did the abbot of a monastery, for to make a new man, all aspects of the person needed attention, even his physical actions. The 22222.0f the king implied his holding the of- fice of rector, through which he corrected his subjects of 13 their evil ways. Piety, the personal relation of the king Li ¥ 11Sirmond, II, 189: "regiam potestatem vobis non ad Iolum mundi regimen, sed maxime ad ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam, ut ausus nefarios comprimendo, et quae bene sunt statuta defendatis. . . .“ De re is ersana, cap. x: "Si an. tem pax humans tam.dulcis pro temporali salute mortalium, quan. to est dulciar pax divina pro asterna salute angelorum?" 12022£cu1um LV. capitulorum, cap. xii: "Gregorius . . e scribens ostendit, . . .'creatura . . . in potsstate st or- dine, sicut nostris, differt alter ab altero. Hina etenim POI et charitas mutuo se invicem complectuntur, st manst fir- ma concordia in alterna at Dec placita dilectione sinceritas, Quia unumquodque tune salubriter completur officium, cum fu- erit unus ad quem possit recurri praepositus.'” 13Ad Carolum III im.eratarem, cap. v: ”Nomen enim re- - 98 - to God, and justice, the fulfilling of the office of rector, thus were the two major royal virtuss.1u Considering first the act of judgment, Hincmar enumerated two factors which con- stituted asquitas iustitia: mildness and rectitude.15 The rectitude of severe judgment is. particularly important, for the peace and tranquility of the realm are assured only if there exists a firm correctio.16 Since iustitia is governed by the heart, it follows that the chief threat to its fair- nsss is superbia. Particularly in its prideful desire for worldly glory, the heart tyrannizes the mind and obscures its gis intellectualiter hoc ratinet, ut subiectis omnibus rector- is officium procuret. Sed qualiter alias corrigere poterit, qui praprios mores, ne iniqui sint, non corrigit? Iustitia vero regis est, neminem iniuste per potentiam opprimere. . . ." De coercendis militum repinie (H.G.H., E923, VIII, 65): "Quia, cum regis ministerium sit so at suos, qui bene agunt, in melo ius semper dirigere et pravas a malis corrigere. . . .' 1“Admonitio alters, cap. xvii: ”Regiae virtutes prae- cipue duae aunt, iustitia videlicet at pietas. Verum tamen in regibus plus laudatur pietas, nam iustitia per se sine pie- tate severa est." 150s divortio Lotharii, praef.: "quia veritatem exse- quens mansuetudinem cum iustitia conservabit, ut nec zelum rectitudines in manuetudinis ponders derelinquat nec rursum Pondus mansuetudinis rectitudinis zelo perturbet. . . ." E21.- :21. synodi Carisiacensis, cap. xii: "Reddite subditis iudici- um cum misericordia. . . .' This mixture of mildness and se- verity was previously noted in the monastic context. 16M.G.H., £22., VIII, 85: "scrutare caesarum nostrar- um capitula et invenies, quantum profuerit atque prosit legum severitas non solum ecclesiasticae lenitati, verum totius Christianitatis optandae paci et calendae tranquillitati." Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. ix: 'Facienda est iusti- tia, non pro ullo terreno lucro, sed pro eo ipsa quia iusti- tia est." 'Faciendum est iudicium pro iniquorum corrections, ‘t Pro iniuriam sustinentium directions, non pro malevolenti- as ultione. . . .' But note in a letter to Pope John VIII (Sirmond, II, 771): “sic tamen est, ut sanctus Leo dicit, ad- hibenda carrsctia, ut semper sit salva dilectio, et plus erg; ourrigendss agat benovolentia quem ssvsritas, plus cohortatio quem cammotia, plus caritas quem potestas. - 99 - own vision for aequitas iustitia.17 Hincmar stressed the importance of this key royal function, for only through a correctio could political life be brought into accord with the will of God. The order and state of the ”whole world" depended upon the king's fair judg- ment.18 Most importantly, in light of the failure of the Carolingian monarchs to provide adequate defense against the Norse invasions, it would restore military virtus.19 The con- tribution of the episcopal office to this royal function con- sisted largely of moral admonition, for discordia within the king's own person would obscure his actions, including the passing of judgment.20 Important for the royal office was the promulgation 17De cavendis vitiis, cap. iv: 'Quisquis vero eius in ss tyrannidem [superbiae] captive mente susceperit, noc pri- mnm damnum patitur, quad clauso cordis oculo iudicii aequita— tem POrdit." Here Hincmar quotes Gregory's horalia. 18M.G.H., Epp., VIII, 8h: I'vidslicet de sequitate ser- vanda, subtiliter debes perpendere, ne videaris vel dicaris non solum ecclesiae, verum st totius mundi statum et ordinem atque vigarem velle confundere atque destruere. . . .' 19_2£gstructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. viii: 'Ut ius- titia et iudicium, quae quasi smortua spud nos sunt, revivis- cant, ut virtutem nobis Deus rsddet contra paganss." Hincmar's contemporaries undoubtedly saw the king's close relationship with God as contributing to his charisma and thus his military virtus, but Hincmar also had a rational explanation for this, based on the interrelation of mental gtabilitas and efficiency or action. 292:_oavendis vitiis, cap. iv: 'Quoniam qui semetipsum Prius non iudicat, quid malum recte iudicet ignorat. Et si no- vit fortasss per auditum quad recte iudicare debeat, tamen iu- dicare aliens merits nan valet, cui conscientia innocentiae Pr°Priae nullam iudicii regulam praebet." This is undoubted- ll'Vhy 'mirror of the prince" literature rarely departs from Ieral admonition. - 100 - and preservation of the law. Quoting Pseudo-Cyprian, Hincmar observed that a people without law are without Christ, for they rush towards perditian through various paths of error.2' It‘was the task of the king to be the conditar leggg for the sake of Christ and to repress actions which were contrary to the law.22 In fact, all law, whether folk or royal, found justification in its conformity to God's will.23 This neces- sary conformity applied both to the law appropriate to speci- fic offices or social distinctions and to royal adjudication.2h One finds the practical application of this idea so crucial in Hincmar's thought in a variety of situations. For example, it might be noted that he made Louis IIl's serving the law a e—___ 21De regis persona, cap. xxvii: "Duodecimus abusionis gradus est populus sine legs, qui dum edicta st legum scita contemnit, per diversas errorum vias sundo perditionis laque- um incurrit.“ 22Hincmar quotes Jonas' Ca itula, cap. xi, in De re- :15 persona, cap. xvi: "Serviant reges terrae Christa, etiam legss ferendo pro Christa. Quomodo ergo reges Domino servi- unt in timors, nisi ea quae contra Domini iussa fiunt, reli- giosa severitate prohibendo atque plectendo? Aliter enim ser- vit quia home est, aliter quia etiam rex est. Quia homo est, oi servit vivendo fideliter: quia vero etiam rex est, servit legss iusta praecipientes et contraria prohibentes convenien-. ti vigore sancienda." Hincmar writes Pope John VIII (Sirmond, 11. 769): 'lectio sancti Eyangelii patenter ostendit: ita idem 1Pee, per quem reges regnant, et conditores lsgum iusta ds- cernunt. . . ." 23Quoting Pseudo-Cyprian again in De regis persona, cap. xxvii:"Utique multae psrditianis viae tuna inceduntur, cum una regalis via, lex Dei videlicet, quae neque ad dexter- om neque ad sinistram declinat, per negligentiam deseritur.'" ”Igitur out a populo promulgatas iustae legss servandas, aut ;.principe iuste ac rationabiliter sunt in quolibet vindican- e." 2% Ad Carolum III 1 ratarem, cap. iv: "Doceant eos verbo et exemplo, regni primoribus et ceteris regni fidelibus, ‘tQue sanctae ecclesiae defensoribus, unicuique in suo ordine competentem legem et iustitiam conservare. . . .' - 101 - condition of election to the throne.25 Although the king seems to have been free in modifying the responsibilities of offices or establishing new ones, the critical issue, in Hincmar's opinion, was that he recognize his responsibilitiy for the personal character of his subor- dinates. In particular, that they be free from cupiditas-—- the basic flaw in political life.26 This holds true as well for those officials appointed by counts. They must be of such character as to avoid cupiditas and seek fair justice-—the chief responsibility of all holding political posts.27 God passes judgment on each officer both as an individual and as to the manner in which he fulfills his office.28 It is im- —_ 251x: a letter to Louis III (Sirmond, II, 198): "sed ogo cum collegis msis, et ceteris Dei ac progenitorum ves- trorum fidelibus, vos elegi ad regimen regni, sub conditions debitas legss servandi." 26§2istola gynodi:garisiacensis, cap. xii: ”Constitui- te ministros palatii, qui Deum cognoscant, ament et mstuant . . . .' 'Constituite comites, st ministros rei publicae, qui non diligent munera, qui odiant avaritiam, qui detestentur su- Perbiam. . . ." The De ordine palatii is an example of Hinc- mar's recognition that the king is free to redefine the pur- Poses and varieties of political offices. Admonitio alters, cap. xiv: I'Qui autem post regem populum regere debent, id est, duces et comites, necesse est ut tales instituantur, qui sins Pericule eius qui eos canstituit, quae sub ss habent cum ius- titia et aequitate gubernare intelligent, atque cum bona vo- luntate quad intelligunt adimplere procurent, scientes se ad hoc positos esse, ut plebem salvsnt et regent, non ut dominan- tur et affligant; neque ut populum Dei suum asstiment, aut ad Guam gloriam sibi illum subiici, quad pertinet ad tyrannidem et iniquam potestatem.” In Hincmar's opinion, the desire for worldly glory, power, and.wealth are all expressions of the fundamental sin of superbia. 27De ordine palatii, cap. : "Tales etiam comites st Dub se iudices constituere debet, qui avaritiam oderint et ius- titiam diligent, st sub hac conditions suam administratianem Psragant et sub se huiusmodi ministeriales substituant." - 102 - portant to note the distinction between these two criteria. As a person, the officer's gg£i2_(his thoughts, words, and deeds) are objectively evaluated, but as the holder of a mill- isterium, it is the character of those acts which are taken into consideration. Hence, it is the intentio of his heart and the justice of his official acts which are significant. This will prove to be a critical distinction for Hincmar's theory of office. Having discussed Hincmar's idea of office in connec- tion.with men holding clearly defined political functions, there is some evidence that in addition to this he had a gen- eralized idea of an office of power, termed ministerium poten- tiae temporalis.29 Not only the authority derived from formal office, but also the dignity of power itself and the strength of virtue were considered yokes of responsibility for which one was answerable to God.30 Such an idea is in itself not 28Eggecclesias libertatum (Mansi, XVI, 769): ”redde- mus rationes, non solum de propriarum personarum actionibus, locutionibus, atque cagitationibus: verum et de ministeriorum susceptorum officiis, qualiter in sis ea quae ad ministeria pertinent, sincero cards, st iustis actibus egerimus. . . ." 29De regis persona, cap. iii: "Cum ergo potentiae tem- Poralis ministerium suscipitur... . .“ This expression is quoted from Jonas (Capitula diversarum sententiarum, cap. xxiv), and relects the traditional Christian attitude toward the obligations inherent in talent. Hincmar's contribution to the idea of office was to make a careful distinction be- tween the definition of specific office and the meaning of actio as determined by the officer's intentio. 3oDe divortio Lotharii, quaest. vii: "His vero, qui auctoritate ordinis, aut dignitate potestatis, vel fortitudi- ne virtutis, tali facto non possunt resistere, consulit divi- na clementia, dicens in eadem Apocalypsi, 'Vobis autem dico ceteris qui Thyatirae estis, quicumque non habent doctrinam hone, qui non cognoverunt altitudinem satanae, quemadmodum d1- _ 103 - foreign to the Christian tradition, but with Hincmar's formu- lation, there appear new elements. The advantage of worldly power brought with it responsibilities for aiding the king, not so much because of ties to the royal person, but rather, to the objective idea of state.31 The magnates' power and honors were to be submitted humbly to God's purposes, and on- 32 ly if misused would they endanger the soul. In interpreting Psalm CIII, Hincmar noted that: ”The cedars of Lebanon" are the nobles and persons of rank in the world "planted by the Lord,” Who approved of the wealth and distinctions of those who say: ”It is He who has made us and not these worldly things, for Just as He makes us vassals and dignitaries, so does He also cre- ate our privileges."33 The critical point here is that the social position and advan- tages of the magnates are not in themselves meaningful for the person's essential worth if they are properly used. Hinc- mar seems here to be trying to substitute a Benedictine atti- tude toward the world for a Germanic concept of government in __ unt, non mittam super vos aliud pondus: tamen id quod habetis tenets, donec veniam.'" 31Thus the king is obliged to rule with their auxili- met consilium. Ad Ludovicum III regem, cap.v: "et fideli- bus vestris, quorum ‘consilio et auxilio sanctam ecclesiam et regnum vobis commissum.gubernare debetis. . . ." Again, this reflects the altered base of royal power after Coulaines. 32 culum LV. capitulorum, cap. v: “Et quoniam non est potestas nisi a Dec, discernendum est in potestate, quid nobis Deus concedat propitius, et quid permittat iratus, ut oonoessa oum.timore et tremors humiliter exequamur. . . ." lbid., cap. li: “Timers etiam debemus, ne praelatio et honor- 33. quos in isto saeculo habemns, si aliquid boni sumus, retri- butio nobis fiat, et a retributione iustorum alienos officiat." 3M. G. 3.. £22., VIII, 170: “'et caedri Libeni,‘ id est no‘biles3 atque sublimes mundi, 'quas Dominus plantavit,‘ qui e- tiamde divitibus et inlustribus multos iustificavit, qui di- cunt: Ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos, quia sicut nos homines 't inlustres, ita nihilominus et iustos fecit." -10h- which divitias and honors played the central role.3h Having considered the nature of the various political offices, it remains necessary to specify more closely the man- ner in which they interacted with one another. Hincmar's the- ory of office tended to bring all social action within the purview of Christian.values. For this he developed a complete corporate theory, stating that within a corporation, order is achieved only if the members scrupulously obey the head who 35 provides for them. Equally important, though, the head sanc- tifiss the body by giving itself over to it in the unity of love.36 This spiritual bond is the reflection of the worldly unity of obedience to God, and consequently, members of a cor- Porats body loose autonomy if they seek to act discordantly. If, on the other hand, both head and members act in accord with M 3“Erna Buschmann, "Ministerium Dei-—idonsitas. Um ih. rs Deutung aus dem mittslalterliche Ffirstsnspisgsln,” Histor- isches Jahrbflch, LXXXII (1963), 92-95, suggests that the men- astic idea of humilitas-superbia found in ninth-century mir- ros is not really monastic (i.e., othsrdworldly), but little more than advice to the king to realize the limits of his pow- er. The present study, to the contrary, suggests that monas- tic thought was able to insist on the positive value of world- 1? wealth and distinctions if they serve as a spring-board of salvation. 35M.G,H., £22., VIII, Isa-Sh: ”ut cognoscatur, quali- ter minorss potioribus debeant oboedire st potiorss minoribus Providers st ordo a Bee dispositus ab omnibus et in omnibus valsat conservari.” 36In reference to marriage and the Ecclesia as a cor- Poration: De raptu viduarum, cap. xi: "Quid snim‘vsnerabilius, qnnm'ut coniugium mysterium sit Christi st ecclesiae? Quid sanetius, quam ut sic diligant viri uxorss sues, sicut Chris- tus dilsxit scolssiam, tradens ssipsum pro se, ut illam sanc- tificaret atque mundarst? Quid carius atque ooniunotius, quamnut vir caput sit mulisris, sicut Christus caput est sc- clssias, ipse salvator corporis? - 105 - highest responsibilities, then freedom coincides with obedi- ence.37 Although Hincmar is not applying these observations directly to political life, his frequent reference to the stats in corporate terms suggests he thought of political rs- lations in an analogous way. The totalitarian implications of corporate views of the state became manifest in the late Middls.Ages, but there was the contrary implication in Hinc- mar's ideas that submission to authority could liberate the individual.38 The interaction of offices was usually subsumed under the expression auxilium et consilium. For Hincmar, consilium meant the best of one's knowledge, and auxilium, the best of one's ability.39 The mutual support of officers by the giv- ing of aid to one another appears unambiguous, but consilium had interesting implications for the power of the word in of- fice. Hincmar once compared the use of words in a political context to a soft whistle, ”which soothe the ferocity of her- ses and goads the kssness of dogs."“0 In light of the power 37M,G.H.. £22., VIII, 82: 'Quomodo poteris inferior- Om partsm corporis hominis illius, qui sub altsrius providen- tia degit, separars st tsnere sub pasnitsntia, quae neo ora- tioni continentsr sine consensu partis superioris vacars po— tsst?" ‘ 38See A. G. Weilsr, "Deus in terris: mittslaltsrliche Wurzsln der totalitfirsn Ideologie,“ Acta historica Nssrlandi- 2:: I (1966), 22-52. For the medieval concept of liberty, see Gerd Tellsnbach, Church State and Christian Socist at the Time of the Investiture C 39Iurs.mentum (Sirmond, II, 835): "In so enim qued di- 119 flecundum meum scire, consilium, st in so quod dixi, se- cundum meum posse, auxilium continetur." u one coercendis militum rapinis (M.c.n., 222., VIII, I‘b" ~106- of words to influence action, it was of utmost importance for the king to encourage the greatest freedom of speech among his councillors.h1 Hincmar's theory of political office was expressed in moral terms such as warning the king that concordia of cari- tas is the mother of all virtues and humility their guardian.“2 Nevertheless, he always felt these admonitions had concrete implications. The various forms of su2erbia——avarice, lust for power, or pride in social advantage-—divert the intentio of the heart away from the true purposes of government, thus destroying the possibility for fruitful cooperation between officers. This is not to suggest he was unaware of the very real and immediate tasks facing government, such as the prac- tical welfare of the people, but he kept always in mind that the efficiency of the means used to solve the difficulty of the moment was a function of the extent to which it was seen “3 in terms of society's ultimate ends and value systems. ._.__‘ _L_ 64): 'et ideo secundum quod scitis unicuique convenirs, tem- perate sermonem. Scimus enim, quia lenis sibilus, qui equor- um ferocitatem mitigat, canum sagacitatem instigat." It 1' interesting to note that Hincmar used the same analogy when describing the spiritual effect of Communion on its partici- pants (Sirmond, II, 685). h1Ds rigis 2srsona, cap. iv: ”Similitsr et in consili- 1s agsrs debet consiliarius, quia est st in consilio maxime liberalitas.' l‘2).q.(3.n., £22., VIII, 117: ”cum oaritatis concordia, quae est omn um v rtutum mater, st cum humilitate, quae est oustos ipsarum virtutum. . . .” ughincmar recognized the need for a realistic appreci- ation of the needs of the people: Instructio ad Lndovicum Bel- Pum, cap. viii: "quae ad Dei voluntatsm et sanctae Ecclesies statum st vestrum honorem ac primorum regni, st populi necessi- - 107 - Hincmar's theory of office, which related man's high- est ideals with day-to-day problems and fused a dynamic spir- it with worldly order, was constructed from ideas as far rang- ing as those of the Bible, Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Jonas of Orléans. However, when taken together, it becomes immediately apparent that his principal inspiration was the monastic rule of Saint Benedict. Chapter II of the Rule, "What the Abbot Should Be," parallels Hincmar's idea of the royal office point for point. Benedict felt that ”in a monastery (the abbot) is con- sidered to take the place of Christ,” and thus his acts should conform with the "command of our Lord . . . and be mingled with the leaven of divine justice." Hincmar often insisted that since all worldly power derived from Christ, and in fact, carries Christ's name and participates in the love, fear, and honor due Him, worldly Justice is divine.hh Furthermore, Benedict saw the abbot as a pastor over the flock of his disciples, warning that when the abbot fin- ally meets his Lord's Judgment, he is answerable both for the h tatem, st utilitatem scivit. . . .“ thor The Rule of Saint Benedict, I am using the con. veneient translation of Gasquet (New York, 1966), and for the abbot's office, pp. 9-15. For Hincmar's idea that the king carries out “divinae vindictae,“ see note 5 above. For the ruler's having the nomen of Christ, De divortio Lotharii, in. ter. xii, resp.: "sed attendentss quia si sub uno regs ac sacerdots Christo, a cuius nominis derivations christi do- mini appellantur, in populi regimine sublimati st honorati esse desiderant. . . ." Benedict noted that the abbot “is considered to take the place of Christ, since he is called by His name. . . .” - 108 - care of those under him and, indeed, for their righteousness. Hincmar used the same terms for the responsibilities of the royal office, for the king is also answerable to God at fin- al Judgment for the care he exercises over his flock.45 Bene- dict emphasized that the abbot's principal means of correct- ting the monks was through providing an example of moral vir- tue. Although verbal castigation.was also essential, the actions of the abbot spoke stronger than words. Hincmar like- wise emphasized the role of the king as providing an example of shining virtue, while his words played a subsidiery, but 46 nevertheless important role. Incorporated within the Rule were certain principles of social egalitarianism. Regardless of the status of the monk before entering the monastery, once there he had a claim to the abbot's love equal to that of anyone else, for whether bond or free, they were all one in Christ. This was not to deny that there was a structure of authority within the men- astery, but simply that differences between men were function- al rather than social or legal distinctions in the essential value of the individual. Although Hincmar realized that all usaasquet, o .cit., p. 10. For Hincmar, see notes 10, 13, 26, and 32 above. uéIbid., pp- 10-11. For Hincmar, see note 9 above. MgG,H., £22., VIII, 78: 'Quaproptsr rsgibus scribimus, ut Quos Deus idea in tam excellentissimo loco posuit, ut a sub- iectis omnibus valeant conspici et ad speculi vicem haberi, quatsnus pravis st rectis vel terrori esse debeant vel amori, ills satagant facere, de quibus nemo subiectorum eoe iuste valeat reprehendere, et ea studeant summopers devitare, quae 1n subiectos pro ministerie sibi a Bee imposito necesse erit corrig.r.e s s s" - 109 - men were equal in the sight of God, the realities of social life were quite to the contrary. The monastization of the en- tire society was not at all Hincmar's intent, but he did seek v to apply certain Benedictine principles to government. Not only did the king have the care of all subJects in his heart, he was not to allow the selection of men to fill political offices to be dictated by considerations of selfish profit.“7 Furthermore, as we have seen, office was irrelevant to the essential value of the individual. Benedict sought to bring together process and order by fusing caritas and authority. "Let (the abbot) manifest the sternness of a master and the loving affection of a fa- ther." Likewise, Hincmar emphasized that there were three essentials for the effective rule of one enJoying political office: his authority must command fear, he has to act by virtue of an office, and he must be loved.“8 Caritas made such harsh discipline acceptable, for its end was not to re- Prsss the individual, but to guide him into the path of free- #9 dom. k h7Gasquet, o .cit., pp- 11-12. For Hincmar, see notes 26 and 27 above. usIbidL, pp. 12-13. Admonitio altera ro Carolomanno facta, cap. viii: ”Tria ergo necessaria hos qui dominantur hab- ere oportet, terrorem ecilicet, st ordinationem, et amorem." "Per benedicia ergo st affabilitatem procuret ut diligatur, st Per iustae vindictas, non propriae iniurias, sed legis Dei, studeat ut metuatur.' De regis_pgrsona, cap. xxxii: ”in boni rectoris pectore . . . sit amor, sed non emolliens: sit vigor, sed non exasperans: sit zslus, sed non immodsrats sasviens: sit pistes, sed non plus quam expediat parcsns.' #9”. divortio Lotharii, quaest. vii, resp.: ”Siquidem has interest inter bonos st males principes, qued boni liber- - 110 - Finally, Benedict noted that "The abbot ought ever to bear in mind what he is and what he is called; he ought to know that to whom more is entrusted, from him more is exacted.” Likewise, Hincmar insisted that every administrator had some order or profession, the definition of which he was to keep firmly in mind, for ultimately he would be answerable to God 50 One important aspect of this for its proper management. heavy burden was the need to cope adequately with human nature. The Rule warned: Let him recognize how difficult and how hard a task (the abbot) has undertaken, to rule souls and to make himself a servant to the humors of many. One, forsooth, must be led by gentle words, another by sharp reprehension, ano- ther by persuasion: and thus shall he so shape and adapt himself to the character and intelligence of each. . . . Hincmar, too, recognized that the king had to understand hu- man psychology to bring':men over to his point of view. "And therefore adapt your words to what you know is appropriate to each individual. For we know that a soft whistle both calms the ferocity of horses and snlivens the keeness of dogs."51 For Hincmar, office was less an explicit legal deling- ation of public action, designed to prevent Jurisdictional confusion or to check personal ambition, than the central or- ganizing principle of social and political life. Office _¥ tatem amant, servitutem.improbi.” 50Gasquet, o2.cit., p. 13. For Hincmar, see note 1‘ abO'VCe 51Ibid., pp. 13-1h. De cosrcsndis militum.ra inis, Feb., 859 (M.G. . E ., VIII, 65): "st ideo sscnndum.quod scitis unicuique convenire, temperate sermonem. Scimus enim, quia lenis sibilus, qui equorum ferocitatem mitigat, canum "Caoitatem instigat.” - 111 - gained this crucial role in his thought because it had the po- sitive function of bringing Christian values and ultimate ends into contact with the concrete realities of public life. The fusion of spiritual values and worldly action had increasing- ly characterized the early Middle Ages, but until the ninth century, it had not been self-consciously articulated by men deeply involved in shaping the course of political history. Beginning early in the ninth century and reaching its culmin- ation in Hincmar, a coherent and rational theory was elabor- ated making office not only a springboard of salvation, but a means for the realization of God's will on earth. This theory derived from a characterisitically Benedictine psy— chology, whereby there was a dynamic interaction between a disciplining of action and a turning to Christ-ths source of love (caritas). The office holder found that his action in public life was disciplined by the legal definition of his office, and at the same time his heart (intentio) was to be directed to God. In the larger social context, the same prin- ciples were applied. The secular arm of government provided a discipline for its subJects, while the sacerdotal office acted as society's heart, directing the minds of all toward Christ. The king and the bishop were dialectically united in a single whole (Ecclesia)-—a whole implying neither a separa- tion of church and state nor the absorption of one into the other. The delineation of Hincmar‘s theory of public office means little if abstracted from the realities of political - 112 - life. To have advocated ideals little relevant to the needs of the day would have been either foolish or irresponsible, and lest Hincmar be deserving of such an accusation, it is essential to understand the implications of his advice for the political events of his time. For this reason, attention will now be turned to the application of his thought,'with the hope that from it will be ascertained both his responsive- ness to real political needs and the extent to which he in- fluenced the course of Carolingian history. PART II HINCMAR'S IDEA OF MINISTERIUM IN PRAXIS While the preceeding investigation has attempted to relate Hincmar's theory of public office to the broader rea- ches of his world view-—in particular, the basic categories of thought which structured that view-a full and obJective appreciation of his ideas necessitates their being related to actual political, social, and power relations. Tending to integrate ends and means as lines of action, public office becomes meaningless if abstracted from concrete means and ends, Just as it looses ideological significance if it does not provide a new dimension to public life, permitting an in- teraction between the actual and the ideal. The application of these principles makes the study of Hincmar's earlier years rather problematical. Certainly one can rather hazily delineate what seems to be the nature of Hincmar's political involvements in the decade after his becoming archbishop in 8&5, but too many facets of his life and thought remain uncertain to allow full study of their in- teraction without imposing insights gained from his more ma- ture activity.1 For this reason, the study of Hincmar's the- n 1For accounts of Hincmar's public activity prior to 358-59, the reader is advised to turn to Heinrich Schrbrs, Hinmr, Erzbischof von Reine (Frsiburg 1.3., 1881:). part I: -113- - 11h - ory of office in Praxis will commence only with the years 858- 59-—the point at which his role in political life takes on clearer lines and sufficient writings survive to ascertain his understanding of that role. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to review briefly the manner in which Hincmar found himself in such an advantageous position in public affairs. Born sometime shortly before 807 into an aristocratic family of some means in the Boulogne -'area, Hincmar was sent, like so many other youths of the no- bility, into a monastery for upbringing. Between the ages of seven and fifteen, he arrived at the monastery of Saint Denis and there, as a canon, began the intensive training which would equip him for a leading role in the destiny of the West Frankish monarchy . Ever since 81h, this fameous monastery near Paris was under the leadership of Abbot Hilduin—-a man less known for the simple pieties than for vast schemes of aggrandisement for himself, his public office, and his monastery, the exact extent of which eludes the modern historian. Despite its rich cultural and historical tradition--offering Hincmar a micro- cosm of fiankish myths and spiritual associations—the monas- tery of Saint Denis had in recent years suffered a certain de- cline in its sense of religious mission due to the disruptions of a "worldly faction." Nevertheless, despite these distrac- _¥ Calmette, o2.cit.3 Karl Hampe, "Zum Streite Hincmars von Reims nit seinem Vorgflngsr Ebo und desssn Anhflngern," Neues Archiv, 13111 (1898), 180-1951 and hails Lesne, "Hincmr st L'E‘mper- guralothaire,“ Revue des questions historigges, LXXVIII (1905), '5 e - 115 _ tions. Hincmar went to work in the scriptorium copying manu- scripts and presumably familiarizing himself with the great wealth of literature contained in the library. There is lit- tle reason to doubt that at Saint Denis, Hincmar became deep- ly imbrued with the political theology associated with the Frankish monarchy. Hincmar's noble birth and exceptional ability encour- aged Hilduin to bring the lad to the royal court as his pro- teg‘ sometime after 819. Here the future archbishop was given a practical training in canon law in preparation for a career in royal service. By 828 he had become a member of the court chapel and a trusted advisor to Louis the Pious in matters where his legal and patristic knowledge would prove of use. Although the chaplains serving at court were notoriously lax in their spiritual lives, Hincmar was brought into contact ‘with the leading minds of the age: Abbot Hilduin, Agobard of Lyons, and the radical reformer, Adalard of Corbie. It appears that in 829-830 Hincmar responded to the new reforming spirit and gave his support to the church re- forming party. He reveals his sincere concern for the spiri- tual revitalization of St. Denis by'working at court to pro- mote its reform. When the monks submittedr—temporarily, it Proved-—to the Benedictine Rule, Hincmar was moved to return to St. Denis and resign himself to a life devoted to purely religious concerns. Managing to avoid being implicated in the revolt against Louis the Pious in 830 which resulted in Hilduin's exile to Corvsy, Hincmar continued to hold at court - 116 - a reputation for being sensible and trustworthy. This permit- ted his obtaining from Bishop Landri of Paris permission to follow Hilduin into Saxony and finally to procure his abbot's release from exile. In May of 831, Hincmar returned to St. Denis in the company of Hilduin and the following year had the gratification of seeing the Benedictine reform of his monas— tery finally and permanently realized. The following years were peaceful ones for Hincmar despite the political troubles outside his monastery' walls. He assisted.Abbot Hilduin in.writing a biography of St. Denis which was designed to encourage royal support of the monas- tery and which argued for the autonomy of the Gallican church. Besides this proJect, Hincmar went on to write a Miracula §gncti Dionygii and a Gssta Dagoberti, which further enhanced the importance of Saint Denis.2 Although resigned to the quiet of a monastic life, Hincmar's intelligence and reliability were virtues much in need at court, and by February of 835, he assumed the direc- tion of episcopal assemblies, where his knowledge of law prov- ed an immense advantage. It is certain that he performed this duty at the council of Thionvills in 835, at which Louis the Pious was formally reinstated as emperor and absolved of the charges brought against him. M 2The identification of Hincmar as the author is made by L‘on Levillain, “Etudes sur l'abbaye de Saint-Denis a 1'6- POQue mfirovingienns, I,“ Bibliothégue ds l'Ecole des Chartes, Lmn (1921). 58, 88-11h. Relevant also is mx Buchner, ”Zur Entstehung und zur Tendenz der 'Gesta Dagoberti," Hie- torisches Jahrbuch, XLVII (1927). 252-2711. "'"" - 117 - Louis' death in 8&0 meant only a temporary interrup- tion in Hincmar's service to the monarchy, for his return to St. Denis lasted but a short time. Louis' successor in West Francia, Charles the Bald, immediately recalled Hincmar to court in 8&0 to undertake various diplomatic missions in or- der to resolve the conflicts between the king and his royal brothers. Unfortunately, the nature of these activities re- mains obscure. That they were appreciated by Charles, though, is not at all in doubt, for in recognition of his services, Hincmar received from the king two monasteries and some pro- perty to ensure his maintenance. One of the maJor points of contention between the new kings was the see of Rheims, for it dominated a vast and weal- thy section of West Francia on the Lothringian border. Charles had willingly enough left the see vacant, for he pocketed the episcopal incomes, but his rival-King Lothar- had a more or less legitimate claimant to the see in the per- son of Ebbo (deposed for revolting against Louis the Pious). Th forestall Lothar's being able to impose his own henchmen on perhaps the most crucial see in his realm, Charles turned to Hincmar to fill the vacancy. In.April, 8&5, Hincmar entered upon this new phase of his life. Now as archbishop, the matters which drew his at- tention between this year and 858 were numerous: Ebbo contin- ued to represent the interests of Lothar and to challenge Hing- mar's right to the see, the archbishop did not abandon taking an 1nPortant role in the councils-a key instrument of govern- - 118 - ment, and he entered into a long and bitter theological dis- puts with Gottschalk of Orbais on predentination and the na- ture of the Trinity. It was particularly this last field of interest which assured Hincmar's notoriety throughout Europe as an indefatigable canon lawyer, ferocious opponent, and invalu- able ally. In light of the foregoing, there is little reason for surprise at the central role which Hincmar was to play in fu- ture political events. Each of the issues in.which he was involved since 8&5 had political overtones, although it is difficult for the historian to evalueate fully Hincmar's own position in regard to them. This situation alters, however, with the events of 858-59. Here Louis the German took advan- tage of Charles' weaknesses in invade his realm and, through lightly undertaken promises to the magnates of West Francia, became the focus of a general revolt against the legitimate king. In the following chapter, several aspects of this a— bortive invasion will be considered-—in particular, the total Paralysis of Charles' action due to the invasion, and the en- try of the church under Hincmar's leadership into the void to frustrate Louis' plans. The central point to consider, per- hape, is less the specific ideological content of the propa- canda whereby Hincmar forestalled Louis' intention, but the church's positing an ideology and reform program‘which presen- ted an ongoing critique of Frankish political life. There is little to indicate in 858-59 any new or radical departure - 119 - from older ideas, but rather the emergence of a state of con- stant tension between what Hincmar felt should take place and political actualities. It is this tension-this critical edge-—which permits one to ascertain the relationship of ideology and worldly action. CHAPTER V THE FATE OF HINCMAR'S IDEA OF MINISTERIUM IN POLITICAL LIFE, 858-860 In August of 858, Louis the German invaded Vest Fran- cia and nearly succeeded in wresting the crown away from his brother, Charles the Bald. The retreat of the latter into a corner of Burgundy, where only his physical presence could assure the support of a few magnates, was but one factor a- mong many which presented a severe threat to the theoretical and real basis of royal power established at Coulaines. At the same time, Norse invaders were traversing the land, leav- ing in their train untold destruction to the resources of West Francia and suffering for its people. These bold sea- men had learned to ransom their captives, bringing about an economic crisis which threatened to paralyse royal action and contributed to a loss of confidence in the effectiveness of the king in political life.1 Under Hincmar's inspiration, the bishops of West Fran- cia delayed cooperating with Louis' demand for a crowning and in so doing, sufficient time was allowed for events to take their natural course. The magnates decided again to support .__ 1For the events of these years, see Calmette, o .cit , and Halter Mohr, ”Die Krise des kirchlichen Einheitsprograms im Jahre 858," Archivium Latinitatis Medii Aevi, m (1955). 189-213, - 120 - - 121 - their king and Louis abandoned all hope for conquest. Im- mediately thereafter (February, 859), Hincmar wrote Charles, criticizing the monarch's long-standing shortcomings. Before considering their ideological import, it is worthwhile ascer- taining Just what criticism Hincmar raised. He did not hide from Charles what he felt to be his very real inadequacies and sought be every means to re-instill a confidence in his ability and a sense of the obligations of the royal office. Hincmar's criticism of Charles reveals the extent to which his idea of ministerium was intimately bound to the king's actual effectiveness in the political arena. In light of the emphasis which Hincmar placed on the Judicial functions of the royal office, the failure of the king to provide Justice was undoubtedly a critical defect. Plaintifs who came to the court with their cases received nei- ther satisfaction nor even an interested response.2 Materi- ally, too, the king had lost control of his economic resources so that the ability to meet with his magnates in council was hindered by their finding no place able to support large con- 3 centrations of men. In an era so dependent on face-to-face- 2De coercsndis militum ra2inis (M.G.H., £22., VIII, 55): "Alterum est, quia dictum est mihi, quoniam clamatores, Qui ad palatium vestrum veniunt, nullam consolationem nec etiam bonam rssponsum ibi accipiant." 3Ibid.: ”Quod ideo suggere vestrae dominationi pres- sumo, quia regno patris et avi in multis diviso capitalia loca ds regno vestro multa perdunt et vobis pro regio honors, qui vos condecet, necesse est, ut nihil imminuatur de his, quae Dresdeoessores vestri ex eisdem locis solebant habere, st pa- Bani ac falsi Christiani maximam partem de parts regni vestri absumptam usurpant. Et si portiuncula in qua vestri fideles vobiscum degere debent, ita adnihilata perfuerit, nec vos nsc - 122 - communications, such a limitation on the king could prove dis- astrous for the effective functioning of government. Both the lack of Justice and of deliberative assemblies probably reflect the impact which Louis' presence had in West Francia, forcing politics back to the level of personal deals made be- tween kings and magnates. Furthermore, the economic reliance of officials on the king should have ensured their responsiveness to the roy- al will; but the crisis encouraged men to seek their own sup- port by pillaging-—a turn of events which seems to have been even encouraged by the palace officials.“ Perhaps a funda- mental reason for Hincmar's concern for these violations of public order was the realization that the church was the first to suffer. Roving bands of marauders exacted payments from churches by threatening to force entry in order to loot.5 His criticisms point to the monarch's failure to provide the central direction and control which would have ensured the Protection of the church's material interests. Unless the king were to receive immediate encouragement, there was a real danger that the royal office would cease being a viable ilii ibidem potsritis conducsre.“ hAd clericos 2glatii (M, VIII, 65): "Audio de hominibus vestris, quia multa male, rapinas ecilicet et de- Praedaticnss st fornicationes, st adulteria, in parrochia mea faciunt. Et etiam de vobis audio, quia illis rapinis consen- titis, ut videlicet qui de illis vivitis st vsstros homines atque caballos exinde pascitis." 5De cosrcendis militum rapinis (MeG.H. E ., VIII, 55): "Tertiam est, quod satis invitus credidi, quia post per- cspta omnis, quae ad victum st potum necessaria sunt, ds ec— clesiis rapteres aut rsdemtionsm exigunt aut eas infringunt.‘ - 123 - party to the commonwealth and by its weakness only encourage ambitious magnates to disturb the peace.6 The nadir of Charles' political fortunes at the end of 858 was of short duration due in large part to the firm re- sistance offered Louis by the West Frankish church, led and 7 inspired by Hincmar of Rheims. In a manner so rapid and de- cisive that it suggested divine intervention, the extensive support which Louis had found among Charles' magnates evapor- ated, leaving him with no alternative but to flee back to Germany lest he fall victim to Charles' advancing forces. Be- fore discussing the reform program advocated by Hincmar im- mediately upon Louis' defeat in January, 859, it is worthwhile keeping in mind the basic ideological positions supporting the two sides in this struggle for the throne of West Francia. When Louis the German invaded in the fall of 858, he undertook a long and circuitous itinerary in order to bargain _ 6The Nerse invasions may also have contributed to the breakdown.in.the coordination of local and royal power, for a society tends to bring its internal organization into con- formity with the structure of outside groups with which it is in conflict. See Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Con- flict (Glencoe, 111., 1956), pp. 133-37. At this time Norse centralization was being replaced by autonomous raiding par- ties, with the result that self-help groups arose within the Prankish population. Annales Bertiniani, a. 859: ”Dani loca ultra soaldem populantur. Vulgas promiscuum inter Sequanam et Ligerim inter se coniurans, adversus Dance in Sequana con- sistentes fortiter resistit. Sed quia incaute sumpta est eor- um coniuratio, a potentioribus nostris facile interficiuntur.‘ 7For the role of Hincmar in the crisis of 858—59, see Joseph Calmette, og.cit., appendix II. The best study of the ideological factors in this crisis is Walter Mohr's "Die Krise des kirchlichen Einheitsprogrammes im Jahr 858." This crisis deserves further study as being perhaps one of the critical turning points in West Frankish history. - 12h - for the support of various key magnates within the land he hoped to rule. For a short while, he was almost entirely suc- cessful, and with a de facto rule based on personal bonds, he awaited only church consecration to legitimize his position. At this point the delaying tactics of Hincmar and other bish- ops became crucial, for in the interim Charles recovered suf- ficient strength to win back support and oust his brother. Hincmar's role in Charles' recovery has usually been attribu- ted to nothing more than loyalty, but this explaination seems rather inadequate in light of what is known of Hincmar's atti- tudes and obJectives. There was ample precedent for a unified rule of Fran- cia, and in fact the Einheitspartei under Louis the Pious had believed this to be the constitution implied by the respgbli- ca christiana. In the early ninth century there were no na- tional sensibilities to be wounded by having a "German" ruler on the West Frankish throne, nor is there really much evidence of Hincmar's firm personal loyalty to Charles the Bald before this date. 0n the contrary, as already indicated, Hincmar was sharply critical of Charles' shortcomings,and it appears that the archbishop's real objections to Louis' attempted coup were not personal, but were related to his idea of the nature of government and constitutional change within it. Louis the German had tried to win the'western throne through personal means alone, and thus had acted contrary to Hincmar's insistence that the various orders of society must be recognized as parties to major decisions. In his Epistola - 125 - synodi Carisiacensis, writen in Nevember, 858 to Justify his hesitation to crown him, Hincmar accused Louis of first refus- ing to reach an amicable settlement by means of an assembly representing both kings and fideles.7 Louis, however, had preferred to make personal deals with Charles' magnates, in- cluding a number of bishops, and Hincmar undoubtedly saw this as a threat to the entire settlement of Coulaines and Verdun. The epistola which he wrote Louis, besides defining the res- ponsibilities of the royal office, argued that the church was independent of royal control and should act as a body in po- litical affairs.8 Because the letter of Quierzy was primarily concerned with the relation of the church to the political situation, it is rather difficult to ascertain Just what Hincmar thought of the two conceptions of royal power as represented by Coulaines and by Louis' actiOns. Neverthelss, it does appear that he considered Louis’ effort to return to a unitary rule based on personal ties with the magnates as doomed to failure. He challenged Louis to do whatever he could without the * 7§pistolaggynodi Carisiacensis, cap. iii: ”quando, si- out et ante, petivimus, ut frater vester et omnes fideles il- lius ante vestram fideliumque vestrorum praesentiam in ratio- nes loco et tempore congruo venissemus et, quae male gesta forent, vestro consilio et auxilio cum Dei adiutorio fierent emendata." 8Ibid., cap. xv: "quoniam cum nostris [the bishops] et non cum istorum parentibus tenuerunt parentes tui regnum.” “Pro certc autem sciatis, quia cum nostris parentibus, id est cum apostolis, Christus rex regum regnum suum, id est eccles- iam, conquisivit, ampliavit et rexit; et per nos et nobiscum . . . regnum suum, quotidie adquirit, angst atque gubernat - 126 - church, and if by any chance God should decide to favor the unified rule and thus allow it to prosper (God can accomplish what to men seems impossible), then the church would cooper- ate with the new king. The implication that Hincmar little favored personal rule and saw no particular advantage in hav- ing a single monarch rather than confraternitas is by no means proven by the letter of Quierzy. However, it gains some ad- ded weight when Hincmar's ideology is recalled. It would be erroneous to attribute Augustinian views to Hincmar, for the cooperation of the church, the king, and his fideles was not merely formal, but a mystical union by no means compromising the identity and independence of each or- der. Likewise, the peace resulting from such concordia was not simply the true peace of God on one hand nor worldly lack of conflict on. the other, but a fusion of the two. A recent work by Reinhard Schneider has tried to interpret ninth-cen- tury treaties in terms of an irreconcilable tension between the true peace of God advocated by the church party and an innerworldly peace as the concomitance of blood ties.‘0 Al- 9Ibid., cap. xv: '0peramini vos interim ista, quae cum fidelibus vestris sine nostra corporali praesentia cper. ari valetis.‘ “It si Deus soliditatem et salutem ecclesiae a“me regni in menu ves tra adunare et pros perari decreverit, quae cum archiepiscopis et coepiscopis nostris plus congru- ere divinis dispositionibus viderimus, agere sub famulatu rec- ti regiminis vestri studebimus . Potens est enim Deus minus bonum initium in perfects bonum commutare processum, cui nos- citur esse possible, qued inpossibile solent homines iudi- care.” 10See Reinhard Schneider, Bruder emeine and Schwur- W (wheels. 1951.). pp. 15—4—7345. and 15 -57"'""""'""'ror the crisis of 858-59. - 127 - though Schneider is undoubtedly correct in many respects, it is doubtful whether Hincmar had an.Augustinian idea of peace. In the letter of Quierzy, Hincmar does not contrast the peace of God with the absense of conflict on earth, but rather, he contrasts worldly peace uninfused with the spirit of caritas 1‘ The Augustinian categories would with true worldly peace. have discouraged the church's becoming intimately involved in political affairs-—hardly the case at Quierzy. The letter of Quierzy penned by Hincmar was less di- rected at changing the traditional stats of affairs than to forestall Louis' attempt to reshape radically Europe's consti- tution. The archbishop does not unequivocally state Just what his constitutional ideas are, but it is clear that he strongly obJects to the East Frankish king's methods. In ac- cord with the settlement of Coulaines, Hincmar felt that im- portant changes could only be brought about with the full par- ticipation of all in a general council. In short, Hincmar was very much concerned to preserve limitations on unilateral royal action. ‘1Schneider uses Hincmar's quotations from Paul as Justification for the imposition of Pauline ideas on Hincmar, which is erroneous for the following reasons: first, Schnei- der bases his interpretation not on Hincmar's actual quotes, but on the passages as Paul wrote them, supplying a crucial pronoun not found in the Quierzy letter: second, Schneider interprets Pauline agape in terms made familiar by the'works of Nygren and Bultmann, the validity of which has been seri- ously questioned by DtArcy'(og.cit.)3 and finally, one cannot assume that Hincmar adopted intact Biblical conceptions of love without a full study of Hincmar's ideas on the subJect. For Hincmar to say that true peace is not amor ivatus or tnor carnis, he is not necessarily denying the possibility or true peace in the world. - 128 - Not only did Quierzy imply constitutional limits, but only months later Hincmar re-inforced them with ideological restrictions. Thus, he constantly reaffirmed the essentially Christian nature of office. The king's ministerium is to dir- ect himself and his men toward righteousness and to correct sinners.12 The idea of the objectification of office as imp plied by the pastoral analogy emphasized that the king served 13 As bad as the Norse in- the'world because he served God. vasicns were, the strife between Christians was yet worse, for it disturbed not only the worldly order, but shattered the ideal bonds which united Christians within the Ecclesia. But particularly within the government itselfr-within the roy- al palace-euch conflict is forbidden, for the palace is to be considered sacred.1u Although the import of these constitutional and ideo- logical limitations cn monarchy might seem to be intended to curtail severely the effectiveness of royal action, Hincmar's role subsequent to the invasion of 858-59 proves this not to be the case. In February of 859, only weeks after West Fran. 01a had seen the last of Louis, Hincmar wrote a series of tracts, which, taken together, add up to a thorough and coher- h 12 13 See chapter IV, note 13. See note 18 below. 1“De cosrcendis (M,G.H., £22., VIII, 63): 'Scio vos do- lsre ds istis malis, quae non solum a paganis, sed, qued magis tsmsndum st dolendum est, a Christianis in regno vsstro fiunt 0*. quod sins comparatione plus horrendum atque reprehsndum "ta in palatio vsstro, quod sacrum appsllari st esse debet, at in locis, ubi vos estis st per quae ambulatis.‘ - 129 - ent program of reform. Rather than merely acting in the ser- vice of Charles, as had been the case before Quierzy, Hincmar now spoke as the voice of the church, admonishing whomever he pleased, including the king. Undoubtedly, there were a number of factors which en- couraged Hincmar to act so boldly. The collapse of effective monarchy left a vacuum into which the church easily stepped. Not only was the church instrumental for Charles' recovery, but Hincmar undoubtedly sensed that his leading role entitled him to respond more independently to the admonitory duties of his episcopal office. But most importantly, the intention of Hincmar's program was to strengthen the monarchy not only to face such attacks as they had Just experienced, but also to meet the Norse threat and restore internal order to the land. Noteworthy is that a program designed to restore order and authority did so by placing constitutional and ideological limits upon the exercise of that authority. This contradic- tion is apparent only, for a detailed analysis of Hincmar's three reform tracts reveals a profound appreciation of the sources of strength and order inherent in a distribution of responsibility and authority. In light of his belief that spiritual and political action‘work in accord for the salvation of man, it was natur- al that Hincmar directed one of the tracts-hisnAd clericos palatii-—to the royal palace-the king's most important agen. $7 of political action. The palace clerks, being churchmen, should have been particularly receptive to spiritual admoni- - 130 - tion, and through them Hincmar could hope for the restoration of viable government. lAlthcugh Hincmar may not have been their bishop in most cases, he nevertheless could order them by the auctoritas of his office to submit to their own res- pective bishops.15 The need for disciplining palace clerks in order to check their dissolute lives had long been a key issue in the church reform program, for they represented an important source of continuity in Carolingian government and seem to have played a significant role in constitutional sta- bility. Hincmar admonished them not only because they were considered to be the holders of a minigterium and thus pos- sessors of a responsibility transcending personal political 16 interests. Particularly in the palace administration could political and spiritual action have worked in accord to pro- mote viable and stable government. However, Hincmar directed most of his admonition to the king, for Christian values had yet but superficially per- meated the lower social strata, and a renovatio could best be imposed from above. A tract entitled De cosrcendis militum rapinis was directed to Charles the Bald, encouraging him to keep in mind his divinely imposed ministerium to restore order 15See chapter II, note 2h. One perhaps sees here a Suggestion that Hincmar felt himself to be the spiritual arbi- ter of West Francia-e.role'which his Abbot Hilduin appears to have sought. 16Ad clericos palatii (M.G.H., VIII, 66): "Tamen pro ministerie imposito admoneo vos cum Paulo apostolo, st obtss- tor in Christo et per Christum, qui per Paulum locutus est, 'ut exhibeatis vos sicut Dei ministros, ne vituperetur minis- terium nostrum.'“ - 131 - and bring peace to his subJects. "I know you are grieved by the evil done not only be the pagans but also by the Chris- tians within your realm and in your palace. I know you dread these things, for because of this the entire Ecclesia cried out:'Rise up, oh Lord, raise your hand,‘ that is, in punish- ment, lest you are unmindful of the poor people."17 It is the responsibility of the episcopal ministgrium to admonish the king and, although Hincmar is in the position to communicate only by letter, he reminds Charles of the ob- ligations inherent within the royal office. I am frightened by the Pastor of Pastors who says, "He who sees the wolf coming and by fleeing abandons the flock is not a pastor, but a mercenary." He flees in that he sees iniquity and refrains from speaking: he sees plunderers, pillagings, and other distresses prowling a- bout among the people committed to him, and he keeps si- lent from any admonition.18 Both offices exist to ensure the welfare of the Ecclesia through positive action. Not only does each have a role in this common task, but neither can resign itself to an accomo- dation with evil in the world. There is in Hincmar's idea of the royal and episcopal office a clear impetus for dynamic action in the world, for the king is charged with care of the -—__ 17D. OOCrcandia (MeGeHej Ems. VIII. 63): "5010 V0. dolere de istis malis, quae non solum a paganis, sed . . . a Christianis in regno vsstro fiunt, et . . . in palatio vsstro . . . .w "Undo timpr. vos scio, quod omnis prcpter hoc depre- catur Ecclesia, 'Exurge Domine Deus, exaltetur manus tua,' id est, ad vindictam ne obliviscaris pauperem populum." 18Ibid.: "tsrritus a pastors pastcrum, qui dicit, 'Mercenarius et qui non est pastor, videt lupum vsnientem, st dimittit oves st fugit.’ Fugit autem, quia vidit iniquitatem 0t tacuit: vidit raptores st rapinas, st ceteras miseries in Plebe sibi commissa crassari, st ab admonitions reticuit." - 132 _ people and the bishop must admonish him if he fails to do this. The third tract here under consideration, also writ- ten in February of 859, clarifies the relationship of worldly and spiritual offices in the work of renovatio. Hincmar's Ad_presbyteros was principally intended to reform the clergy within his own diocese of Rheims, but its secondary function was to supplement the worldly admonition given by Charles the Bald to his fideles. Hincmar recommends that, as Charles tra- vels through the villae admonishing his men regarding the du- ties of Christian office as suggested in De cosrcendis, he 19 also have his fideles read the Adgpresbyteros. Here one sees the use of spiritual action as a complement to worldly admonition, for through Ad presbyteros Charles' followers hear the word of God.20 Clearly, in the context of Hincmar's thought, worldly action is in itself unable to bring about the desired renova- §;g_of government, and thus bishops, king, and fideles must work in accord to achieve peace within the Ecclesia. Further- more, the concordance of the spiritual action of the former and worldly action of the latter secular powers is assumed to be comprehensible in worldly terms. That is, Hincmar makes ——_ 191bid. (pp. 63-6h): 'admonitiones presbiteris, ut eas raptoribus relegant, dirigo. Quarum exemplar dominationi vestra. transmitto, . . ." "Transmitto vobis, sicut dixi, ex- emplar admonitionis nostrae, quam per villas direxi, ut si vo- bis placet, post admonitionem vestram, in conspectu vsstro eam fidelibus vestris iubeatis relegere. . . ." 20Ad pgesbyteros (M.G.H., Epp., VIII, 62): "Deus omn1- Potens, qui per me ista loquitur in auribus vestris, per se hlsc loquatur in cordibus vestris.” - 133 - no provision for a possible disparity between the means at the king's disposal and rightful Christian action. Hence- forth, the mutual compatibility of the action of all offices in worldly terms will be referred to as a ”rational concor- dance” of offices. In his De coercendis, Hincmar emphasized that the king should not delegate his own responsibilities to his sub- ordinates. In light of the fact that Hincmar's attitude was contrary to the actual tendency of his age which encouraged an increasing distribution of royal prerogatives into the hands of the dukes and counts, it is worthwhile to consider the realism of the archbishop‘s recommendations. The collapse of Romanitas, the mixing of diverse peoples during the period of barbarian settlement and the conversion to Christianity re- sulted in a state of anomie, necessitating firm central dir- ection (as had been the case to some extent under Charlemagne) in order to achieve constructive political action. The suc- cessful decentralization of political life as later found in feudalism may well have been impossible without a prior con- sensus of values and attitudes. But in the ninth century, such a broad consensus had not been won, for true Christian religiosity was restricted to the upper clergy and probably to very few laymen. That distributive responsibility proceed- ed at a greater pace than the development of a true community of ultimate ends and basic values was probably brought about in large part by Norse invasions and resulted in the diffi- culties of the tenth century. - 13h - In any case, the De cosrcendis reflects Hincmar's at- tempt to counter the suggestions of those who favored a com- plete distribution of responsibility. He brings to Charles' attention a number of criticisms which he had heard people making of their king, the first being that the king should not concern himself with the depredations in the land, but ra- ther, should let each person fend for himself as best he can.21 Hincmar states that he hardly believes that such a suggestion has been made-—undoubtedly for rhetorical reasons, for else he would not have repeated to the king what "from the mouths of ordinary people would be rude to say to him.” Furthermore, in Ad clericos palatii, Hincmar reports the claim that the palace clerks have consented to the devastation going on.with- in the diocese of Rheims since they could thereby more easily support their men and provide for their horses.22 Although Charles' regaining of confidence and a sense of responsibili- ty after his recovery from the invasion of 858 was undoubted- ly due to a power shift in his favor, Hincmar's idea of the royal office provided a convenient Justification for royal ac- tivism without resorting to the old personal and unilateral concepts. The extent to which Charles accepted these ideas, however, was to be determined by the political conditions of the time. _ 21De cosrcendis (p. 65): ”De his tribus, quae audivi, duo credere nclui, teriam satis invitus credidi. Quorum pri- mum est, quia per plurimorum ora vulgatur vos dicere, quoniam do istis rapinis atque de praedationibus nihil vos debeatis misculare: unusquisque sua defendat, ut potest.' 2See note h above. - 135 - In the relationship between the king and his fideles can be perceived the greatest disparity between Hincmar's re- commendations and political reality. The royal manipulation of honors and beneficia had long been the principal means of controlling the magnates, but with the advent of a multipli- city of Carolingian monarchs under Louis the Pious and the constitution of Coulaines, this powerful instrument was ever more turned against the kings to the profit of the magnates themselves: they now made the promise of royal favor the con- dition of their support. Hincmar countered this threat to royal independence by seeking to place the bond uniting the king with his magnates on an ideological rather than a materi- al basis. The fideles are to be chosen by reason of their loyalty to the king and concern for peace-nothing is said of the actual material interests which also bound them together.23 In line with his Benedictine views, Hincmar is not trying to remove such material interests, but simply to make them sub- servient to society's purposes. The king is to use an appropriate mixture of threats and gentleness in order to discover those willing to support him for reasons of the common welfare, acting out of love for their king and fidelity to God.2h Undoubtedly the threats 23De cosrcendis (p. 6h): "Et mittite homines secundum consuetudinem praedecessorum vestrorum, qui in longius per- Bant propter fodrarios st curam de pace accipiant.‘ Here is an example of the mythologizing of the past in the interest at the present renovatio. 2hgglgg; “Et cum mansuetudine intermiscendc, sicut nunc tempus se habet, rare et non nimis duriter comminationss, si vobis videtur, non alias mines intentando, nisi quia in ' - 136 - and mildness often involved the offices and benefices held by the magnates, but the king was to use this means not for mani- pulating his men, but for the detection of those insincerely profiteering at the king's expense. It is clear that Hincmar saw the monarch's influence upon the magnates primarily in the form of admonition.25 Charles is to choose his words carefully, tailoring them to match the personal characteristics of those addressed in order to bring the magnates into acQuiescence.26 The king is to see that all are admonished, lost some claim to have ac- ted against the royal will out of ignorance. Should Charles carry out this task, then he has satisfied his obligations to God, for he can do no more than this. What distinguishes the admonitory responsibility of the episcopal and the royal of- fice is that the latter works by worldly action rather than spiritual. Hincmar observes ”that Charles can find excuse to some degree before God if he does all he can be reason of po- .27 war. But this is the power of worldly admonition as con- hoc videbitis, qui Dec fidelis est et vos carum habet et de vobis ex regno vsstro bene habere cupit. . . ." 25Checking the ”acquisitive man” has been a constant thread in utopian thought. Outside monasticism, however, the pre-Carolingian church seldom pursued this point. For an im- Portant exception, see Arthur 0. LoveJoy, ”The Communism of iainz6Ambrose," Journal of the Histon of Ideas, 111 (19142), 58- 8e 2600 cosrcendis (p. 6t): "at melius cognoscitis fidel- ium vestrorum qualitates quam ego, et ideo secundum quod sci- tis unicuique convenirs, temperate sermonem. Scimus enim, Quia lenis sibilus, qui equorum ferocitatem mitigat, canum sa- eacitatem instigat." 27Ibid.: "Vos tamen inde debetis consilium prendere, - 137 - treated with the spiritual admonition of Hincmar's Ad presby- 33523, It remained to be seen whether Charles would heed Hinc- mar's recommendations or press his advantage to check the au- tonomy of his fideles through the manipulation of honors and benefices. Hincmar believed that the cooperation of fideles and king was by no means a check to their respective indepen- dence as long as all observed the Christian responsibilities of their offices.28 The reform Hincmar envisaged would be achieved through councils encompassing the cooperation of both laymen and bi- shops. It would then be incumbent upon office holders to re- alize the measures which the councils found requisite. In November of 858 Hincmar had written Louis the German from Quierzy that provincial synods should be regularly held with the bishOps and also that other meetings should be held with 29 priests. But this recommendation was meant more for Charles the Bald than Louis the German.30 ut iubeatis alicui qui vestra vice quotidie eos admoneat, ut si tales sunt qui antea hanc admonitionem non audierint, sis quotidie quando ad paramentum.vestrum venerint relegat: qua- tenus st ipsi inexcusabiles sint, et vos aliquam excusationem coram Dec habere possitis, si tantum facitis quantum per ra- tionem potestis." 28The idea of the compatibility of unity and diversity, of central purpose and local needs, had, for Hincmar, its roots in Benedictine thought and especially Gregory the Great. For Gregory, see Paul Meyvaert, ”Diversity and Unity. A Gregorian theme,” The Hezthrop Journal, IV (1963), 1&1-162. For a pure- 1y theological analysis, see D'Arcy, ogcit, 29§pistcla synodi Carisiacensis, cap. vi: "Ut temperi- bus a sacris regulis constitutis comprovinciales synodos cum Opiscopis st speciales cum presyteris habere quiete possint, lnnuite." -138- It is thus not surprising that far-reaching and am- bitious reform synods‘were held in the course of the year 859. The most illuminating of these was a synod held in Langres in May, which'was primarily concerned with church discipline. But it went further, demanding that the kings call regular annual provincial councils, biannual general councils, the founding of schools of sacred and profane letters wherever men could be found able to teach, the restoration of pilgrim rest stops and other charitable institutions, and the return 31 This of Justice and order for the relief of the populace. council, presided over by bishops and King Charles of Provence, which sought to improve conditions not only in the church, but also cultural, social, and political institutions, reflects a will to overcome the fundamental difficulties troubling the Carolingian world. However little the episcopal enactments may have brought about progressive changes within government, they at least show that the church reform party once again was encouraged to seek to direct the course of history in paths compatible with its own ideals. An important element in its program was the realization of an idea of political office such as that proposed by Hincmar of Rheims. The issue which hindered Hincmar's theory of political 3one cosrcendis (p. 64): ”Et nolite negligere illa ca- pitula . . . sed relegite illa diligenter, quia-mihi credits -plus pro vobis quam pro 1110 facta fuerunt." 31For the determining of the time and place of this synod, see Carlo de Clercq, La 16 islation reli ieuse fra us, II (Anvers, 1958), 228, n. h . On pg. 230, de Clercq shows that this synod was a product of Hincmar's recommendations of 58. - 139 - office finding acceptance in public life was the troublesome relations between Charles the Bald and his brother Louis the German. To resolve this conflict, a general council had to be called which engaged the participation of all the kings, and since the dispute between the brothers shattered the unity of the Ecclesia, the spiritual action of the ecclesiastical of- fice would have assured that all decisions taken conformed to the will of God. In May of 859 the bishops of the realms of Charles the Bald and Lothar II met together in Metz to re- solve the dispute between the kings. A reading of the sync- dal acts reveals that Hincmar's ideas were here generally ac- cepted. Hincmar himself was present, and it is even possible that he had much to do with the drawing up of the resolutions. The essential point agreed upon was that the king had an objective responsibility of Christian office. It was his duty to correct sinners and inflict punishment upon them.32 But the objectification of political office assumed an ideal entity of which it formed a part-the Ecclesia. Because the Ecclesia is a spiritual entity, it was the duty of the bishops to take upon their own shoulders the initiative for the heal- 33 ing of political discord. The bishops acted as the “messen- zero of God's peace," and their office demanded the admonish- 325 nodus Mettensis, a. 859, cap. viii: "Et sanctus Cyprianus regis ministeriunxesse dicit, impios de tsrra per- dere. homicidas, periuros, adulteros, veneficos, sacrilegos non sinere vivere." 33Ibid., cap. vii: “Post haec si promiserit, quod iam ulterius tale vel simile schisma in hac sancta Dei ecclesia atque in ista christianitate non reiteret.“ ~140- ing of kings and gave them the authority of royal ordination.3a Furthermore, it was agreed that the ideal unity of the Eccles- i=_transcended political frontiers and that the restoration of the sacerdotal and political orders within it be undertak- on as far as the nature of these difficult time permitted.35 Because the gathered bishops considered themselves part of an entity which included the realm of Louis the Ger- man, they felt empowered to dictate to the king what he should do to find forgiveness for his guilt, including bearing res- ponsibility for the damage done by his supporters to church property, and he must be willing to abandon those men who had switched their allegiance to him to the punishment of Charles. When a delegation of the bishops from Metz, including Hincmar, met with Louis at Worms on h June, 859, they found their demands diverted by a clever subterfuge. The East Frankish king refused to enter into negotiations with them until after he had fully examined the whole matter with his own bishops. Thus, he turned the principle of episcopal par- ticipation in political deliberation against the formulator of the idea himself.36 _. By substituting the concept of a na- Sthid., cap. 1: "divinus Paulus dicit: 'Legatione fun81mur pro Christa, reconciliamini Deo,‘ legatione pro Chris- to fungentes vos, fratres carissimi, legatos Dee amatas pacis, Quoniam sxinde iam.gloriosos principes nostros Karolum et Hlotharium episcopali auctoritate monuimus, ad domnum Hlodo- wicum regem gloriosum mediante Domino ordinamus. . . .' 35See the Episcopcrum relatio of the Meta synod. 368°. M.G.H., Capit., II, no. 298B,‘which reveals the - 141 - tional church for the ideal unity of the Ecclesia which en- corporated the whole of Christendom, Louis could at once ac- cept a central tenet of Hincmar's idea of office while ensur- ing support favorable to his interests from the subservient clergy of East Francia. Later in the month another meeting took place between Charles' and Lothar's bishops at Savonnisres, but this time with the kings in attendance. Here the broad interpretation of the Ecclesia which Louis had rejected at Worms was even more strongly asserted. Peace and justice within Christendom can only be recovered when the political "schism" within the Ecclesia is brought to an end.37 Despite Louis' calling forth of the idea of a ”national" church, the bishops and kings gathered at Savonnieres objected that they at least were 38 all members of one Ecclesia, united together in concord. extent to which Louis was willing to implicitly refute the idea of the unity of Christendom insis‘ted upon by Hincmar. See in regard to this, Walter Mohr, "Db Krise des kirchlichen Einheitsprogrammes im Jahr 858," pp. 208-209. 37S odus a d Sa onarias, a. 859, cap. 1 (M.G.H.. Ca- it., II, no. 299): 'Ut caritas fraterna et concordia pacis re ormetur inter fratres, principes ecilicet ac gloriosos re- ges nostros Hludowicum et Karolum, qualiter scisma, quod or. tum est nuper in ecclesia, ad unitatem benignitatis valeat re- dintegrari et status ecclesiae pens conlapsus restitui st pax ac iustitia in populo christiano valeat procurari. . . ." 38Ibid., cap. ii: "Episcopi namque secundum illorum ministerium ac sacram auctoritatsm uniti sint st mutuo con- silio atque auxilio reges regnorumqus primores atque populum sibi commissum in Domino regant st corrigant. . . .” Ibid., cap. iii: "Regss nihilominus ac principes nostri Karolus st Hlotharius atque item Karolus [rex Provinciae] ad Dei volun- tatsm atque sanctae ecclesiae statum suamque salutsm st popu- li salvationsm, gratias Dec, uniti et in eadem salutari uni- tats firmati sunt." - 1&2 - waever'willing Charles personally might have been to accept the central tenets of Hincmar's position, he nevertheless re- alized that by appealing to the spiritual bonds of society, he had inadvertantly played into his opponent's hands, for now Louis could find ample ideological Justification for what- ever demands he might choose to make. A subservient East Frankish church would have backed whatever stand he took, and he could argue that Hincmar himself had established the prin- ciple that episcopal participation validated royal action. It was only after a year of difficult and drawnpout negotiations thatELcompromise was reached for the sharp dis- Pute which had so long disturbed the peace of Europe. With Lothar's mediation, Charles finally met Louis at Koblenz in June, 860, and together with Hincmar and other leading pre- lates arrived at a mutually satisfactory decision. Charles agreed with Louis' constant demand that the West Frankish.vas- sale who had betrayed their king in 858 were not to loose their honors or be punished in any way. Louis, on the other hand, agreed to act henceforth in a spirit of brotherly cooper- ation so that future international peace would be assured. It is important to note, however, that the whole of Hincmar's theory of political office was ignored: in this mu- tual accord there is the complete absence of any reference to the Ecclesia in the broad sense or to the idea of royal Eéfléfir tsrium. g§§.is not the worldly expression of the concordance or political action with the will of God, but simply the ab- sence of conflict between the kings contrary to what "right- -143- fully" ought to be.39 It is true that the bishops preserve their ministerium of admonishing kings, but it is once again an episcopal obligation to the person of the monarch rather 40 than the mode of interaction between the two offices. At Koblenz, Charles supported only those elements of Hincmar's theory‘which were also acceptable to his brother Louis, spe- cifically, the responsibility of the episcopal office in po- litical life. However, the idea of an objective political of- fice acting in concordance with the episcopal ministerium within the Ecclesia fell victim to the necessities of the political situation. One reason why Hincmar's ideas failed to make much of an impression on the course of political events was that the crucial point at the meeting at Koblsnz concerned the rela- tionship of the kings to their fideles. The fideles were not considered as holders of a Christian ministerium, but rather, attention.was directed to whether Charles was going to ensure the continuation of the honors and beneficia of those who had betrayed him.h1 Especially since Coulaines, the magnates were A 3gcomrentus a d Confluentes, a. 860 (M.G.H. Ca it., II, no. 2&2), Adnuntiatio domni Karoli: "Post hoc laboravit ad- iuvante Domino iste carissimus nepos noster, ut inter nos pax fisret, sicut per rectum esse debet. . . ." hoIbid.: N. . . ut monentibus episcopis ad illam cari- tatem st fraternam concordiam redirst, sine qua nullus chris- tianus salvus esse non potest.“ u‘Ibid., capitula ab omnibus conservanda, cap. x: ”Ut nostri fideles, unusquisque in suo ordine st statu, veraciter sint de nobis securi, quia nullum abhinc in antea contra ls- gem st iustitiam vel auctoritatem ac iustam rationem aut damp- nabimus aut dehonorabimus aut opprimemus vel indebitis machin. ationibus adfligemus. . . .' - 1th - not about to tolerate a monarch's depriving them of their hon- ors without just cause, for the mere exchange of loyalties from one king to another was not, in the minds of the tradi- tionally oriented aristocracy, contrary to acceptable politi- cal practice. However much an objective idea of state had in- fluenced kings, such a transcendent and non-personal view of political responsibilities had yet little impact on the lower orders. {At Koblenz Hincmar's fully developed theory of office was checked by the solid wall of political actuality. In fact, the one idea which.was accepted-—ths royal appeal to the church for approval of policy-became a political instrument in Louis' hands, making the acceptance of the rest of Hincmar's thought impossible. While the older idea of the episcOpal ministerium continued unabated, the theory of the rational con- cordance of political and ecclesiastical offices within the Spiritual entity of the Ecclesia was excluded from political life. If it were the ideas themselves which were unpalatable, then one would expect that henceforth international relations would continue as in the past to be expressed in terms of fra— ternal love rather than as the concord of offices. But there is ample confirmation in the next few years that political fac— tors determined the fate of Hincmar's ideas, for the deepen- ing international concern for Lothar's divorce case once again suggested to Charles the political advantages in Hincmar's concept of the Ecclesia and the offices within it. CHAPTER VI THE ANALOGY 0F MARRIAGE AND GOVERNMENT IN LOTHAR'S DIVORCE CASE (860) The meeting at Koblenz in June of 860 represents an apparent failure of Hincmar's political ideas to provide a workable solution for international disputes to the satisfac- tion of either Charles the Bald or Louis the German. Koblenz, however, did not remove the atmosphere of tension within Eur- ope, for while these negotiations were taking place in 860, new issues began to emerge which drew King Lothar II of Loth- ringia away from a position of neutality into direct confron- taticn with Charles. This dispute-—dust as the crisis of 858- 59-—engaged Hincmar's participation. It seems worthwhile to study this involvement to verify the conclusion of the pre- ceeding chapter, that Hincmar was less politically motivated than anxious to impose his own will and his own theoretical viewpoint upon the monarchs of Europe. In 855, at the time he inherited the throne of the middle kingdom from his father, Lothar entered into a politi- cal marriage with a certain Teutberga, whose family undoubted- ly provided useful allies in his consolidation of power.1 —_. 1Useful general accounts of the divorce issue can be found in Son’s”, og.cit., and Calmette, 02s°1ts Still .01- id is the more detailed narrative of Robert Parisot, Le r2:- - 1h5 - - 1&6 - Nevertheless,'within two years Lothar had cast Teutberga a- side in order to enter into a closer relationship with Waldra- da,‘with whom he had long enjoyed a liason. Reasons of the heart may have been one factor, but it seems more likely that Lothar was increasingly anxious to sire an heir to the throne. Unfortunately, Teutberga had proven barren, thus in contrast to Waldrada, who had already provided Lothar with male off- spring. It seems evident that Lothar's desire to legitimize his union with Waldrada in order to ensure a successor was the mainspring of his foreign policy from 860. He realized that his position was not strong enough to divorce Teutberga in face of the combined opposition of his brothers-—Emperor Louis of Italy and King Charlesof Provence——and his uncles to the east and west. Thus he busied himself at the end of the 850's to achieve his ends through diplomatic maneuvering. Louis of Italy and Charles were fully satisfied by the gift of certain territories. As for the monarchs of East and West Francia, Lothar tried to avoid taking sides in their dispute, and perhaps one finds here the explanation for his assuming the role of mediator between them in 860. Believing himself free of foreign intervention, Lothar proceeded to call a Lothringian council in 858 designed to in- validate his marriage with Teutberga. She was accused of hav- ing had femural intercourse with her brother, Abbot Hubert, Prior to her marriage. It is interesting to note that, Just L aume de Lorraine sous les Caroli iens 8h - 2 (Paris, 1899 . For the legal implications, see Adh mar Esmin, .13 mariage en droit canonigue, I (2nd.sd.: Paris, 1929). - 1&7 - as in Louis the German's attempt to have himself crowned king in West Francia in 858, the monarchs of Europe implicitly re- cognized the increased weight of the church in political life, but in each case, sought to bend that force toward rather dis- reputable political ends. In Teutberga's trial, the court re- sorted to God's judgment (trial by cold water), but unfortun- ately for Lothar, his wife emerged exonerated. This meant that Lothar would have to try again. He did so in January and February of 860 at a general council held in Aachen. Since Lothar was the chief mediator in the peace negotiations between Charles the Bald and Louis the German, neither king wished to compromise the anticipated accord by objecting to this council. Although Hincmar may have had political motives in refusing to attend (he would not have wanted to jeopardize the negotiations), he cites only personal and legal hindrances. Apologizing to one of Lothar's bishops, Hincmar asserted that neither the state of his health nor the shortness of time allowed his leaving Rheims. But more importantly, he argued that the divorce case was a matter requiring a general council: unless everyone was represented, it would lackvalidity.2 None of these excuses_has a false * 2WritingAdvsntus of Metz on 26 January, Hincmar no- ted (De divortio Lotharii, inter. iii, resp.): "De mihi mpg-a... msditata isto in tempers quaestione, de qua iam talia ac tan. ta audieram, at de ea mcdo nihil me auditurum putavsrim, pluri- ma heri, quantum mea permisit infirmitas, mutua sermocinatione locuti, tandem sicut melius et rationabilius nobis visum fu- erat, finem eidem cause, ut synods generali servetur, posui- mus." ". . . quia instantia missionis st brevitas temporis, non permittit ut dominos st coepiscopos meos in talibus consu- lam, sine quorum consultu, ut melius ipsi nostis, nihil, nisi - 1&8 - ring, and there is no reason to call forth political motives to explain his not going to Aachen.3 In June of 860 the old political dispute between Charles the Bald and Louis the German.was finally resolved at the council of Koblenz. This left Charles the Bald free to cross swords with Lothar over the divorce issue, but it seems that he was in no hurry to enter the arena. Both monarchs were present at a council held in October and November at Tbusey, and this, too, would have provided an ideal opportuni- ty to raise the divorce question, since the meeting attempted to deal with the most urgent problems of the day. Our know— ledge of the matters discussed is fragmentary, but it never- theless does seem strange that no mention was made of Lothar's divorce case, shortly to be the focus of Frankish diplomacy. Charles' apparent reluctance to breach the subject of the divorce during 860 makes it rather unlikely that he ‘_~ Quantum ad parochiam propriam pertinet agere a venerandis re- gulis mihi permittitur, contra quas non sine ultionis peri- culo quiddam praesumitur, timeo ne domnus rex putet meam de- bitam servitutem se ab obsequio suo velle suspenders, et ve- nerandi episcopi suspicentur, si quid secundum sacras regulas diffinierint, cupere qued mihi non convenit retractare." 3Hincar'was called to the council only about twenty days before it was to take place——prebably rather short notice considering his involvement with the diplomatic relations be- tween Charles and Louis. Hincmar used the same delaying tac- tics in face of Louis the German's invasion of West Francia in 858, but then time was of the essence. In 860 the only ad- vantage in gaining time would be to prevent obstructions to the peace negotiations then in progress (perhaps). In 867 Hincmar complained of 111 health and the effects of age (M.G. §§‘_§22;,‘VIII, 217, 223), and such troubles may already have hindered his actions in 860. In seeking Hincmar's motives, one Should not ignore the obvious: by accepting Lothar's person- al invitation to Aachen, Hincmar would betray his own views. - 1&9 - saw it at this time as a means of disinheriting Lothar. And yet, all accounts assume that when Hincmar entered the arena in the fall of 860 it was due to his willingness to put canon law into the service of Charles' political schemes. Hincmar is usually appreciated as a determined defender of canon law -—for¢unately, in this case, neatly coinciding with his firm loyalty to the dynastic interests of Charles the Bald. It has recently been objected, however, that Hincmar was more a Jurist than defender of law, and that in the present case he was simply trying his hardest to find arguments ix: defense of Charles' potential claim to the Lothringian inheritance. This view, put forward by Carlrichard Brflhl, certainly has much to command it, but some caution must be observed before one interprets the archbishop as a machiavellian.h Brflhl carefully considers a similar marriage problem which occured somewhat later during the reign of Louis Balbus and comes to the conclusion that Hincmar held his tongue, objecting to the substitution of one wife for another would have seriously endangered effective government. Brfihl argues that if Hincmar could have done it once, he was certainly ca- pable of it earlier in the case of Lothar. If Hincmar acted “Carlrichard Brflhl, "Hinkmariana, II: Hinkmar im Wi- derstreit von kanonischem Recht und Politik in Ehefragen,” Deutsches Archiv, xx (19615). 55-77. Bruhl's argument rests on the silence of the Annales Bertiniani_concerning the marital situation of Louis BalFus, but the question remains open as to ‘whether Hincmar was always the author of these annales. Un- answered is just why the church hesitated to crown Adelheid if it was so indifferent to questions of canonical legitimacy. Brflhl has not sufficiently clarified the issues behind Louis' marriages to come to really firm conclusions regarding the po- sitions of the various parties involved. - 150 - in contradictory fashions in two comparable situations, and proved consistent only in loyalty to the monarch, then it would appear safe to treat him as primarily motivated by po- litical considerations. This, however, is open to question for a number of reasons. It ignores whether Hincmar's ideas may not have changed in the intervening years-—a question.with which we will deal in some detail. Furthermore, it overlooks a funda- mental difference between the two marriage issues. Putting one wife aside to take another for political reasons was nor- mal for the aristocratic society of this period. Charles had no reason to think that Lothar would hesitate to take any path assuring an heir to Lothringia. Lothar was neither old nor otherwise incapacitated, and five years of marriage is not such a long time that one might despair of having chil- dren. In short, by 860, Charles had no reason to expect any future claim on the Lothringian throne to emerge. In.August or September, 860, Hincmar‘wrote his 23.2E? vortio Lotharii, intended as a major attack on Lothar's whole proceeding in the divorce case and probably also designated for the approaching council of Tousey in October and November. It seems rather odd that he would go to such troubles (22 divortio takes up 148 folio pages in the Sirmond edition!) to Press for a mode of handling marriage issues which thoroughly contradicted traditional practices accepted by most churchmen and was very unlikely to succeed. The reason for Hincmar's concern, however, is easier to understand if one recalls that - 151 - it was Lothar who had taken the initiative for the involvement of the church in promoting his political ambitions. It is im- perative to consider whether, in fact, Hincmar's so active concern was not due precisely to the implications of this in- volvement. Indeed, it will become clear that Hincmar wished at any cost to avoid church-state relations as they had exis- ted under Charlemagne, where the church had little indepen- dence and the political order depended on the unilateral will of the monarch. Hincmar was anxious to see that the matters brought up at Tousey be decisively resolved, and although just what these matters were remains uncertain, it is probably that the divorce was one of them. The question remains whether Charles took the initiative by having Hincmar write his De divortio and by presenting it at Tousey as the first move in a vast and complex scheme aimed ultimately at depriving Lothar of a legitimate heir. If this were the case, however, then it would be hard to understand why Charles did not at Tousey push Hincmar's thesis so strongly as to have it lead to overt and immediate repercussions. The consideration of events in 860 suggests that Charles had little interest in pressing for a resolution of the divorce question until at least the fall of that year, when he offended Lothar by offering refuge to the condemned Teutberga. Hincmar, on the other hand, had taken an intransigent stand ever since the beginning of the year when he refused to attend the Aachen council. But in order to better understand Hincmar's motives, it is first necessary to - 152 - consider the content of his tract De divortio, written in Au- gust or September. The first direction for investigating the ideas con- tained in the De divortio would be whether, as holder of an episcopal ministerium, Hincmar was compelled to take a stand on divorce. It is true that in the eighth and ninth centur- ies royal divorce was generally not a problem concerning can- on law. We have the examples of Charlemagne's politically mo- tivated marriage in 770 with Desideria, the daughter of the Lombard king, repudiated.two years later, and that of Lothar I's marriage, disolved without regard for Christian law. But in the ninth century, the political atmosphere was changing. Kings were now encouraged to act in conformity with Christian principles, and especially matters such as divorce could be considered under the aegis of the church. Hincmar, in parti- cular, sought to place all political action within a Chris- tian context wherein episcopal participation played a crucial role. Furthermore, that role was not to be passive, but on- tailed a positive obligation of admonishing the king and in some cases even deciding on the appropriateness of royal ac- tion. He felt too, that time was running out before the se- cond coming and that every effort had to be made to bring po- litical life into accord with the will of God.5 There is no ‘. 5This end-ef-time consciousness is reflected in De di- vortio, inter. xv, resp.: 'Sed nen est mirum, si in istis tem- Peribus ultimis talia Antichristi adventum praecurrentia veni- unt. . . .9 For the relation of end-of-time consciousness to a will for reform in the thought of Alcuin, see Friedrich Carl Scheibe, 'Geschiohtsbild, ZeitbewuBtsein und Refermwille bei Alcuin,‘ Archiv fur Kultur eschichte, XLI (1959). 35-62. - 153 - reason to be surprised, then, that Hincmar pursued a deter- mined course in the divorce issue as long as he recognized it to be a matter within the competency of his office. The De divortio is cast in the form of long answers to the questions raised by the Aachen council of February which had condemned Teutberga. Probably the most important defense presented by the Lothringian bishops was that Lothar's divorce was an internal matter which could be adequately dealt with by them alone.6 Hincmar's response was that there was essen- tially but one kingdom, the Ecclesia, of which Christ was the head, and one Christian law, fromwwhich there was no appeal. The nature of the case demanded that it be handled by the highest worldly authority within the Ecclesia, that is, by a 7 general council. Hincmar's justification for making the divorce a church question sheds light on his theory of spiritual cer- peration and the role of the episcopal office within it. The _ _-_L 60o divortio, quaest. i: ”Dicunt quidam quoniam rex Hletharius habet in sue regno episcopos, et nebiles, ac fi- deles laices, quorum consensu atque consilio causam inter se et uxorem suam.diffinivit, et non ad alterius regni episco- pos, vel ad alios qucscumque inde aliquid pertinet retractare.' 7Ibid., quaest. i, resp.: "Unum regnum, una Christi celumba, videlicet sancta eecesia, unius Christianitatis lege, regni unius et unius ecclesiae, quamquam per plures regni principes et ecclesiarum praesules gubernacula mederentur. Sed et haec de qua agitur talis est cause, quae generaliter ad omnes Christiano nomine insignites pertinere noscatur.‘ 'Quaprepter necesse est, ut haec generalis cause ad omnes Goneraliter pertinens, in omnium notitiam'veniat, et gener- ‘11 diffinition. d.t.mn.ture e e e" - 15h - bond of love between husband and wife is analogous to that of Christ and the Ecclesia, for it is a mystical union based on a spiritual tie.8 As such, it becomes the responsibility of the church: the bishops are to be consulted concerning the re- levant laws, and ignorance of them is no excuse for acting contrary to their dictates.9 It is a responsibility inherent within the episcOpal ministerium to find in the Scriptures and patristic*writings answers to questions upon which the church should decide.10 The De divortio is thus not an at- tempt to exonerate Teutberga any more than the letter of Quier- zy to condemn Louis, but simply an appeal for a general coun- cil to correct the procedural and factual errors made earlier 8Ibid., inter. v, resp.: "Quid enim venerabilius quam ut coniugium mysterium sit Christi ct ecclesiae? Quod sanc- tius quam ut sic deligant viri uxores suae, sicut Christus dilexit ecclesiam, tradens seipsum pro ea, ut illam sancti- ficaret atque mundaret? Quid carius atque coniunctius, quam ut vir caput sit mulieris, sicut Christus caput est ecclesiae ipse salvator corporis?” Hincmar wrote Gunther of Kcln at this time (M.G.Hg, Epp., VIII, 82): 'publicis nuptiis honora- vit et sibi in coniugii cepula sociavit et unum corpus unam- que carnem secum effecit, sicut scriptus est: 'Erunt duo in carne una; iam non sunt duo, sed una care;' at: 'Quod Deus iunxit, homo non separet.” 9De divortio, praef.: "Ad consacerdotes autem nostros ac per hoc ad nos ipsos sermo noster dirigitur, ut ea decea- mus, quae Dominus docuit, ea praedicemus, quae ipsi obnixius conservemus. Quia, sicut scriptus est: 'Interroga sacerdotes legem! meam . . . et: 'Tenentes,' inquit, 'legem nescierunt me,' quoniam qui fide et eperibus, vita et moribus, verbo at- que exemplo commissis non praedicant, licet nomine tenus col- ant, secundum veritatem Dominum nesciunt, iuxta quod scrip- tus est: 'Qui ignorat, ignorabitur,' videlicet reprobabitur. Quccirca non est, undo securi, nisi de misericordia Dei, esse p0“ 1MB e ll 10Ibid., quaest. vii: "Tandem do his, quae in hac e- pistola pervenisse ad nos memoravimus, quantum Domino inspir- ante, ex sanctarum scripturarum atque catholicorum patrum doe- trina, pro nostra mediocritate sensimus, compellente veritate - 155 - at Aachen. Another justification to which Hincmar replied was Lo- thar's claim that he could not submit to syncdal judgment be- cause of political necessity. A significant number of his sir gglgg_received the patronage of other kings, and if Lothar should find himself excommunicated, they could revolt against him. Hincmar objected that unjust patronage might well offend God and therefore cannot properly be used as an excuse for no- glecting his duty.11 As already shown, Hincmar was fundamen- tally opposed to government based on material interests alone, and especially, as in Lothar's case, when material engagements were contrary to one's obligations to the king. Another issue was whether the secrecy of Teutberga's confession of guilt (extracted from her through considerable pressure) could be betrayed by her bishop during the Aachen trial because of his oath of fidelity to Lothar. Hincmar in- sisted that the bishop was no mere agent of the king, for his first responsibility was spiritual. Political obligations for churchmen.were secondary, and the sanctity of confession could -____ _ et superimposito ministerie diximus, nullius sanae praeiudi- cantes sententiae, nec dehonorantes auctoritatem." 111bid.. inter. xii, resp.: "Et si quis dixerit, ad- duci non potest ad iudicium, quia fultus alierum patrocinic regum rebellionem tenet contra regem; qui pro hoc crimine, et etiam pro aliis, eum'vellet in iudicium.mittere si posset, is- tam quam habet ad iudicium ducit: ante oculos habeant domini nostri reges veridicam sententiam regzb regum, qui est veritas et iudex. . . .” "Propterea timeant reges, qui talibus homin- ibus iniuste patrocinium praebent, de quorum tuitione Deum of- fendere possint, et ecclesiae ac pauperes Christi, et humili- ores homines opprimuntur, de devastantur, et iusta iudicia ex- erceri non possunt.” - 156 - not be compromised.12 One might conclude that Hincmar was not moved to attack Lothar's position for political reasons so much as for church-constitutional ones. He did not object to the church's participation in Lothar's divorce case in principle, but he did object to the king's gathering a coun- cil of bishops-chosen for their pliability——in January, 860. Hopefully, a general council would encourage the bishops in speaking out freely and in a manner consonant with their spiri- tual obligations. Another of Lothar's justifications challenged by Hinc- mar was that the king is both free of syncdal judgment and above the law. Although Hincmar later proved capable of ar- guing for royal liberty from tradition, he stressed in 22.2%? vortic that Lothar was obliged to preserve and execute the 13 laws of his predecessors. The judgment of the divorce case must conform to the standard of justice.1u Kings should re- __ — 12Ibid., inter. vii, resp.: "Et si scivit, et propter secretam ccnfessionem reticuit, quare, quod absit sicut dici- tur, ut iudicium inde fieret obtinuit, vel consensit, non re- verens sententiam legis pariter et evangelii, 'Non tentabis dominum Deum tuum?" "Si fidelitatem seniori suo promisit, quomodo huic inlusicni contra illum consentire praesumpsit? Et si tunc inter duo pericula positus, minus do iuramentc ne- gligere elegit, ut maius no proditor confessicnis fieret di- vitaret, quare ipsam confessionem nunc prodidit?" 1“'3Ibid., quaes. v, resp.: 'Capitula sunt legalia im- peratcrum et regum praedesessorum suorum, quid sustinere de- beat qui post bannum latronem receperit, et in chirographo regum nostrorum hino expresse decernitur, cuius ministerium est agere, ut illa observentur. . . .” For liberty from tra— dition, see chapter x below. 1l‘Ibids, inter. xii, resp.: “Haec dicimus, ut secun- dnm rationem et legis ordinem cuncta agant regni principes, ot ecclesiae sanctae rectores, sed ct cum aequitatis iudicio supra scripta cause diffiniatur.” - 157 - ccgnize that they are mortals just as other men and the ele- vation to their high office does not free them from law. Par- ticularly in light of the Christian nature of the royal office and the role of episcopal consecration by which it is enter- ed, kings, in particular, are obliged to observe Christian precepts just as the bishops themselves.15 Hincmar repeats again and again that Lothar cannot avoid subjection to the law. Royal acts, particularly in the case at hand, must be in concordia with the authority of Scriptures and ecclesiasti- cal regulations.16 Although some wise men might say that the king is subject to no laws and judgments except those of God, Hincmar objects to this as a blasphemous suggestion of the devil, for if the king does not act in accord with*what the nomen of his office implies (which Hincmar naturally assumes A —_ 15Ibid.: "Et non dicant reges, hoc do episcopis et non est de rsgibus constitutum: sed attendentes quia si sub uno rege ac sacerdote Christa, a cuius nominis derivations Christi Domini appellantur, in populi regimine sublimati et honorati esse desiderant, cuius honore, et amore, atque ti- more, participaticne magni nominis domini et reges vocantur, cum sint homines sicut et ceteri, et partem cum his in regno caelorum habere volunt, qui sacro peruncti sunt chrismate, Quad a Christi nomine nomen accepti, qui exinde unxit sacer- dotes, prophetas, reges, et martyres, ille unctus cleo laeti- tiae prae consortibus suis, quique fecit ecs in baptismate reges et sacerdotes Dec nostro, et genus regium, ac regale sacerdotium, secundum apostolos Ioannem et Petrum: intelli- gant et credant se in cculis Dei privari regii nominis et of- ficii dignitate, quando si illud placitum Dec fuit qucd menu firmaverant, faciunt contra manus suae conscriptionom, licet illus nomen usurpent ante oculos hominum terrena et instabili potestate. . . .' 16Ibid., quaest. vii: "His denique perpensis, et ali- 18. quae propter prolixitatem omisimus ponere, sanctarum scripturarum, et regularum ecclesiasticarum auctoritatibus, considerate etiam periculo quisque suo, sed et is do quo adi- tur, ad se redeat, et aut actum suum rationi et auctoritati evidenter concordare demonstret. . . ." .. 158 .. Lothar has failed to do), he falls within the purview of the 17 law. In conclusion, it can.well be said that the ideology of De divortio and the motives for its writing are of the same cloth as Hincmar's reform program of February, 859. The jur- isdiction of the church in the matter rests upon his idea of the ggclesiae already formulated. Hincmar's right to inter- fere arose as the result of his previously formulated idea of the episcopal office and the need for the bishops to take an active part in, if not the initiative for, reform. As for his denying the freedom of the king from law, it represents a basic weapon in his battle to prevent a return to a person- alized form of government, whether in the divorce case or in connection with Louis the German's invasion into West Francia. One must conclude on the basis of De divortio's content that there is no indication that Hincmar needed to develop new lines of political thought or seriously modify old ones in order to find objections in the case of Lothar's divorce. This is not to deny that he may have had political motives or that Charles could have instigated Hincmar to concern him- self with the case. But on the other hand, a theoretical con- L 17Ibid.. Quaest, vi: 'Dicunt quoque etiam aliqui sa- pientes, quia este princeps rex est, et nullcrum legibus vel iudiciis subiacet, nisi solius Dei, qui eum in regno, quod su- us pater illi dimisit, regem canstituit, et si voluerit pro hac vel alia causa ibit ad placitum, vel ad synodum, et si no- luerit, libero et licenter dimittet.‘ Responsic: "Haec vox non est catholici Christiani, sed nimium blasphemi, et spiri- tu diabolico pleni." "Quad dicitur, quia rex nullcrum legi- bus vel iudiciis subiacet, nisi solius Dei, verum dicitur, si rex est sicuti nominatur.” _ 159 - sideration of De divortio suggests his involvement and the po- sition he took were the logical outcome of factors not immedi- ately related to the Lothringian question. If we conclude that Hincmar's participation in the crisis of 858-59 and the divorce arose from certain theoreti- cal concepts-zfrom his view of social structures (whether mari- tal or political) finding their cohesion in a fusion of legal forms and the spirit of love-—then one understands the crucial role played by the sacerdotal office. Further evidence that Hincmar interested himself in such bonds for their intrinsic significance is provided by two other complex marriage ques- tions not having immediate bearing on Lothar's divorce. The first of those concerned the Italian Count Boso, whose wife Engeltrude had abandoned him and sought refuge in Lothar II's realm. The council of Savonieres in 859 may have taken cognizance of the case, but nothing was resolved con- cerning her return to her husband. In.Aachen in February of 860, Bose and Engeltrude were invited to testify, but since Bose ignored this opportunity to assert his case, the bishops felt that they could not pass judgment. Feeling perhaps that he would get fairer treatment at the Kbblenz conference in June, Boso went there with an appeal to Lothar not to give his wife asylum, but Lothar proved to be unresponsive. Bose saw that he could accomplish little north of the Alps and so returned to Italy to seek the aid of Pope Nicholas I. At the council of Tousey, held in October and November, Boso return- ed north with letters from Nicholas objecting to Engeltrude's ~160- freedom. Although in 862 Charles was to make lothar's intran- sigence a principal accusation against him, the West Frankish king appears not to have had much interest in the matter when at Koblenz and Tousey the conditions would have been ideal to attack his nephew.18 In the autumn of 860 Hincmar wrote Gunthar of Kaln, in whose diocese Engeltrude had found asylum, expressing many of the same theoretical points found in his p: divortig. In marriage, two persons become one in the spiritual bond of their love. How can Gunthar then separate the two or permit one member of this spiritual corpus to leave the other? More- over, he should consider that Boso loved his wife dearly and had accused her of no crime, and only her leaving him encour- 9 aged him to commit adultery.1 The principal issue is to de- ‘ 1BCharles recalled Tousey in 862 (Conventus apud Sa- ponarias, a. 862, cap. iv): “Quandc altera vice pro his, quae d x , tractandis ad Tusiacum.veni, adportavit mihi et episco- pis regni nostri Bose ex parte domni apostolici epistolas Quasdam nepoti nostro et episcopis regni sui mittendas, quae illas secundum mandatum domni papae transmisimus, quasdam au- tem nobis legendas et observandas, quarum et his textum habe- mus: in quibus invenimus nos increpatos, cur fornicarios in regno nostro immorari permitteremus et non solum ipsam femi- nam, sed . . ." "Nos autem audivimus praedictam feminam in regno nepotis nostri ccmmorari, et hanc sententium postea au- divimus immutatam. " 19Sirmond, II, 670: 'et sibi in coniugii copula soci- EVit, et unum corpus unamque carnem secum effecit. . . .” "Undo tanto coniuncti sunt amplius quanta et spiritualius. . . .' 'Qucmodo poteris inferiorem partem corporis hominis 11- lius, qui sub alterius providentia degit, separare, et toners sub poenitentia, quae nec crationi continentsr sine consensu partis superioris vacare potest?” Ibid., p. 671: "Ft quoniam, sicut ipse Bose dicit, eidem mulieri, quae caro sua est, nul- lam crimen impingit, sed non modicam negligentiam, quia ab eius se subtraxit servitia, et quantum ex ipsa est, illum mo- echari fecit, contra auctoritatem atque iustitiam eum dimit~ tens, et in aliis regnis circiter per triennium immorans, con- tumax mandatis illius adec extitit. . . ." - 161 - cide whether the church can permit the breaking of a spiritu- al gggggg_by offering asylum. Hincmar encourages Gunthar to apply the law severely, for upon it rests the peace and tran- quillity of Christendom.20 Although the kings were to some degree involved in Boso's marriage case, it was primarily be- cause Boso and his wife had appealed to them for support. Nei- ther king seems to have been actively interested in the matter until later when each was seeking excuses to attack the other. Apparently, Hincmar concerned himself with marriage cases, not from political or material motives, but for their theore- tical implications and his understanding of the episcopal of- fice. There was yet a third marriage issue at Tousey which engaged Hincmar's subsequent attention and one even further removed from possible political motives. Here the domestic difficulties of Count Stephen of Auvergne came up for dis- cussion, the result of which was Hincmar's lengthy letter sta- ting his opinion on the matter. It seems that Stephen claims to have had intercourse with a relative of his spouse before marrying her and therefore refused to consumate the marriage. Hincmar felt that although there'was no proof of Stephen's sin, nevertheless, non-consumaticn of a marriage was suffi- cient grounds for divorce. In this letter he also pointed out that husband and'wife became one in a mystical bond of 20M.G.H. £22.,‘VIII. 85: uscrutare caesarum.nostror- um capitula et invonies, quantum profuerit atque prosit legum severitas non solum ecclesiasticae lenitati, verum totius Christianitatis optandae paci et colendae tranquillitati." - 162 - love-—the same argument which played so important a role in the cases of Teutberga and Engeltrude.21 This mystical bond of love, whether applied to discussions of the Trinity, or to marriage, or oven to political life, appears to have been con- tal to Hincmar's conception of how individuals might act in accord to achieve order and true peace without loosing their essential freedom or identity. The logical strictures of law assured an explicit framework of action, but without love-- that is, caritas as a norm of political or marital life-the whole remains mechanical, lacking either purpose or spirit. The applications of Hincmar's ideas in theology, though not directly related to political events, is neverthee less illuminating. His major concern during the years 859- 861, if one can judge by the length of writings the importance attached to their subject, was in an area entirely unconnec- ted with Lothar's divorce. At the same time that he was seek- ing reform in church and government after the invasion of 858, he wrote two works attacking the theological position of Gottschalk cf Orbais-—the ninth-century's outstanding heretic. In June of 859, when the reform efforts were at their peak, Charles the Bald presented Hincmar with a series of capitula relating to Gottschalk's teaching on predestination, reques- L 21M.G=H.I £22., VIII. 99-100: "quae ut plurimum in cm- ni salutari actions, tum etiam in hoc negotio, in.quc per nup- tials mysterium vir et uxor una caro efficiuntur, sed et in baptismate eperosius operatur, quc per fidei sacramentum, non solum generaliter omnis ecclesia corpus Christi, ut dicit a- Postclus, et plenitudo fit eius, verum singillatim singulus Quisque fidelis Christo incorporatus membrum eius efficitur." -163- ting the archbishop to write a rebuttal. Hincmar's response, De praedestinatione contra Gothescalcum, taking up over 400 pages in the Sirmond edition, is a marshalling of sources which Hincmar felt adequately responsded to all the points in the capitula. He employed the same method a year or two lat- er in De una et non trina_deitate to attack another of Gott— schalk's teachings. Neither of these works were original in the matter of doctrine: however, the theological foundations are the same which lay at the base of Qggdivortio and, in fact, his entire theory of office. Transcending the apparent diversity of the world is the unity which comes from God.22 The very purpose of his writing the De una et non trina deitate was to establish the essential oneness of the Trinity: a mystical and spiritual unity comparable to that which in De divortig,was claimed to bind the Ecclesia and marriage. Divorce, like heresey, threat- ens that concordant unity and thus becomes an act of the great- est evilness. Hincmar observed that in violating the law or doctrine of the church one is guilty of schism from the body of Christ.23 The bishops are considered the pastors and teach- _____. ‘ 22De una et non trina deitate, cap. xi: "ac per hoc unam deitatom, unam sanctitatem, unam vitam, unam sapientiam, unam gloriam, unum timorem, unum amorem, unam caritatem, unam lucem, unam salutem, unam virtutem, unam pacem, unam caritatem, unam maiestatem, unam potestatem, unam pietatem," 23Ibid., cap. 1: ”None igitur catholicus contra auc- toritatem, nemo pacificus contra Ecclesiae pacem certars au- deat, no schismaticus et non catholicus invenisture, et a Christi corpore separetur. Admonendi sunt ergo subdidi ab ec- clesiae sanctae praepositis, ut sacrae legis verbs recte in- telligant, et si per so intelligere non pctuerint, iuxta prae- °0Ptum divinae auctoritatis, 'interrogent patres suos et ad- - 16h - ers of the people and governors of the church.2u As such, they have the divinely imposed office of deciding on doctrin- al questions.25 Reflecting the activist attitude of Hincmar during these years is his belief that his ministry requires that he speak out and that it is superfluous to collect the law unless it is applied.26 There is little evidence that when Hincmar wrote 2: divortio he acted as the instrument of Charles the Bald's ex- pansionist ambitions. 0n the other hand, there is ample rea- son tc believe that Hincmar's involvement in the Teutberga case arose as a natural consequence of his theoretical and legal preoccupations of the proceeding years. Although he may have realized that his stand would ultimately profit him- self and his king, and although his firm posture was in part due to the self-assertive nature of his personality, the a- vailable evidence suggests that both the will to act and the form of his involvement were a product of ideological precon- ditions. _~ nuntiabunt illis, maiores suos et docebunt illos.'" 2“Ibid.: ”Nee quoque pastores et doctcres nobis com- missarum plebium, et episcopi ac gubernationes ecclesiae. . ." 251bidg, prologue: "Quaprcpter ministerie dignatione divina indignitati meae imposito, ad hanc sollicitudinis cur- am ac studium non modo vestris petitionibus sum invitatus, VON!“ Ct thtU’e e e .0 26De praedestinatione, cap. xxxvii:"De hoc autem undo cer- ti sumus, et quae sine periculo licet multis sint cognita tog- ere silentio non valemus, quaeque pro ministerie nobis imposi- to his quae praemisimus subiungere ex auctoritate ecclesiasti- ca ccnmonemur, Opportune impertune volentibus et nolentibus ingerere procuremus.‘ Ibid.. cap. xxxvi: ”Sod superfluum est 10800 colligere, cum adhuc nemo personam studet signatius de- monstrare.“ - 165 - Any effort to summarize the import of Hincmar's invol- vements in the years 859-860 must acknowledge the difficulty in synthesizing the diversified nature of his concerns. It does appear, however, that the vacuum in leadership in West Francia during the crisis of 858-59 permitted the church un- der Hincmar's inspiration to seek to restore peace to the land through its own concept of order. If this was only anticipa- ted by the letter of Quierzy, it was fully developed by Hinc- mar as a comprehenseive reform program shortly thereafter. This program was not without implications for international diplomacy and the internal constitution of the realm, and it was the fruitfulness of these implications more than anything else which would determine whether Charles the Bald would willingly adopt Hincmar's suggestions. The immediate relevance of Hincmar's ideas to politi- cal life centered on his views regarding the interaction of offices within Christendom. Because each office holder had a direct relation to God, the action of every officer was Justi- fied by its role in carrying out the divine will. In turn, this meant that as long as everyone acted in a spirit of hu- mility, their individual and Joint decisions would be in ac- cord, and there was no need for an absolute and unilateral authority. International or internal difficulties could best be resolved by the cooperation of kings, magnates, and bishops in common council. To acertain extent, this represented the actual state of affairs, for thus far Charles had insufficient Power to act unilaterally against the combined weight of the -166- magnates of West Francia. The first test of the applicability of Hincmar's ide- as for resolving international disputes culminated at the meeting of Koblenz in 860, where compromise was reached on a personal basis rather than through collective action. One suspects, but cannot be certain, that this meeting in June of 860 marked the beginning of Charles' turning away from the views of his episcopal advisor. When one shifts the focus of attention to Hincmar's involvement in Lothar's divorce case, it is important to ascertain to what extent the archbishOp acted on his own rather than as the obliging servant of the king. It was argued that Charles' intense interest in the di- vorce followed well after Hincmar's writing of De divortio Lotharii and the council of Tousey in the fall of 860. Fur- thermore, it seems likely that Hincmar's involvement in this matter arose in part because of Lothar's cynical use of the church in Teutberga's trial and also due to the archbishop's interpretation of marriage as analogous to government. In short, iteippears unlikely that Hincmar tailored his admoni- tions to suit the political aspirations of the king-had had been too openly critical of Charles for that, and certainly his constitutional views were not too flattering to the royal ‘30. If Charles' indifference to Hincmar's advice did not crush his spirit, it becomes interesting to see under what conditions he indeed would be compelled to modify his views. These conditions emerge soon enough in his contest with Pope Nicholas I in the case of Bishop Rothad of Soissons. CHAPTER VII THE FAILURE OF HINCMAR'S EARLY CONCEPT OF MINISTERIUM, 860-65 The concordance of spiritual and worldly offices as- sumed that in each the holder of a ministerium acted in ac- cord with the will of God. Hincmar felt that if all were to put aside superbia and personal interest, discord would no longer disrupt a mutual cooperation for achieving the optimum worldly conditions for salvation. However, as long as Hinc- mar's ideas made little provision for human shortcomings or a possible disparity of interest between the church and the secular government, there was little chance for his ideas be- ing‘widely accepted. The study of the assembly of Koblenz and Hincmar's De divortio has shown that the extent to which Charles was willing to consider ideas which assumed the exis- tence of an Ecclesia depended on his own political obJectives. Further events in the 860's were to be no exception to this rule. One example will suffice to show the extent to which Hincmar was unwilling to accept the realities of power poli- ties. In October of 861, Charles the Bald invaded the realm of his nephew, Charles of Provence. The.Annales Bertainiani, usually indicative of Hincmar's own.views, claimed that Charles invaded at the invitation of certain men (probably a - 167 - - 168 - faction hostile to Count Gerard of Vienne, the regent and de facto ruler) because Charles of Provence was ”useless and rules in a manner incongruent with the royal honor and ggggg,"1 ‘That is, because his rule failed to conform to the objective definition of his office, the necessity for a restoration of concordia Justified outside interference. Gerard undoubtedly penetrated Charles the Bald's mo- tives, for he wrote Hincmar ”indicating that Charles, the King of Francia, wanted to snatch secretly for himself the king- dom of his senior, Charles of Cisalpine Gaul." Hincmar respon- ded to Gerard's letter by stating that this was not at all Charles' intention.2 In 858, Hincmar had argued that a realm ruled by an incompetent king could only be annexed after a general council, comprising everyone involved, including the bishops as interpreters of God's will, had agreed that it was 3 the proper course of action. From Hincmar's viewpoint, the difficulties facing Provence could only be resolved by the concordant action of bishops and kings, and Charles the Bald should have had no other objective in mind than to initiate 1Annales Bertiniani, a. 861: "harolus . . . a quibus- dam invitatus quasi regnum Provintiae adepturus, quoniam Ka- rolus, Hlotharii quondam imperatoris filius, inutilis atque inconveniens regio honori et nomini ferebatur, cum uxore Ber- gundiam usque ad civitatem Matescensius peragrat . . . ." For these and the other events discussed in this chapter, the most convient survey is that of Calmette, op.cit. 2M.G.H., 1322., VIII, 115: "Item pro his, quae sibi lit- teris idem Gerardus significaverat, ecilicet quod Karolus Franciae rex senioris ipsius Karoli Cisalpinae Galliae regis regnum sibi vellet subripere, quod ipse domnus Hincmarus ne- quaquam fieri asserit." 3§pistola synodi Carisiacensis, cap. xv. - 169 - such proceedings. But the actions of Gerard and possibly of Charles the Bald himself were dictated by their own ambitions. The early 860's provide a number of examples showing the failure of a general mixed council to resolve problems in which personal interests and ambitions were involved. Be- sides the question of Lothar's divorce from Teutberga, there was also the problems of Count Boso's wife Engeltrude, who sought asylum in.lothar's realm despite the disapproval of Charles the Bald, and the king's daughter Judith, who had e- loped with Count Baldwin of Flanders. In 862 Charles had reason to think a council would resolve these and other dis- putes in a manner favorable to his own hopes and thus called for a meeting at Savonniéres in which Hincmar had a guiding hand. Here it was stated that since the various questions were ones which affected the whole of Christendom, a general council incorporating both fideles and bishops should be call- ed to handle them.“ But rather than the council's solving the problems, Boso and Lothar prefered to turn to the papacy for support presumably in the expectation that their personal action in Rome had better chance of success than opening the Question to a general discussion. The case which drew the greater part of Hincmar's at- “Conventus apud Saponarias, a. 862, cap. ix: "quia vult secundum domni apostolici et episcopale, immo divinum consilium ad placitum convenire cum episcopis et fidelibus at- Que amicis Dei et nostris ac suis, quoniam haec causa general- is est omnibus christianis. . . ." This last phrase is identi- cal to that which appears in Qg_divortio, inter. iii. For Boso's appeal to Rome, see the letter of Bishop Arsenius dir- acted to the bishops of Gaul (M.G.H., £22.. v1, no. 11). - 17o - tention during these early years of the 860's, which most clearly raised theoretical issues, and which ultimately had the most profound impact on his own ideological development was that of Bishop Rothad of Soissons. Since Rothad was his suffragan, the long years of an incompetent regime in Soissons obliged Hincmar to take active steps to remove him from his post. In 862 Rothad appeared at the synod of Pitres and de- clared that he would appeal his deposition to Rome, although Hincmar interpreted a purloined letter to signify that Rothad wished only to be retried by iudices electi_and would renounce his appeal. While Rothad fretted in prison, Pope Nicholas and Hincmar began a contest of strength over the question, each seeking to make of Rothad's appeal a test of their respective opinions regarding the constitution of the church and the na- ture of priestly authortiy. Hincmar took his first stand in a treatise (referred to here as memorandum for the Trial of Rothad of Soissons) which he wrote in February or March of 863 to defend his pre- vious course of action to Nicholas. Rothad had claimed that bishops had no right to depose their fellow bishops without the authority of Rome, to which Hincmar found a number of ob- Jections. First of all, Rothad had used the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals to support his position, and Hincmar stated that he was unwilling to accept conclusions drawn from them—whether because of their doubtful authenticity or Rothad's interpre- 5 tation of them is uncertain. Hincmar also supported metro- ¥ 5Memorandumfor the Trial of Rothad of Soissons, pars i .._ - - '_._' "" __..__ - 171 - politan authority as the fully competent representitive of Rome by recalling the commission which Pope Zacharias had gran- ted Boniface in the eighth century. Zacharias had specified that Boniface was the representitive of the papal majesty ‘within the whole of Gaul, and thus, Hincmar reasoned, his own metropolitan dignity had full competence within his province.6 Hincmar recognized that Nicholas' challenge of his handling of the Rothad case called forth a careful definition of the episcopal office, not simply as the papacy's regional representitive, as Nicholas would have it, but fully competent within its own sphere of action. All bish0ps are given the authority of binding and of freeing men from sin; what dis- tinguishes the papacy is that it in particular holds the keys to Heaven and has the power of final judgment.7 The archbish- op had no intention of challenging papal authority or of as- serting the complete autonomy of the provincial metropolitans from Rome, If all bishops fulfill the definition of their office, in seeking to accomplish the will of God on earth, b, cap. x: "Nec perfunctorie transeundum est, quod quidam'vo- lentes Rothadum statuere qui nesciunt quae locuntur neque de quibus adfirmant, testimonia ex decretis Iulii papae atque Victoris et quorundam antiquorum apostolicae sedis pontificum ad suum confirmandum errorem adsumunt, dicentes, qued nullus episcOpus sine auctoritate Romani pontificis possit deponi." 61bid., pars a, cap. ix: "'Et non solum Baiouuariam, sed etiam omnem Galliarum provintiam, donec te divina ius- serit superesse maiestas, nostra vice per praedicationem tibi iniunetam. . . .'” Ernst Dummler, Geschichte des ostfrank- ischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1887-88), II, 88-96} gives a detail- —-—-——.—— ed account of the Rothad case. 7Memorandum, pars a, cap. xxiii: "Omni igitur elector- um ecclesiae . . . ligandi ac solvendi datur auctoritas. Sed ideo beatus Petrus, qui Christum'vera fide confessus, vere - 172 - then there can be no discordance between the action of a bish- op and the pope. Ideally "their governing is coordinate, their decisions canonically compatible, and their judgments in agreement."8 Thus there could be no objection to a metro- politan passing judgment on one of his suffragans, for a me- tropolitan has full authority over his province and, as the holder of an office which demands the conformity of his acts to the will of God, he has no reason to fear that his decisions 'will differ from those of the papacy. As for the reason why Hincmar felt that it was more fitting for a local synod to pass judgment rather than Nicholas himself, he observed that the necessitas inherent within the particular situation provided both the rationale and authority for his doing so.9 This recognition that necessitas-—the demands of the local situations-must play a crucial role in any definition of episcopal office proved incompatible with Nicholas' insis- tence that Rome was the sole final repository of sacerdotal est amore secutus, specialitsr claves regni caelorum et prin— cipatum iudiciariae potestatis aocepit. . . .“ 8Ibid., pars a, cap. xxii: "Sic et quicumque nostrum dignatione divina primates provintiarum constituti sub apos- tolicae petrae iudicio iudicamus vel cum decretis illius una cum coepiscopis nostris decernimus: apostolica est sedes, quae in nobis famulis suis et pro patribus natis filiis, id est pro spostolis ordinatis episcopis, in ordinandis coordinat et in deoernendis canonice condecernit et in iudicandis coniudioat." 9Ibid., pars a, cap. xxi: “Cum haec ita se habeant, nos, ubi rationes et auctoritates perurget necessitas, et iu- dicia canonica exequimur et culpandi non sumus, quoniam ali- ter srga fratres non agimus, quam apostolicae sedis papae fi- eri placet quamque quod ipsa prima in toto orbs ternrum se- des fiendum esse decrevit. Quae non inter se adversa neque diversa tenemus.” - 173 - authority. The difference between Hincmar's and Nicholas' po- sition'was profound, for it reflected the deepest possible disparity between their respective epistemologies. For Hinc- mar, all that was required was humilitas for an assurance that the bishop's perception of truth become validated and his de— cisions in accord with the will of God. In contrast to this Benedictine view, Nicholas reflects the Roman imperial tenden- cy to concentrate virtus in the head of a hierarchy from which all authority is delegated, but which alone has a proximity with the Absolute making certain the righteousness of its de- cisions. Furthermore, it should be now clear that Hincmar's idea of political office was cut of the same cloth as this viow of his own episcopal ministgrium, and an attack upon the one idea was also a challenge to the other. Just as he ap- pealed to ggcessitas in a vain attempt to halt Nicholas' unp dercutting of his idea of episcopal ministerium (the Pseudo- Isidorian decretals were in large part enactments stemming from the Roman imperial church), so, as will be shown, necessi- Egg.beoame the springboard for a re-definition of political office free of the encroachment of Rome. Both Nicholas and Hincmar saw in the Rothad case an Opportunity for asserting the predominance of their own office within the church and thus both fought bitterly for jurisdic- tion. The pope wrote a number of forceful letters to his opponents in the north asserting his own prerogative in all church matters, particularly when it was a question so seri- ous as the deposition of a bishop. One of his arguments, - 17h - which no one had really denied, was that the pope was clearly the final authority and judge in cases within his jurisdiction, and to resist him‘would be both wrong and fruitless. Hincmar felt that in the Rothad case his own judgment had been adequate, but once an appeal was made to Rome, the pope naturally had final say in the matter. In October of 863, Nicholas wrote Queen Irmentrude, who together with her husband, Charles the Bald, had been do- ing everything they could to prevent the decisions in this and other critical issues from slipping out of thir own and Hincmar's grasp. He stated that the pope's responsibilities ‘were comparable to that of a king: what monarch can refuse to 10 Nicholas believed listen to the pleas of an abused subject? the viability of the whole church depended upon the efficacy of central control. Newhere in his letters does there appear Hincmar's thesis that eggg'and concordia within the church are dependent upon the spiritual bond uniting all holding the priestly office with God. For Nicholas, it is simply the un— disputed and decisive will of Peter's vicar on earth.which brings a unity of purpose and a coordination of action in worldly terms. Earlier in this year, Nicholas had written the bishops gathered at Soissons to judge Rothad, that only through the observation of papal decretals and protection of Rome's IOMOG-H E ., V1: 375: "Quis, rogo, in toto orbe reg- ni vestri lesus aut ledendus clamaret umquam ad sublimitatem vestram, cuius vos vocem postponeretis et non magis ultione districts ipsius iniurias vindicaretis? Et nos, quo modo or- tari videmini, ut vocem sanguinis fratris nostri non exaudi- amus?" - 175 - prerogatives can the privileges of the whole church be defen- ded against the assaults of the wickedv-by implication, Hinc- 11 mar. The other prong of Nicholas' rebuttal of Hincmar's Memoradnum was an attack on the idea of necessary concordance. Since the pope had thus far not been able to bring Rothad to Rome so as to clear him of charges and restore him to his see, and thereby to prove in fact that discordance was a very real possibility, it was necessary for him to undercut Hincmar's theoretical arguments. Charles the Bald had cooperated with the archbishop in preventing Rothad from appearing in Rome within the time specified; such action by the holder of the royal office would be quite permissable given Hincmar's theory of the concordant action of secular and ecclesiastical offi- ces. But Nicholas wrote Charles that such interference by the hand of secular government was inapprOpriate, for the pa- pal decisions in this matter were either manifestly just, or, if obscure for him, were nevertheless done with sufficient reason.12 But Nicholas also argued against the compatability of human and divine law. The bishops gathered at Soissons had appealed to imperial law to justify their course of action, and Nicholas found this not at all proper, for much which is Permitted by human law is prohibited by divine.” Thus Nicho- 12M.G.I-I., £22., VI, 371: 'Itaque, carissime, cum ves- trae regiae potestati ab apostolica sede interdum duriora fu- erint missa, non moleste feratis nec vos a nobis odio habitos esse putetis, quoniam aut manifeste iusta sunt nostrae cor- reptionis iacula aut certe occulta sunt et aliquam habentia rationem.“ - 176 - las persisted in the Roman imperial separation of church and state, failing to grasp Hincmar's theory of dynamic interac- tion in one spiritual body. Hincmar, in his subsequent letters, had no recourse but to repeat and refine his own.arguments regarding the con- cordance of papal and episcopal action, for he did not wish to challenge the principle of final papal arbitration in mat- ters beyond episcopal competence.1h This involved him in a careful delineation of his theory of spiritual corporation, wherein all members——the holders of ecclesiastical offices—- worked in a necessary accord. Under no circumstances would be doubt the efficacy of the given authority structure as an 15 expression of the ordo layed down by God. But this does not mean that all action is a result of the unilateral and arbi- trary will of the head of the cor22s. Each person acts with- 13M.G.H. E ., VI, 357: ”Insuper autem . . . impera- torum leges proponitis, quibus quasi prohibentibus astruere non habuisse appellationis vocem Rothadum nitimini, cum oon- stet in ius mundanum legum et imperatorum non omnibus ecclesi- ssticis controversiis utendum esse, praesertim cum convenie- tur evangelicae ac canonicae sanctioni aliquotiens obviare." “Eoce quemadmodum imperiali iudicio non possint ecclesiastica iura dissolvi, eoce qualiter, qued lex humans concessit, lex divina prohibeat.‘ 1“1&0qu £22., VIII, 15h: 'Et haec dico, non, quod ab- sit, praeiudicans summae sedis apostolicae et sancti apostola- tue vestri potestatem in aliquo, cui in omnibus sum, sicut reo- tum est, oboedire paratus; sed quia summae auctoritati vestrae obsequium praestate me puto, cum ea, quae sentio, aut ad pro- bationem aut ad correctionem humiliter sapientiae vestri ma- gisterii panda.“ Note the nexus of humility and true knowledge. ”We VIII. 153-54: ”at cosno-catur. quali- ter minores potioribus debeant oboedire et potiores minoribus Providers et ordo a Deo dispositus ab omnibus et in omnibus valeat conservari." - 177 - in his ministry in accordance with his own ability and in res- ponse to God's will.16 Thus, what makes the various members of a body work in accord is not their exact duplication of the action of the head, but each functioning according to its own nature and ability to carry out the divine plan. Having established the competency of the lower offices within the church constitution, Hincmar went on to quote can— on law to the effect that cases should not be appealed from provincial synods to Rome, for if the matter is locally han- dled, it is not difficult to obtain witnesses and discover the 17 truth so that the case is decisively terminated. It is here that Hincmar's epistemology plays a key role, for he does not distinguish the discovery of God's will and ordinary ra- tional processes such as adjudication. Rather than a mystic revelation of the divine will, Hincmar saw God's guiding hand working through the human effort to discover truth by an in- L 16M.G.H.,AEpp., VIII, 154: ”Undo summus ecclesiae pas- tor docet: 'Si quis ministrat, tamquam ex virtute, quam ad- ministrat Deus, ut in omnibus honorifioetur Deus,’ qui servie suis commisit negocia sua et 'uniouique secundum propriam vir- tutem,‘ sicut et de spiritu sancto scriptum est, qued 'dona dividit singulis, prout vult.'” 17Ibid.: 'Et hinc iuxta Sardicense concilium summus primae et sanctae sedis Romanae pontifex pro examinis renova- tione ad se reclamantis et confugientis cum sua clamatione de- iecti provincialis episcopi non statim singularitate privi- legii et auctoritatis suae restituit, sed remittens eum ad pro- vinciam, ubi causa patrata fuerat et in qua iuxta Cartaginen- ses canones et iura legis Romanae causa potest diligenter in- Quiri et quo non sit difficile testes preducere, veritas in- veniri, aut finitimis episcopis dignatur scribere aut e latere suo mittit, qui habentes eius auctoritatem praesentes cum .pi... copis iudicent et diligenter causam inquisitam diffiniant,aut disnstur credere episcopos sufficere, ut negocia terminum pos- Iint impenere.” - 17a - terpretation of legal sources and rational argument. It then stands to reason that it would be far easier for a local syn- od having direct contact with the facts in a case to make judgment in conformity to God's will than a distant and poor- ly informed court in Rome. In fact, Hincmar observed, canon law provides that illness or some other necessity or impossi- bility inherent in the situation may be just cause for a bish- Op's refusing to present himself before the pope.18 Papal com- passion in the Rothad case might well harm the vigor of the church by encouraging others into similar wrongdoing. If pa- pal moderation provails, such could easily happen in these re- gions far remote from.Rome.19 Hincmar well appreciated that rational concordance of action among offices would only be possible in those days of difficult communications if local decision-making bodies had full competence to deal with their own problems. The Rothad dispute reflects the deep epistemological cleavage separating the papacy from Hincmar in the north. The -——_ — 18M5G.H.. E22,, VIII, 151: "quoniam vestra auctoritas illum cum nostris vicariis ad suum praecepit destinari iudici- um, dignum et iustum est, ut, quemcumque episcopum Romanus pontifex ad se Romam venire mandaverit, si infirmitas vel gra- vior quaecumque necessitas vel impossibilitas, sicut sacri Prasfigunt canones, eum non detinuerit, ad illum‘venire stu- deat. . . ." 19MeGeHel 222'. VIII. 158: ”VidCIj-OCt “t .10 ROthO ab auctoritate vestra compassio exhibeatur, ut vigor ecclesi- ssticus non dissolvatur, et sic vigor ecclesiasticus conserve- tur, ut debita misericordia et necessaria sufficientia ei non denegetur, quatinus nec ipsius exemplo ad excedendum alii pro- vecentur; ne, quibus in istis regionibus longius ab apostoli- ca sede remotis censurae ecoleeiasticae moderatio est commie- Ba, hinc, quod absit, conspiciant. . . ." - 179 - fusion of spirit and the world is what really characterizes Hincmar's belief that the worldly action of local synods can participate in the perfect spirit of God's grace to realize the divine will in its decisions. Nicholas accepted the same categories of thought, but being uninfluenced by the Benedic- tine achievement, tended to feel that spiritual action should be kept from being corrupted by worldly involvement. To evalu- ate the.impact of this epistemological dichotomy on eighth- century Frankish-papal diplomacy or even much later on the In- vestiture Controversy is not the concern of the present study of Hincmar's thought. Suffice it to say that is presence ap- pears very real in the archbishop's dispute with Rome in the 860's. In retrospect, Nicholas' victory in the Rothad affair seems a foregone conclusion. Even if he had chosen to come to grips with Hincmar's theory of office, only to fail in re- butting it, the basic fact would novertheless persist that there was no disputing Rome's right to final arbitration. Un- der threat of excommunication, Hincmar had no choice but to let Rothad go to Rome where he was exonerated in all respects and restored to his see of Soissons. Hincmar's status in West Francia, both as metropolitan and as an infuential ad- visor of royal policies had been severely shaken.20 Further- 20In general one notes the 5222;22_§2£3$2$22i, a. 867: 'Karolus autem, immemor fidelitatis atque laborum, quos pro eius honore et regni obtentu saepe fatus Hincmarus per plures annos subierat, . . . .” For a general treatment for the rea- sons for Hincmar's fall from a position of influence and gener- a1 exclusion from political life in these years, see Calmette, 02e01te. pp. ‘01-‘02e - 180 — more, he was also faced with the undeniable fact that a well- informed and careful judgment of a synod had been found dis- cordant with the decision of the pope in the same matter, which either meant the destruction of his idea regarding the organic relationship of offices within the Ecclesia or the presumption of su2erbia on the part of Nicholas. There can be no denying that Nicholas' interest in the Rothad case was anything but altruistic and free of 22225: 2&2, In addressing the decisive synod in Rome in December of 86h, he made the sole theme the victory of his own consti- tutional views over the challenges raised by Hincmar and Charles the Bald.21 Again, in January, after Rothad was once more in theoretical possession of his see, he wrote Hincmar a gloating letter informing him that his effort to compromise his canonical and apostolic authority had been a total fail- ure.22 Quick to take advantage of his position, Nicholas then wrote the bishops of Gaul to emphasize that they were in no circumstances to dissent from the decisions of the pope, who 23 is the head of a single and unified church. Hincmar's be- 21In this letter which demands the syncdal verifica- tion of Nicholas' own exalted idea of his position, he names his enimies (M.G.H. E ., Vi, 379): "Denique, fratres, cum Prsesens Rothadus a multis fuisset retro temporibus a metro- politano suo et quibusdam sectatoribus suis, etiam a sublimi- ori saeculi persona. . . .” 22M.G.H. E ., VI, 391: ”Haec quippe nos in Rothaldo idcirco noveris operates, ut privilegia sedis apostolicae, Quae male a vobis violata esse videbantur et a nobis tot im- Psnsis laboribus vestra resistente contumacia recuperari non Paterant, auctoritate apostolica et canonica patrum delibera- tione pristino tandem genie et proprio decorarentur honore.” 23M.G.H.| EEE‘O'VI' 392: “Quamvis singularum ecclesi- - 181 - lief that church offices could work in accord failed to meet the facts in the Rothad case largly because the people invol- ved, perhaps including himself, acted with su2erbia in their hearts. Although.his own approach to difficulties within the church was theoretically wiser, its failure to bring about satisfactory solutions for the problems facing West Francia meant that the concordance of ecclesiastical and secular of- fices would no longer be acceptable to Charles the Bald. On February 19, 865, after Hincmar had been disgraced in the Rothad affair and after Nicholas had succeeded in putting Lothar on the defensive in his divorce case, an impora tant meeting took place between Charles the Louis the German at Tbusey. Its ostensive purpose was a reconfirmation of the accords reached in the past at Meersen and Koblenz. The in- terview concluded with a recommendation to Lothar that he seek to live in peaceful accord with his uncles. Appointed to guarantee these royal declarations of good will were Hinc- mar for Charles the Bald and Bishops Liutbert and Altfrid for Louis the German. But is appears that there had occurred some bargaining beneath the table which aroused suspicions in Lothringia that the hidden purpose of the meeting was to hatch plans at Lothar's expense.24 Lothar, who should have been _A arum, quae propter diversitatem terrarum multae esse dicuntur, cum una sit et unica sponso suo. . . .” ”Uhicam suam pastor st episcopus ac pontifex dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui hanc creavit et redemit, existat. . . ." Ibid., p. 393: "An Opiscopi de universali ecclesia non sunt, ut de illis dampnan- dis per vos aliquid ad unam sedem Petri non deferri curetur? Vel quomodo nil usquam a suo capite dissidet, cum de adiudi- candis praecipuis membris ecclesiae, ed est episcopis, a ca- Pits, id est a sede apostolica, dissentitis?” — 182 — well informed, since the meeting was held within his territory and included his own representitives, surmised that Charles and Louis were actually planning to invade his realm.25 In light of later accords, it appears likely that the future of the middle kingdom'was indeed discussed, but whether the bro- thers intended to force the issue before Lothar's death re- 26 mains uncertain. Hincmar's role in these secret negotiations would ree main obscure had he not later restated his position to Louis the German in the form of an exegetical interpretation of the passage in Psalm 103: "The trees of the plain are watered and also the cedars of Lebanen.which He had planted: there the Sparrows make their nests and the house of the heron is their leader." It appears that in the course of negotiations be- tween the two kings, just prior to the pronouncement of their accord to the assembled fideles, Louis drew Hincmar aside to g _.__ * _ ZhThe Lothringian bish0ps addressed a collective let- ter to the French (M.G.H., E22., VI, 229): "Et si forte ali- Qui fraude et infidelitate sive cupiditate decepti, qui suo seniori cogitent, vel machinentur mala, vobis tamen non con- venit iugem ducere cum infidelibus." 25Annales Bertiniani, a. 865: “Hlotharius vere, putans Quod sibi regnum subripere et inter se vellent dividers, Liut- fridum, avunculum suum ad fratrem et Italiae imperatorem trans- mittit, petens illum apud apostolicum optinere quatenus pro 00 patruis suis epistolas mitteret, ut pacem servantes de reg- no suo nullum ei impedimentum facerent.” 26MeGeHeLEBPe’ V1, 229: "Porto fatem. quia nOItrO regi fideles sumus et esse cupimus, cui videlicet fidem.de manu patris in regem excepto constanter promisimus.” This suggests that the usual pre-invasion propaganda had already been circulated to the effect that the king was loosing the Cupport of his followers, but more likely the bishops were '1mply taking a precautionary measure to discourage foreign Plots. - 183 - sound him out regarding certain ideas.27 Bishop Altfrid, Louis' chief adviser, had also been asked to participate, but before his arrival, Hincmar found time to reply to a number of the king's inquiries. This discussion seems to have fol- lowed a line of pointed argument. Louis first ascertained that all God's works are good and consequently, the law as found in the Scripture, if properly interpreted, represents the truth.28 Just as Louis reached the object of his reason- ing——the interpretation of the passage concerning the house of the heron as being their leader-by chance or by precise timing, Altfrid arrived, interrupted Hincmar, and with his "natural sound judgment and greater skill in dis- putation," began to impose his own interpretation on the pas- sage. But they had not gone very far when Charles came up to Louis to inform him that it was time to pronounce the purpose of the gathering to the assembled fideles.29 27M.G.H., Epp., VIII, 168: "Nuper quando in Tusiaco cum domino meo rege Karolo unico fratre vestro locuti estis, sicut bene reminisci valetis, quadam die accersito Altfrido venerando episcopo apud exiguitatem meam secundum sapientiam vobis a Dec datam de quibusdam sacrae scripturae abditis et difficilioribus sententiis quaerere et subtiliter investigare coepistis, de quibus prout Dominus dedit, et opportunitas tem- poris ac loci permisit, responders curavi." 28Ibid.: "Sed inquisitio vestra eousque processit, ut et quaesitum atque dissertum foret, cum iuxta veritatem scrip- turae Genesis omnia opera Dei bona sint valde, quod et confir- mat Apostolus dicens, 'omnia sunt munda mundis, et, nihil re- iciendum qued cum gratiarum actiene percipitur,’ our in lege quaedam immunda et non percipienda Dei populo describantur. Et cum quaestio traditions catholicorum extitit absolute, inp terrogastis quid sibi vellet qued in Psalmo canitur, 'Herodii domus dux est eorum.'" 291bid.: "Pest [Altfrid] cum responders inciperem . . . supervenit dominus meus rex Karolus inicus frater vester. Et commonente ille perrexistis ad adnuntiandum vestris fideli- - 18h - Hincmar thus had to put his own interpretation of the passage into a letter which he later addressed to the German king. His exegesis suggests that the discussion had implica- tions regarding political theory. It would seem, then, that Altfrid and Louis sought to justify a certain standpoint at variance with Hincmar's own.views. Also, although the matter may have originally come up during the personal discussions between Charles and Louis, it was neither resolved then, nor did it affect the overt accord which the two kings accounced to the fideles. It seems likely, then, that an important theoretical element in the secret negotiations remained un- resolved. It also appears that either the rumor of the two kings' agreement to invade Lothringia was discussed but not agreed upon, or else, if the kings were in accord, Hincmar found himself in opposition to the covert settlement. This, of course, is merely speculation, but it is noteworthy that it would be two years before Hincmar again participated in the POIitical life of West Francia. Hincmar's letter relating to the house of the heron Presents a Christian interpretation of the structure of socie- ty. The two lay orders, the populace and the nobility, Hinc- mar symbolizes respectively by the trees of the plain and the cedars of Lebanon. All men (trees) are nourished by God's grace (saturabuntur). The Lord also establishes the nobles and approves of their wealth and social distinctions. Thus the privileged class is to recognize that the advantages of __ bus, quapropter conventus vester extiterit." -185- its members are derived not from the world, but from God.30 Among the cedars the sparrows build their nests, that is,those who reject the world in Christian humility, whether they be churchmen or laymen, keeping nothing for themselves, and rely on the wealth of the houses and fields of Christians for their 31 support. These contemptores mundi are often laymen whose hearts are filled by faith in Christ and whose works are a shining example of virtue .32 Hincmar has thus far delineated two general classifications of men. Those represented by trees are laymen living in the world, and the others-the spar- rows—-fly above it and depend on men living in.the world for their support. All the trees of the plain, that is, all men, receive the bounty of God's grace, but the cedars of Lebanon -—the nobilityh—have an added advantage of wealth and status given them by God on condition they use their position for God's purposes. __ 30Ibid., p. 170: "Saturabuntur,' inquit psalmus, 'lig- na campi,’ id est, plebes papulorum, gratis spiritali, 'et caedri Libani,‘ id est nobiles atque sublimes mundi,‘ quas Do- minus plantavit,‘ qui etiam de divitibus et inlustribus mul- tos iustificavit, qui dicunt: Ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos, quia sicut nos homines et inlustres, ita nihilominus et ius- tos fecit." 31Ibid.: "'Illic [in.the cedaré] passeres nidifica- bunt,‘ ecilicet in istis caedris Libani, quas gratis Dei plan- tat et satiat, nidificabunt passeres, hi videlicet, qui ele- gerunt humilitatem et relictis quae habebant aut venditis ni- nil sibi in hec saeculo reservarunt, sed divitum Christian- orum domibus agrisque susceptis necessariis solaciis adiuvan- tur." 32Ibid., p. 171: "passerum, id est mundi contemptorum; Quia saepe etiam in sascularibus, in quorum cordibus per.fi- dem habitat Christus et in quorum opere ipsius lucent exempla, non solum ecclesiastici vel menachi, in subditis praelati, in Privatis regis potestate praecelsi, videre valent qued imiten- tur, verum et unde se reprehendant er erubescant. . . ." - 186 - The contemptores mundi include all who reject the world, whether churchmen, monks, or laymen. These are not rul- ed by the nobility, but by the sacerdotal order-the house of the heron.33 There are two species of the heron, of which the greater flies faster and is able to overcome the eagle-—that is, has greater authority and combats evil. By this Hincmar wishes to indicate that within the sacerdotal order, it is the bish0ps who are the rulers. It is they who rule the church and fight evil in the world in expectation of the second com- 3h ing. By the minor Species of the heron, Hincmar signifies the lower clergy, who do not have such authority and therefore are not the rulers of the contemptores mundi.35 It is the task of the bishops to use the power of the word to counter the force of evil in the world, showing men 33Ibid., p. 170: "(passeres) tamen licet in caedrorum altitudine requiescant, non ipsis caedris ducibus utuntur, sed domus herodii dux est eorum." 3L‘Ibid” pp. 170—71: ”Herodius enim maioris generis, ut verbis Hieronimi diximus . . . aquilam . . . vincit et come- dit. Saepe enim in scripturis per aquilam significatur dia- bolus. Et iuxta evangelicam veritatem fortem armatum custo- dientem atrium suum et in pace sua possidentem, id est fortem diabolum, mundum, qui in maligno positus est, usque ad advenp tum salvatoris male pacato potientem imperio fortior super- veniens Christus vicit et universa eius arms, in quibus con- fidebat, abstulit. . . .“ 35Ibid., p. 171: "Et nec in minors herodii genere haec intellegentia abhorret a vero, cum dicitur: 'Herodii domus dux est scrum; . . .' "Cuius herodii domus passerum, id est mundi contemptorum. . . .” “Cuius herodii domus, id est rec- tores ecclesiae, dicente Paulo ‘quae domus sumus nos,‘ duces Passerum, mundi videlicet contemptorum, super egenum et pau- Perem intellegentium, sumptibus sustentatorum esse noscun- tur." - 187 - 36 The bishops play a critical how they can achieve salvation. role in secular life, for those laymen in particular who are burdened with daily cares and subject to worldly frailties cannot live without some contagion of guilt. Especially those who have taken upon themselves heavier responsibilities will find that they are more severely Judged by God for their use of worldly advantage.37 It is interesting to note that Hincmar's two orders of society do not quite coincide with legal status (layman, priest), but with the relation a person has with the world. On one hand, there are those whose roots sink deeply into earthly concerns, and others, who fly between heaven and earth and rely on the contributions of men living in the world for sustenance. This is no hierarchic society, for all men are offered God's saving grace directly from on high, without in- termediary. And yet, the two orders each contains a sub- 36Ibid.: “Unde prophets dicit: 'Erubesce, Sydon; ait enim mare, fortitude maris dicens. . . .' Per Sydon quippe religionis nomine quasi quadam fortitudine muniti et decorati, Per mare autem saeculares intelleguntur, qui, ut verus hero- dius velocitate volatus et magnanimitate virtutis quasi ca- piens volucres semen iuxta viam comedentes, id est daemones verbum de corde audientium tollentes, ne credentes salvi fi- ant, cohercet st comprimit, ne tantum possint temptare homin- es, quantum volunt, docet: 'Discite,‘ inquiens,"a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde,’ parvi sunt apud se in corde et apud homines lauds." 37Ibid.: "Qui etsi cura rei familiaris ac terrena fra- gilitate adgravati, quamdiu in hac vita sunt, sine culpae con- tagio esse non possunt, tamen cum eis inest quod deprimat. multa virtus bonae actionis suppetit, quae illos in superna sustollat. Undo cum maxime timore ac tremors cumque maxima sollicitudine continue considerare atque timers debemus, ne nos, qui plus ceteris in hoc mundo accepisse aliquid cerni- mur, ab auctore mundi gravius inde iudicemur. Cum enim aug- entur dona, rationes etiam crescunt donorum." - 188 - group in a position of authority: the nobility to assure dis- cipline through government and the episcopacy to admonish. This image of society accords well with what is already known of Hincmar's views, but it is a useful reminder that when Hincmar sees the whole of society, he does not percieve a vast panOply of interlocking offices such as pope, emperor, count, or deacon, but large groups of people classified by the inner function of their office rather than its external legal definition. Furthermore, it is a volunteeristic socie- ty in that the order one belongs to depends on the wish of the individual, whether he has a "higher" calling or would rather be engaged in worldly concerns. Of more immediate interest, however, is a question which is not clearly resolved by an analysis of Hincmar's in- terpretation of Psalm 103. What precise role do bishops have in narrowly political matters? Until his defeat in the Rothad case, Hincmar had felt that episcOpal and secular action ex- plicitly and rationally accorded, especially through a turn- ing to general councils for decision-making. With Nicholas' victory in the Rothad case, however, it should have been clear that any theory encouraging priestly responsibility in world— ly matters would encourage a disturbing papal interference in Frankish political life—-a disturbance feared and resisted by the archbishop of Rheims. Since one alternative left open to Hincmar would have been to discourage explicit priestly in- volvement in politics, it is of interest to ascertain in Hinc- mar's letter to Louis the German the extent to which the - 189 .. "house of the heron" had a concrete role in public life. It is here that Hincmar's interpretation of the psalm appears to deviate from his ideas in the past, for the "house of the heron"-the bishops-—1s clearly detached from the world and devotes itself to admonition and combating evil. One might surmise that, if Louis and Charles were indeed plotting some future invasion or division of Lothringia, Louis would be most anxious to sound Hincmar out regarding the potential role of the west Frankish church. If Hincmar's interpretation of the psalm was his answer to Louis, then the East Frankish king would have concluded that the western church was wash- ing its hands of any responsibility in such a purely political matter. Another hint that 865 perhaps marks a turning point in Hincmar's view regarding the interaction of secular and sacerdotal offices is seen in two references he made to the deposition of Louis the Pious at Soissons in 833. In the De divortio, written in 860, he recalled that after Louis had won the unanimous satisfaction of the bishops, he was res- tored to the throne with the consent of the people and the church.38 Thus Hincmar in 860 assumed the church had a key role to play in this political matter and its action accorded with that of the "people.” However, in August of 866, he re- fered to the same incident in rather different terms. After noting that Ebbo of Rheims-the instigator of the deposition 38De diggrtio, quaes. vi, resp.: "post satisfactionem episcopalis unanimitas, saniore consilio, cum populi consensu, st ecclesiae et regno rsstituit.“ - 190 - -—had been moved by his greed for honors to bring false char- ges against Louis, he then emphasizes that Ebbo had irrever- ently put his hand upon the lord's annointed and was guilty of ldse-majest6.39 Hincmar does not here hide the fact that the church had absolved Louis of guilt and found Ebbo at fault, but he stresses that the deposition was the result of a person's attack upon the royal office rather than a mistaken decision by the sacerdotal order led by Ebbo to disqualify Louis as a person for kingship. If in 865 there were only hints that Hincmar was re- considering his position regarding the interaction of offices, events of subsequent years clearly show that a fundamental change had taken place at about this time. In the period 860-65, not only in political matters but in the internal constitution of the church itself, Hincmar had faced a series of failures which checked his prestige and his authority in public life. He found himself excluded from participation in Charles' government, for the king would not allow the church, whether the pope or synod, to interfere with what he felt re- quisite for successful political action. At this point Hinc- mar was forced to reconsider the theoretical basis of his _‘ 39M.G.H., £22., VIII, 179-180: “Sed nec ista regula Ebonem absolvit; cum st sacerdotes et omnis pens mundus st ipsa etiam sedes apostolica eius falsis criminibus appetitum st quadam traditions pro honoribus cum iuramento exinds ac- ceptis venditum et ab imperio atque ab ipse ecclesiae aditu Pium augustum Hludouuicum satagente ipse adiectum gravissime ingemuerit et innoxium a criminibus inventum et iustissime restitutum totus in orbs terrarum mundus gaudio exultaverit st Ebonsm deiciendum, qui inreversntius manum in christum Domini miserat, ut rsum maiestatis una cum ipso clamavsrit." - 191 — theory of offices, particularly in regard to their expected rational concordance. A number of important events in his life soon would prove crucial for the formation of a new theory, not only in regard to the role which the sacerdotal order was expected to play in public life, but also effecting the respective structures of authority within both govern- ment and church. CHAPTER VIII THE INVASION OF LOTHRINGIA AS CATALYST FOR A NEW THEORY OF OFFICE Even after years of effort, the various problems ’troubling the peace of Francia remained unresolved and divis- ive both within the church and in political life. In tracing the most important of these problems-—Lothar's desire for a divorce from his barren wife Teutberga-—there were factors which decisively ended any hope that Hinmar's theory of the rational concordance of offices would convince Charles' of its applicability in political life. By the end of the 860's, Hincmar was forced to arrive at a new formulation.which at once countered certain ideas developed by the papacy and at the same time proved a pragmatic adjustment to politica1 re- alities. In the matter of Lothar's divorce, it will be recalled that an impasse was reached due to the successive closing of various avenues of resolution. Lothar himself had initially sought to have his own subservient bishops invalidate his mar- iage to Queen Teutberga by means of a synod. In the face of Hincmar's challenge demanding that all problems concerning the Ecclesia be handled in a general council including both ecclesiastical and secular offices, Lothar felt that by put- ing the issue in the hands of head of the churchr-ths papacy - 192 - £4 _" " 4. .u- ”.‘u -.. *W.‘ ,I, . ,fh‘. - 193 - -a more propitious outcome could be expected. But he had not counted on Pope Nicholas' single-minded determination to up- hold canon law in regard to the marriage bond, and after the excomminication of the leading Lothringian bishops, the sup- port which Lothar had been receiving from his church collap- sed. For example, Bishop Advent of Metz wrote Nicholas an apologetic letter which was so grovelling that it well reveals how little the Lothringian episcopacy could be counted on to resist the will of Rome.1 Furthermore, the Rothad case in- dicated how Hincmar, the leading spokesman of episcopal action, found his entire position undermined by the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which protected suffragans from their archbishops through the right of appeal to Rome. Likewise, the meeting at Tbusey in February, 865 suggested the failure of his old ideas in political life. The way was now open for the papacy to take the initiative for resolving the Lothar divorce issue. Nicholas realized that were he to invite the northern kings to send their representatives to a synod held in Rome under papal supervision, it might be possible to satisfy the desire of interested parties to have a hand in the outcome of the divorce case while maintaining his own decisive influence. This he tried twice, on November 1, 86h and in.April of the following year, but there was little response from the north. 1M.G.H., £22., VI, 221: "Sectatorem damnatorum ac se- ditiosum vel coniurationis aut conspirationis reum me penitus esse denego: faventibusque quibuscumque nequaquam assentire fateor, sed cum capite, id est sancta st venerabili sede be- ati Petri, cui claves regni caelorum misit, in qua etiam pe- tra Christus rex aeternus sanctam asdificavit ecclesiam, con- tra quam portae infsri non praevalebunt, canonice in omnibus me fevers profiteor.' - 19h - ~ Charles argued that the shortness of time and the difficulty of travel prevented his complying, but it also seems clear that he was jealous of his autonomy and hesitated in establish— ing a precedent for the resolution of Franksih problems in Rome.2 Since the divorce was obviously a matter which invol- ved the church and, since the bishOps were unwilling to cross swords with the papacy, the only recourse left open to Nicho- las was to adjudicate unilaterally and enforce his will by sending north a representitive with full powers to act in his name s This policy proved highly effective. In the summer of 865, Bishop Arsenius of Ostia traveled to each of the three kings and brought an end to this and other disputes so decisively that no one dared find objection. Arsenius' mis- sion represented a fundamental challenge to Hincmar's theory of episc0pa1 office, for it implied that concord within the church resulted from the conformity of all members to its worldly head-—the papacy, rather than from the responsiveness of each bishop to God's will. Nicholas wrote the bishops of West_Francia asking them to welcome Arsenius and respect his decisions, for he carried the full authority of the papacy to resolve these problems which he could, and those he could not were reserved for Nicholas himself.3 Concordant action by the 2Ibid., p. 309: "Sed quia eos ad synodum nostram et Pro anqustia temporis et pro iniuria transitus occurrere non valere dixistis, merits dure tulimus, cum tanta temporis an- Sustia non imminsret, ut saltem ds vobiscum conversantibus bi- nos mittere nequivissetis, . . . .” 3Ibid., p. 30h: "Sed innumeris undique Christi domini -198- bishops had failed to be efficacious, and there was no al- ternative but for the papacy to take the leading hand. In light of the ultimate involvement of the papal of- fice in the course of EurOpean political history, it is im— portant to note the extent to which Nicholas made such an in- volvement his objective. In the not too distant past there had been examples of papal interference, but no justifying principle had been enunciated.“ Nicholas wrote that his mo- tive for sending Arsenius north was to ensure the peace of the church.5 But it was also clear that the problems he was seeking to resolve engaged the political order and that the correction of these worldly disputes might be indirectly a- chieved through papal action.6 Nicholas was not suggesting by this involvement that purely political matters were the nostri ecclesiae, cuius principaliter curam gerimus, labori- bus impediti haec, ut obtabamus, hactenus agere profecto ne— quivimus." Ibid., p. 305: "Tumque demum, si qua sunt, quae per se corrigere possit, auctoritate nostra corrigat, reliqua vere. quae forte difficiliora sunt, apostolatui nostro diffi- nienda reservst." hIn the correspondence connected with Rome's support- ing the Carolingian usurpation of the Merovingian throne in the eighth century, there was the realization that an objec- tive idea of the royal office was a precondition for papal in- volvement, but no justificatory theory was developed. Pope Gregory's interfering in a civil war during the reign of Louis the Pious was encouraged by personal interest and was deemed mistaken by contemporaries. 5M.G.H. E ., VI, 303: "Arsenic . . . scriptis et dictis iniunximus, cui bene faciet gloria vestra in cunctis adtendens et in his, quae sibi ex nostri apostolatus auctori- tate de pace sanctae ecclesiae perhibuerit. . . ." 61bid.. p. 225: "Sed cum nos a beatorum principum a- Postolorum ecilicet Petri st Pauli fuissemus egressi liminibus et ab eius utique sanctimonio directi fratrum pro pace regum- que concordia Galliarum intra properassemus in finibus. . . ." - 199 - church's concern, for the sacerdotal office wielded only the spiritual sword while the worldly remained in the hands of se- 7 cular government. In agreement with Hincmar, he felt that the pastoral responsibilities of the sacerdotal office en- tailed admonishing rulers to bring political action into con- formity with the divine will. The character of Nicholas' in- volvement in political life was by no means radically new, but simply the extension of principles already widely recog- nized. One area for the extension of papal prerogatives lay where secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction or responsibili- ty overlaped, such as marriage. While Hincmar interpreted marriage questions largly in terms of corporate theory, Nich- olas responded to Teutberga's pleas on grounds of church a- sylum and protection of the innocent.8 Here, where church asylum and royal responsibility for shielding the defenseless mergedcuxa.single issue, the failure of the throne to meet its obligations left Nicholas the opening he needed to give #— 7Ibid., p. 327: "videlicet ut Quod 111. materiali, vos exerceatis gladio spiritali, saltem Nathan, Heliam ce- terosque prophetas, qui delinquentes reges salubriter corri- puerunt, aemulatione sacerdotali seu pastoralisollicitudine revocare non rennuatis." 8Ibid., p. 321: "Siquidem tu, quantum humanus intellec- tus sufficit invenire, non solum innoxia saepe comprobata es, verum et ecclesiae semper auxilium provocasse dinosceris; in- super et sancti apostolorum principis Petri praesidium refu- giumque petisti, Unde sedes apostolica tuam causam coepit discutere et spetiali, quicquid quaestiones emersisset, iu- ditio suo reservare proposuit. Quamobrem.quisquis contra te aBit, non solum ecclesiam Dei graviter laedit, verum etiam sedem apostolicam, de cuius iuditio non licet retractari, vehementer adversus se oommevere convincitur.“ - 200 - a broad definition to the role of the sacerdotal ministerium in public life. Hincmar, on the other hand, had objected to Bishop Gunthar of Kbln's allowing church asylum to disrupt the spiritual union of 3060's marriage to Engeltrude. Unlike Nicholas, he made theoretical considerations primary, even at the expense of such traditional rights of asylum. Another example of Nicholas' extension of his authori- ty into regions of mutual interest to the church and secular government concerned the church's material wellbeing. He wrote the aristocracy of Aquitaine that their failure to res- pect ecclesiastical property necessitated his own active in- volvement, since he bore the responsibility for God's univer- 9 sal church. Nicholas' attitude is quite straightforward: there is one universal church of which he is the head; both the episcopal and royal offices have shown themselves ineffi- cient or.even unwilling to arrive at satisfactory solutions to those problems which are in varying degrees the responsi- bility of the church; and thus the papacy has no choice but to exert its prerogatives to their fullest in order that peace and order return to Francia. It was with such a set of attitudes that Nicholas' less forceful and persistent succes- sor, Hadrian II, concerned himself with the political fate of Lothringia and found that he had overplayed his hand, for everyone north of the Alps had come to appreciate the advisa- * 9Ibid.. P. 317: ”Sollicitudinis, quam pro universis ecclesiis Domini circumducimus, necessitas nos compellit de omnium fidelium statu impigram gerere providentiam.” Hincmar also cites necessitas as justification for radical action. "afie‘HW—t _' ,a... .. a ‘. ‘fl! -201- bility of excluding the papacy from Frankish political life. Although Lothar had not permanently resigned himself to dying without heir, it became increasingly obvious to Charles the Bald and Louis the German that the succession to the valuable middle realm might well be theirs. When the two kings began to discuss this evenuality among themselves, Lo- that, stricken with fear of an invasion, pretended to accept fully Nicholas' view concerning the divorce. Thus he could in exchange obtain papal protection for his crown.while he yet lived. Here was a clear invitation for the involvement of Rome in the political affairs of northern Europe-—a respon- sibility which neither Nicholas nor Hadrian II hesitated to shoulder. Just as the Rothad issue and Lothar's divorce case meant the failure of Hincmar's theory of the rational concor- dance of all offices, so the problems of the Lothringian suc- cession ultimately proved correct Hincmar's contention that efficaceous spiritual action can not originate entirely in Rome. In tracing the various ideas involved in the Lothrin- Elan succession, it is possible to understand the final col- lapse of the Einheitspartei view of the concordance of offi- ces, which assumed that there should be no explicit contra- diction between the king's recOgnition of political necessity and episcopal admonition. The Lothringian bishops were the first to reveal a retrenchment from the path they had originally cleared for their king. In seeking to use the spiritual action of the sacerdo- tal office to impede any possible compromise of Lothringian - 202 - territorial integrity, they knew that a general mixed council would be a hindrance, for it could hardly fail to reflect the interests of the majority of bishops coming from the realms of Charles the Bald and Louis the German. 0n the other hand, it must have been equally clear that the distant authority of the papacy was in no position to thwart sudden attacks or otherwise effectively or reliably to take a hand in political developments. The difficulty of their position is made mani- fest in a letter directed to their fellow bishops in'Wsst Francia shortly after the Tousey meeting. In this letter the bishops reiterated the rumor that certain people in Lothringia had suggested to Charles the Bald the advisability of taking over in some way the throne of his nephew, for Lothar was a king worthy only of conempt and had been abandoned by his subjects.10 However, the bishp ops quickly assured their western counterparts that they had not by any means abandoned their king. If there are some sub- Jects who are disloyal to Lothar, they should certainly not be supported, especially now that he has changed from his adolescent ways by accepting good council and observing epis- copal decrees.11 He who encourages such evildoers in Lothrin- gia sews discord, disrupts the concord of the church and seeks *- 10mm” v1, 229: "Audivimus enim, quod quidam in his Partibus vsstro prinipi nitantur persuadere, ut regis nostri regnum quolibet modo acquirat ipsumque nostrum principem.qu.- si despectum et a suo populo derelictum patrio regno expellat. Sic et de vestro domino rege Karolo perfidi st maligni homin- es voluerunt confingentes, quod etiam ipsi episcopi sum de- lsrere ac regno expellere voluisset, sed mentitia est vox va- ns sibi.“ - 203 _ to disturb the peace in the realm. He is to understand that he faces the spiritual authority of the episcopal order to punishment by anathema.12 It is worth noting that the definition of the royal office inherent in the propaganda cited by the bishops con- tains both personal and objective elements. While abandon- ment by the people and refusal to take council are personal shortcomings, failure to observe episcopal decrees is a slighting of the objective responsibilities of the royal 2&2? isterium. The bishops have retained an idea of the objective definition of royal and episcopal offices, just as they main- tained the concept of the Ecclesia. They failed, however, to present a theory reconciling the mutual action of the two or- ders other than by episcopal anathema-—that is, they acted as a distinct agency, choosing to back their king by spiritual _‘ _ —. 11Ibid.: "Porro fatemur, quia nostro regi fideles su- mus et esse cupimus, cui videlicet fidem de manu patris in regem excepto constanter promisimus." 'Et si forte sunt ali- qui fraude et infidelitate sive cupiditate decepti, qui suo seniori cogitent vel machinentur mala, vobis tamen non con- venit iugum ducere cum infidelibus." “Praesertim cum ipse rex, adolescentiae mobilitate et astutia hominum aliquando seduc- tus, nunc autem ad meliora conversus, se totum, Domino prae- stante, episcopalibus decretis ac salubribus monitus bonorum- Que consiliis aptare festinet.” 12Ibid.: 'Nolumus itaque vestram latere praestantiam, Quia, quisquis incentor malorum, quisquis seminator discordi- arum, quisquis ecclesiasticae concordiae disruptor fuerit, quisquis denique hanc tantulam pacem in his partibus regni . . . perturbare temptaverit, horrendi anathematis ignominiae subiacsbit. . . ." "Bonum nobis videtur . . . ut haec omnis nullatenus abscondamus neque sileamus, sed inseparabili atque ineluctabili sacerdotali auctoritate, qua ligandi atque sol- vendi potestatem a summo sacerdote Christo domino percepimus, freti anticipemus . . . ac pravis studiis tota virtute resis- tamus." -2oh- action. It thus appears that they neglected any possible fusion of worldly and spiritual action in common council in the manner of Hincmar. In June, 868, Charles the Bald and Louis the German entered into a pact at Metz regarding the realms of their ne- phews, Lothar II and Louis II of Italy, because it appeared that neither would have an immediate successor. Hincmar was present at this meeting, and it has been suggested, although never proved, that in fact he was the author of the agreement 13 made there. The two kings agreed that were God to give them Italy and Lothringia, then the acquisition and division of those regions would be carried out by peaceful means either by the kings alone or with the help of their fideles. Each would then provide the other with consilium and auxilium, acting as brothers rightly should.“ It is important to note that this plan did not incorporate the objective idea of of- __ __‘ 13The pact of Metz embodies much of the wording in Louis' oath at Koblenz in 860, but the latter, where Hincmar's influence was excluded, spoke of "sanctae ecclesiae status,” the former incorporated the idea of renovatio (Hludowici st Karoli ctiones Mettenses, a. 867 [ M.G.H., Capit., II, no. ZESI’: "ad Dei voluntatem st sanctae ecclesiae restauration. em. . . ." For the disputed date of Metz, see Calmette, 2& cit., appendice III. 1l‘Ibidn ”Et si Deus nobis amplius adhuc de regnis ne- POtum nostrorum doneverit, et in acquirendo so in dividends, sicuti plus aequaliter aut nos aut nostri communes fideles in- venerint, quos communi consensu elegerimus, et in ipsa divi- - sione consentiendo et in habendo st in conservando atque de- fendo tam istud, quod habemus, quam et quod nobis de prefatis regnis Dominus concesserit, absque dolositate aut deceptione vel superabreptione illi sincerus auxiliator st cooperator sro, sicut verus frater vero fratri per rectum esse debet: in hoe, ut ipse similiter erga me conservet.' - 205 - fices and handled the constitutional change as a personal mat- ter concerning the Carolingian family and their fideles. Whe- ther or not Hincmar was himself the author of this accord, certainly his unprotesting presence suggests that he too had given up any hope for concordant action of the sacerdotal and political offices to arrive at a mode of succession satisfac- tory to all parties. Further evidence that the agreement of Metz intention- ally avoided compromising political action by reference to the idea of objective office working‘within the Ecclesia is to be seen in the lack of any provision for the imperial title. Although Louis the Pious'succession had provided a precedent for considering the imperial title as a personal honor gained by worldly succession rather than an objective responsibili- ty requiring the spiritual action of the church for its trans- mission, there must have been some fear at Metz that an open consideration of the title would entail unwanted papal in- volvement. This appears to be the reason why the title itself was not mentioned although its responsibilities were explicit- ly distributed to both kings-that is, the obligation for defending Rome is a family, and therefore a personal, matter rather than the responsibility of an objective office.15 Hinc- mar, who had abandoned hope for a rational concordance of spiri- — 15Ibid.: "Mundeburdem autem et defensionem sanctae Ro- manae ecclesiae pariter conservabimus in hoc, ut Romani ponti- fices nobis debitum honorem conservent, sicut eorum.anteces- sores nostris antecessoribus conservaverunt." It is interest- ing to note that the papal obligation to the kings of the north is to "honor" them, that is, he has only a passive role. - 206 - tual and worldly action, could not be expected to advocate the perpetuation of the imperial dignity. 0n 8 August, 869, Lothar was the first of the two ne- phews of Charles the Bald to die, leaving Lothringia open to whoever could effectively assert his claim. The Emperor Louis II of Italy had the legal right to the crown, but his position in Italy was not strong enough, and his patron, Hadrian II, failed to provide him with sufficiently effective support. Louis the German was also indisposed at the time by ill health. The needs of the Lothringian people and church for defense against Norse invasions coincided with the ambitions of Charles, and he lost no opportunity in marching on Metz to be elected there and crowned king of Lothringia on 5 September, 869. Hincmar's relation to events thus far is not clear. He later claimed he had entered Lothringia at Charles' side in the belief he was serving the "interests of the Ecclesia and promoting the peace of Christendom."16 The Annales Ber- tiniani had also pointed to the practical necessity of the act by calling it both "saniori" and "salubrius." Although Charles violated the legal claims of new nephew and his bro- ther, he may have sincerely felt that political necessity was sufficient justification for his unilateral move. This ‘ 16Hincmar wrote his nephew Hincmar of Leon, explain- ing his absense (Migne, P.L., CXXVI, 53h): "Nuns vero quia si- cut mihi domnus rex litteris suis mandavit, et te audisse iam credo pro utilitate sanctae Ecclesiae, et pace populi Christi- ani una cum so in longiores partes a parochiis nostris per- 8.m. O O O O n - 207 - contradiction between political necessity and legal restric- tions ultimately proved to be the central issue in Hincmar's justification of Charles and his starting point for a re-de- finition of the action of the royal office. The election and coronation which took place at Metz, although promoted by Bishop Advent, reflects the views of Hincmar, who appears to have written the eggg'and took the leading part once Advent had initiated the proceeding. The election itself had both personal and objective elements. The king gained his title by the worldly means of the elec- tion of his person, and by the church annointment he accepted the objective Christian definition of the royal ministerium. However, it is important to note that worldly and spiritual action did not work through the rational accord of a general council, but rather, by separate action. The gathered bish- ops had agreed that Charles was the proper candidate and fol- 17 The lowing this the magnates unanimously acclaimed him. choice of the bishOps and magnates coincided not because they were joined in one deliberative body, but because Charles ap- pealed to both as the most worthy candidate, that is, the choice of God. When Advent initiated the ceremony he expressed a view 17Electionis Karoli Capitula, a. 869 (M.G.H., Capit., II, no. 276), responsio Karoli ad populum: "Quia, sicut isti venerabiles episcopi unius ex ipsis vooe dixerunt st certis iudiciis ex vestra unanimitate monstraverunt et vos acclamas- tis me Dei elections ad.vestram salvationem . . . et guberna- tionem huc advenisse, sciatis me honorem st cultum Dei atque sanctarum ecclesiarum Domino adiuvante conservare. . . .” - 208 - which undoubtedly was meant to represent that of the episco- pacy as a whole. Since they had been deprived of a king, the bishops turned to God in prayer, and thus were able to come to unanimous agreement as to whom God favored as their new king.18 The Lothringian bishops acted here no differently than several years previously when addressing the letter to their West Frankish counterparts demanding respect for Loth- ringian territorial integrity. The spiritual action of the episcopal office had a clear role to play in political life. Neither then nor now did the bishOps yield the initiative for such actio: to Rome or to a general council. The coronation of Metz deserves particular attention, for it became the normative procedure for future medieval 19 royal elevations. Of course, there took place no "election" in the modern sense. The magnates were but a small minority of the populus, and there was no choice of candidates to the 18Ibid., adnuntiatio Adventii episcopi, cap. 1: "rege et principe nostro destituti ac desolati, nobis omnibus esse consideravimus, ut ieiuniis st orationibus ad sum nos conver- teremus, qui est 'adiutor in Opportunitatibus, in tribulatio- neo' . . . st 'facit unanimes habitare in domo solvens medium parietsm et faciens utraque unum3' deprecantes ipsius miseri- cordiam, ut daret nobis regem ac principem secundum cor suum . . . et corda omnium nostrorum unanimiter ad sum inclinaret atque uniret, quem ipse ad salutem et prefectum nostrum prae- scitum et electum atque praedestinatum habeat secundum miseri- cordiam suam." 19Walter Schlesinger, "Karolingische Kbnigswahlen,” Zur Geschichte und Problematik der Demokratie Fest be far Hans Herzfeld Berlin, 195 , pp. 207- Schlssinger analysis the nature of the participation of the magnates in the Nets coronation. By relating it to the con- stitutive homage offered Pepin in 751, he seems in danger of geremphasizing the personal autonomy of Charles ' action in 9. - 209 - throne. Nevertheless, modern legal or constitutional precon- ceptions should not be made a criteria. Lacking the Roman idea of absolute sovereignty, it was natural that the choice of the king involve only those orders affected by him. Fur- thermore, it was not personal qualities which enabled a mem- ber of the royal family to become monarch, but rather, his willingness to obligate himself to maintain the honors and beneficia of his fideles. At Metz, the homage of the fideles became constituitive because the secular responsibilities of the royal ministerium were understood to be the protection of the interests of the privileged few of the nobility. The bi- lateral obligations of Coulaines became at Netz the basis of royal election for centuries to come. However, the role of the church at Metz should not be underestimated. As indicated above, God did the electing, but this cannot be pushed aside as mere propaganda or naive mysticism. Hincmar and his contemporaries saw the action of God's will in terms both rational and spiritual and their unamimous choice of Charles as the suitable candidate for the throne rested on the objective criteria of utility and appro- priateness. Because Charles had responded to the situation by acting in the interests of the Lothringian people and church, he clearly was earring out the will of God and was therefore God's elect.20 ——_ This acquiescence to the suitability zoElectionis Karoli Capitula, adnuntiatio Hincmari archiepiscopi, cap. iv: "in has etiam animadvertere potestis voluntatem.Dei esse, ut praesens domnus et rex noster, qui in Parts regni, quam hactenus tenet et tenuit et nobis ac eccle- siis nostris et populo sibi commisso utiliter praeest ac prae- - 210 - of a king must be considered a form of election, for just as in 858, the churchmen could have come to the conclusion that Charles was not sincerely interested in.the welfare of the church and peeple and have refused to meet together and crown him. Thus there took place at Metz two "elections," corres- ponding to two definitions of the royal office. On one hand, the fideles chose to support him on the basis of the king's "feudal” obligations, and on the other, the church agreed to his rule on the basis of its definition of office. The prayers offered during the coronation ordo form a small treatise on princely virtues which contributes to our understanding of the church ideal of the royal office.21 The king was supposed to have the moral virtues of any Christian, but with an emphasis on his wisdom illuminated by divine grace. Hincmar's own prayers add the crucial criterion, der- ived from a monastic context, that the king fought the spiri- tual enemies of the people and thus worked directly for the public salvation.22 He is more than simply the typus Christi, for through his office he actually shares in Christ's powers and effects.23 fuit et salubriter prodest st profuit, inde ad hunc locum Do- mino ducente pervenerit, quo etiam vos eius inspirations con- fluxistis st ipsi vos sponte commendastis, cuius instinctu an- imantia omnis in arcam Nee significantem significantem eccles- iae unitatem nullo cogente convenerunt, . . ." 21Anneliese Sprengler, “Die Gebete der Kranungsordin- es Hinkmars von Reims fur Karl den Kahlen als Konig'von Loth- ringen und fur Ludwig den Stammler," Zeitschrift fur Kirchen- W, 1x111 (1950/51), 215-267. ZZWj-oni. KBI'OJJ. II (McGeHe 03 its, II. no. 302): "liberetque te ab adversitatibus cunctis et ab omnibus visibilium et invisibilium inimicorum insidiis.' - 211 _ The c00peration of church officers during the course of Charles' election was rationally understood, for Hincmar was anxius to justify his participation on legal grounds. It was uncumbent upon him to show that his action was compatible with that of the Lothringian bishops, not only in conformity with God's will, but legally as well.2u He argued on consti- tutional grounds that since Metz lay in the archbishopric of Trier, and since the latter was then vacant, the old associ- ation of Rheims and Trier within the region of "Belgica” per- mitted his standing in for the archbishop of Trier during the 25 coronation. Hincmar's position in the preceding events reveals a certain shift in his theoretical position. He participated 23Ibid., unction prayer: "Coronet te Dominus corona glories in misericordia et miserationibus suis et ungat te in regni regimine cleo gratiae Spiritus sancti sui, unde unxit sacerdotes, reges, prophetas et martyres, qui per fidem.vicer- unt regna st operati sunt iustitiam atque adepti sunt promis- siones: . . ." ”Victoriosum te atque triumphatorem de visi- bilibus atque invisilibus hostibus semper officiat; et sanc- ti nominis sui timorem pariter et amorem continue cordi tuo infundat; . . . .” 2h§l9ctionis Karoli Capitula, Adnuntiatio Hincmari, cap. ii: "Messis autem amici est populus in provincia alteri metropolitans commissa. Unda vos hortando, quasi menu operis confricando, ad Dei voluntatem et vestram salutem in corpus unitatis ecclesiae valemus et debemus traicsre.” 25Ibid., cap. 1: "Ne alicui forte videatur incongrue ac praesumptiose me ac provinciae nostrae venerabiles coepis- cOpos facere, quoniam ds altera provincia ordinationi st cau- sis huius provinciae nos immiscemus, sciat nos contra canones sacros non agere, quoniam Remensis et Treverentis ecclesiae in hac regions Belgica cum. sibi commissis ecclesiis sorores st comprovinciales habentur, sicut auctoritas ecclesiastica et antiquissima demonstrat consuetudo, ac per hoc unanimi consensu st syncdalia iudicia exercere. . . ." - 212 - in Charles' usurpation of the Lothringian throne, which was masked only by the thinnest of legalistic justifications, while ignoring his usual stand, where he demanded an "inter- national" council for the representation of all interests. When Hincmar was later accused of bing the consors, if not the auctor, in setting up of a tyrant (illegal imposition of a king), he emphatically denied it, leaving the reader in some doubt as to whether he was refusing to admit the illegality of means by which Charles obtained the throne, or whether he had indeed promoted it.26 However, the archbishop's obvious role at the coronation would suggest that he felt nothing at all to be amiss with the method by which his king obtained the throne. Hincmar raised no objection to a disputed succession wherein the church had a collaborative role. Perhaps his un- fortuante experiences of the years 865-66 had taught him the danger of letting the church take too active a role in politi- cal life, especially after the introduction of the Pseudo- Isidorian decretals, which clearly made the pope the sole head of the church. There could be no such close concordance of worldly and spiritual action in political life if the authori- ty of the metropolitan should find itself compromised, leav- ing the initiative and all ultimate authority in the hands of a distant pope.27 The idea of the unity of the Ecclesia found _‘ 2ésirmond, II, 693: "Nam ut vestrae dignationi veraci- ter fatear, nec auctor, nec consors, nec consensor ullius ty- rannidis unquam, vel usque ab ipsis cunabulis hactenus extiti." 27Besides the Carolingian belief that Italwaas in - 213 - only limited application in the coronation, and the election was presumed to be a specifically Lothringian affair from the secular side. There is also implied by the whole proceed- ing the recognition that necessity, here arising from the im- mediate need for political leadership, together with the be- lief that God's will was being done, permitted a certain transcedence of legal barriers and the claims of others to the throne based on blood ties and old agreements. It was only to be expected that Louis the German and Louis II of Italy would be quick to voice complaint over Charles'incursion.into Lothringia. Pope Hadrian II, repre- senting the Italian emperor's interests, and the king of Ger- many made their objections on legal grounds, forcing Hincmar, as will appear, to defend his own king's action on the basis of necessitas and libertas. When Charles left Metz on a hun- ting expedition in the Ardennss, he encountered there a lega- tion from Louis the German demanding that the equitable di- vision specified by the Metz treaty of 868 be observed. Charles gave some kind of appropriate response which, in light of Louis' subsequent actions, could not have been too satis- fQCtorYeZB some ways a land lying outside greater Francia and had her own distinct problems and interests, it should be noted that in an age so dependent upon face-to-face relations, the spiri- tual action of the pope must of necessity appear rather remote and abstract. Hincmar later objected to Hadrian's interfer- ence in this affair by noting that (Sirmond, II, 692): ”dice, Quia ille qui forte hac opinions, sed non cognitione, ad in- iuriam et increpationem meam vobis suggsssit, scire debuerat, vestrae auctoritatis gravitatem sufficientsr recolere quod scriptus est, 'Causam quam nesciebam diligestissime investi- gab“.1l - 21h - In Nevember,'while he was at Gondreville, Charles al- so received a mission from the Emperor Louis II and Pope Had- rian, bearing letters dated September 5. These letters were written in knowledge that Charles planned an expedition into Lothringia, but ignorant of the fact that it had already been successfully concluded. At the same time at Gondreville, Hinc- mar received letters which he was to circulate to the magnates and bishops of West Francia. In these, Hadrian threatened to excommunicate whoever violated the legal rights of Louis II to the throne of Lothringia by invasion.29 Louis the German.eventually recovered from his illness and in.April and May of 870 was able to advance into Lothrin- gia and assert his claims to at least his fair share of the middle kingdom. As usual for those times, the appearance of a royal challenger was the signal for a shifting of the al- legiances of magnates: as Louis advanced he gathered suppor- ters about him, hoping to win a position of strength from which to bargain. He also sent messengers to Charles deman- ding his withdrawal from Lothringia. Finally in March, Charles agreed to begin negotiations on the basis of a partition to be sought through peaceful compromise. At first they tried to achieve equitable settlement by means of a commission, but —; A 28For the meeting of Charles with the legation from Louis, see the Annales Bertiniani, a. 869. 29For the letters addressed to the magnates and bish- OPB of West Francia, to Hincmar, and to Lothar's magnates, see y-G.H., EEE'! VI, nos. 16-19. Hincmar's response has been lost, but is is mentioned in the Annales Bertiniani, a. 869. -215- the cupidity of the magnates destroyed any accord.30 Only after the partition was finally referred back to the kings, ‘were they able to arrive at a mutually convenient settlement at Meersen in.August of 870. Although the pact of Meersen satisfied Louis the Ger- man's interests in Lothringia, it could harldly have been wel- come news to Hadrian II. Papal letters sent from Rome in June arrived at Louis' palace in.Aachen, and then were sent on to Saint Denis in Paris, where Charles received them in October. Hadrian demanded Charles' withdrawal from Lothrin- gia and censured the magnates and bishops, especially Hincmar, for their support of the king's illegal seizure of lands pro- perly belonging to Louis II of Italy.31 Hincmar immediately sent back a withering response, in.which he revealed a new theoretical stand. Hincmar scornfully wrote Pepe Hadrian: "You warned, you thundered, you refuted, and you gave orders, but never- 3OAnnales Begtiniani, a 869: "ubi et xii01m misses fratris sui Hludowici pro divisiene regni accepit, qui super- ciliese tam de sanitate corporis Hludowici quam de prosperi- tate, quia Resticium Winidum sibi diutino tempers infestissi- mum, tam dole quam belle captum [in custodie retinebat], ele- vati, minus debite sacraments inter ees facta duxere servan- da.” Hincmar simply noted that the negotiations were diffi- cult (Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. V): "Mertue autem Hlotharie filio Hletharii, pest multas controversies facta est divisio inter patrem vestrum, et patruum vestrum Hludo- wicum, de parts regni Hletharii." This cemmisssien recalls that of Verdun and reflects the sharing of governmental res- ponsibilities between king and gigglgg, Unilateral royal ac- tion was resorted to only after cupiditas had hindered mutu- a1 accord. 31For these letters, see M.G.Hu Emu. VI, nos.21-2h. - 216 - theless you did not see fit to forewarn these, including my- self, about your threatening participation, ner even these who, as some say, invited our king into Lothringia for their own interests and the obtaining of honors in that kingdom."32 He asked what would have happened had the dealings between the kings, to which Hadrian so strongly objected, not taken place. Such political action arose out of the necessity of preventing the sedition and slaughter which would have ravag- ed a leaderless peeple.33 Hincmar told Hadrian he had not ignored the pepe's earlier request to ensure that nothing im- Proper be undertaken in Lothringia, although naturally, he had not fully cooperated: he had simply asked the magnates if they thought it possible to exist without a king to defend them as the pope was demanding.3u 32Sirmond, II, 693: "menueritis, increpueritis, redar- gueritis et instruxeritis, non tamen, sicut me, illos de par- ticipatione communienis vestrae intentando comminari voluis- tis, nec etiam ees, qui, ut quidam dicunt, regem nostrum in regnum quondam Lotharii pro sua necessitate invitaverunt, et honores ex eedem regno obtinuerunt. . . . ." 33Ibid., p. 696: “Et alia de iuramentis, et periuriis, et de tyrannide, de quibus scripsistis, sed et de firmitati- bus, quae inter reges nostros factae fuerunt, et de seditioni- bus quae pro ille regno exertae fuerunt, et ad internecienem multorum pervenirent, nisi ipsae firmitates executes fuissent, nobis dicunt, quae vestae auctoritati mandare nobis non cen- venit." 3“Ibid., p. 691: "et ut Ecclesiarum rectores ac viri ne- biles, de multis partibus a paganis impetiti, et sine rege ac principe, nisi quem ipsi post mortem Lotharii pro sua quisque convenientia elegerint, sicut fatentur, existentes, non debe- ant, vel sicut habent necessitatem, non habent libertatem ree- torem eligere, qui sanctam Ecclesiam, et eos atque Christiani- tatem in ille regno consistentem defendat et gubernet, dieere anxians sine generali unanimitate episcoporum regni domni Caroli, quibus domnus Apestelieus de oausa regni Lotharii suam misit epistolam, quam eis, sicut mihi est praeceptum, direxi, do his quae praemisi, quantum ex me est, nulli definitioni au- deo consentire. . . .” - 217 - Hincmar defended the liberty of royal action because of political necessity and argued that political means were in themselves sufficient to obtain political ends. In matters of the world, it is not for the spiritual authority either to direct the course of affairs or to bear the ultimate responsi- bility. The Gesasian theory now becomes an instrument cur- tailing priestly autherity. Rather than use it in arguing for the greater responsibility of the bishop, Hincmar notes that the distinction between the two orders implies a careful delineation of the responsibilities and legal rights of the 35 priestly authority. Worldly realms are acquired by the sword and propagated through military victories, not by the 36 excomminicatiens of popes or bishops! Hincmar reminds Hadrian that salvation is impossible without kings, presumably wishing to emphasize that the efficacy of worldly discipline in the work of salvation should not be hindered by forces of a non-temporal nature?’7 It is the responsilility of priests ‘ 35Hincmar writes Hadrian in Charles' name (Sirmond, II, 712): "sancta etiam attestante Gelasio, quia duo sunt, qui- bus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacra ponti- ficum, et regalis potestas. Et per regem regum, ac summum pontificem cunctorum pontificum, qui solus rex et sacerdes fieri potuit, 'conditores legum iusta decernunt,’ quas leges principales petestates apellaverunt aeternas, et sacri canon- es spiritu Dei sunt cenditi, et totius mundi reVerentia conse- crati, . . .' "Nam quomodo leges principum rite vecabuntur aeternae si transeuntibus principibus una cum eis constitutie legis transibit7' 36Ibid., p. 695: ”Et computant quanta iste ab episco- Pia et populo, qui regem non habebant, et a paganis st sedi- tiesis impetebantur, in regnum qued Lotharius habuit invitatus exordinata ordinaverit: st dicunt sacularem scripturam dieere, Quia emne regnum saeculi huius bellis quasritur, victoriis Drapagatur, et non apostolici vel episcoporum excemmunicatio- nibus obtinetur.‘ - 218 - to pray, not to involve themselves in tasks which are the proper concern of kings. The distinction between priest and king is supposed to ensure the liberty of the latter's politi- 38 cal action. The kings of the Franks were never the vice- roys of bishops, but were always the fully competent lords in worldly matters.39 Thus, not only does Hincmar give secular government a positive (spiritually constructive and thus ma- terially as well, as we have seen) role to play in life, he also attempts to free royal action from church-imposed res- traints. In his Justification for Charles' invasion of Lothrin- gia, Hincmar compromised his previous theory of episcopal of- 37Ibid., p. 696: I'quia non nos cencredemus, ut aliter ad regnum Dei pervenire non pessimus, si illum, quem ipse cem- mendat, terrenum regem non habuerimus." 38Ibid., p. 695: "et si vultis ad defensionem habere nostrum auxilium sicut volumus de vestris orationibus habere adiutorium, nolite quaerere nostrum dispendium, et petite dom- num apestolicum, ut quia rex et episcOpus simul esse non po- test, et sui antecesseres ecclesiasticum ordinem qued suum est, et non rempublicam, qued regum est, dispesuerunt, non Praecipiat nobis habere regem, qui nos in sic longinquis par- tibus adiuvare non possit contra subitaneos et frequentes pa- ganerum impetus, et nos Frances non iubeat servire, quia is- tud iugum sui antecesseres nostris antecessoribus non impesu- erunt, et nos illud portare non possumus, qui scriptum esse in sanctis libris audimus, ut pro libertate et hereditate nos- tra usque ad mortem certare debeamus.” 39Again writing in Charles' name (Ibid., p. 706): ”Quia reges Francerum ex regio genere nati, non episcoporum vicedemini, sed terrae domini hactenus fuimus computati: et ut Lee ac Romans synedus scripsit, reges et imperatores, quos terris divina potentia praecepit praeesse, ius distinguendorum negotiorum episcopis sanctis iuxta divalia constitute permis- erunt, non autem episcoporum villici extiterunt. Et sanctus Angustinus dicit, per iura regum pessidentur pessessiones, non autem per episcopale imperium reges villici fiunt, actor- O“ius episcoporum.” - 219 - fice. No longer were political acts seen as the outcome of the rational accord and cooperation of spiritual and worldly action, but bishops and kings were new felt to work.within distinct spheres of responsibility. This meant that the Ecclesia represented little more than a spiritual bond, hav- ing minor relevance for political matters. Only by thus ex- cluding political action from the spiritual authority govern- ing the Ecclesia could a settlement be found for the Lothrin- gian question. However clear the shift in Hincmar's theory of office, particularly the sacerdotal, the reasons which compelled him to change his earlier opinions are not apparent. Two pessi- bilities come immediately to hand: Hincmar may have recog- nized that it was to his king's advantage to gain Lothringia and to his own to bring his suffragan bishop of Cambrai under the political authority of Charles; and thus he was willing to put forward Justifications to support Charles' violation of other legitimate claims to Lothringia. Secondly, Hincmar had suffered devastating personal setbacks since the introduc- tion of the Pseudo'Isidorian decretals and may have recog- nised that his own interests and those of the metropolitan dignity in general would have been much better served by sup- porting the royal office rather than submitting to the pope. It seems more likely that the latter motive was of greater Significance for Hincmar's course of action, for his politi- cal activity in the first half of the decade showed him devot- ed to what he felt to be a proper course, even if it meant — 220 - alienating his king. However stubborn he was when faced with the combined opposition of all the powers of Europe, there is no reason to think that he would not reexamine his position had he himself thought it led in directions which were not Hincmar's abandonment of a rational accord between sa- cerdotal and temporal offices is of crucial importance for the royal office itself. The study of Hincmar's theory of of- fice suggested that government had a positive function be- cause it contributed to individual and collective salvation, which, in turn, assured a greater efficiency and fruitfulness for worldly action. But the heped-for renovatio of society through political action rested upon the assumption that the spiritual action of the priest and the worldly action of the temporal office holder entered into a dialectical relation- ship. Either one by itself would have accomplished little if anything, for the three elements of human nature-body, mind, and soul-—needed concordant support and direction from Without. To have abandoned a concordance of offices altoge- ther, would have been to abandon his entire theory of office. However, Hincmar did not go that far and only sought to re- move concordant action frem the rational and institutional Plain. That is, he turned away from recommendations for gen- eral councils incorporating the episcopal order and from a direct involvement of the priestly office in purely political matters. If the invasion of Lothringia Just studied has shown a turn from rational concordance, two other affairs occuring - 221 - simultaneously-—the dispute with his nephew, Hincmar of Laon, and the revolt of Charles' son Carloman-will reveal the deep- er implications of Hincmar's new direction of thought for the idea of office itself. CHAPTER IX THE CONFLICT WITH HINCMAR OF LAUN AS A CHALLENGE TO THE RATIONAL CONCORDANCE 0F OFFICES It was suggested in the last chapter that Hincmar's ideas underwent significant change in response to a recogni- tion that they may not always have been too relevant to the realities of political life. Here it will be our task to re- consider this same crucial period in Hincmar's life in light of another failure—that of being unable to discipline his ne- phew, Bishop Hincmar of Laon, in the face of papal opposition. Pope Nicholas I's claim to jurisdiction in this mat- ter rested on his use of a partially forged group of law col- lections known as the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. It has usually been assumed that the intent of the decretals was to institute a thoroughgoing reform of the entire church in line with the papal conception of how the church should be consti- tuted. Furthermore, it is also assumed that the actual state of affairs it was seeking to do away with represented little more than anarchic disorder and a secularization corrosive of spiritual ideals.1 But what was being attacked-—as it turned M 1These assumptions are emphasized by Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Bras in their basic work, Histoire des collections canonigues on accident, I (Paris. 1931 9 130-37- I rely on this work for my summary of the implications of the decretals for the church constitution. For Hincmar's personal knowledge - 222 - - 223 - out, more or less successfully, were not only clear abuses within the church, but also a rival conception of that church as enunciated by Hincmar.2 It is perhaps best to recall brief- ly some of the themes brought out in past chapters in order to more fully appreciate the Pseudo-Isidorian challenge. Although Hincmar makes a distinction between spiritual and temporal action, he does not thereby imply that the two are not dialectically interrelated. The authority of the king provides a discipline for his subjects which encourages them to open their hearts to Christ. By submitting to law and the definition of office, the king, toe, finds the spiritual re— generation of his whole being facilitated. In turn, the in- fusion of the Holy Spirit as caritas throughout society en- sures that on the psychological, social, and political level, worldly action becomes ever more efficacious. Putting aside for the moment his rather naive optimism concerning human na- ture, it remains clear that Hincmar had a very realistic ap- preciation of the crucial role which face-to-face, rational, 3 and concrete human interaction had in the body politic. If and use of the decretals, see Jean Devisse, Hincmar et la lei (Dakar, 1962). 2A very useful book making this same point is that of Karl F. Morrison, The Two Ki dems Ecclesiolo in Carolin i- an Political Thought lPrinceton, 1965). Although Morrison provides a rich mine of information and a useful bibliography for not only the question immediately at hand, but also for Hincmar's broader reach of activity, his conceptual categories are sufficiently distinct from those of present writer that its general conclusions and evaluations have only peripheral relevance to the problems at hand. 3An interesting article which fully appreciates Hinc- mar's complete and coherent concept of society while flying in - 22h - the bishop and king are to work together successfully, the two must be able to enter into a free dialogue wherein the bishop is fully aware of immediate practical problems and the king is open to spiritual aid as he reasons and chooses among the alternatives open to him. A structure of authority which is hierarchical and finds its sole head in a distant monarch, whose decisions are unilateral and absolute, could not have been further from what Hincmar had in mind. What now was the general implication of the Pseudo- Isiderian decretals? Their purpose was to free the church from its subjection to secular powers. That is, they collec- ted together forged and valid papal decretals, Roman and Ger- manic secular law, and a variety of other writings to empha- size that the patrimony ef the church was not for the use of kings and magnates, that clergy were to avoid serving the state in nonpclerical functions, and, to remove the pressures of laymen upon individual bishops, that all churchmen were to submit without question to the final and absolute authority of the papacy. The scheme for the church's constitution spelled out by the decretals was hierarchic, deriving in large part from the Roman imperial provincial administration centered in the civitas. The ordinary bishop was to have full competence within his diocese, including unquestioned authority over rur- al bishops, monasteries, and parish priests. The next high- ‘ the face of human nature is that of Jean Devisse, "'Pauperes' et 'Paupertas' dans le mend carolingien: ce qu'on dit Hincmar a. Reins,” Revue du Nerd, XLVIII (1966), 273-287. -225- est rung in the hierarchy was not the archbishop, but the sy- nod of all bishops within a given province. The archbishop merely presided over these synods and was little more than primus inter_pares. Naturally, at the peak of the hierarchy was the pope. Any suffragan could appeal to h m over the head of an archbishop and expect that whatever the resulting decis- ion might be, there was no challenging it. Clearly, the autonomy of the the archbishop was sharp- ly curtailed by the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. He lacked suf- ficient authority to impose his will on.suffragans and he him- self might be called to question by the papacy with little recourse. There are a number of implications of the decretals which called into question Hincmar's way of seeing things. Political events moved too rapidly to allow any close cooper- ation between the pope and monarch, for by the time messages had twice crossed the Alps, it would have been too late for coordinated action. Furthermore, Hincmar must have been a- cutely aware that the political interests of the papacy were to be inevitably shaped by an Italian perspective. When one turns to the potential impact of the decretals on West Francia itself, their significance is no less marked. How was the king to obtain the spiritual aid of the church while resolv- ing problems if each time he sought it all the provincial sy- nods had first to be called and then their respective findings Iomwhow integrated into the political process? As long as the archbishops had retained their autonomy, they were fully qual- ified to speak for themselves and their respective churches, - 226 - having little fear that either the papacy or their synods might condition their dialogue with the king. If the political implications of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals outlined above are fully considered, then it becomes clear why the jurisdictional balance between Hincmar and his king was seriously shaken by their application to the internal affairs of West Francia. This, indeed, was to occur in a dis- pute arising between the two over whose right it was to judge Hincmar of Rheims's troublesome nephew, Bishop Hincmar of Leon. Archbishop Hincmar's failure in this case was to clearly de- monstate the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals' damaging impact on his past advocacy of a close cooperation between bishop and king in political life. If he was not to question the decre- tals, then Hincmar of Rheims had little alternative but to abandon an institutionalized and rational coordination of spiritual and temporal action by church and state. Hincmar of Leon owed his career within the church to his uncle, for in Rheims he was educated and promoted to an important diocese. But his unsettled nature and his domin- eering and cevetous mchinations within the diocese of Laon seen brought him into conflict with Charles the Bald. One of his subordinates, to whom he had first granted and then from whom he forcefully recovered a benefice, appealed to the king for justice. Charles quickly supported the dispossessed man and summoned Hincmar of Leon to answer before a royal tribunal, thus seeking to impose secular judgment on an ecclesiastic. Hincmar of Rheims, jealous of his authority as metropolitain, - 227 - sided with his nephew and wrote a memorandum in his favor de- mending the king's observance of the immunities of churchmen and ecclesiastical property. But Charles refused to take cog- nizance of such a long and prolix dissertation, asserting that in cases involving the deprivation of benefices the ci- vil tribunal had competent jurisdiction.h Hincmar of Rheims' defense of his nephew made use of law to ensure the ecclesiastical independence of lay judgment. He wrote Charles that the law cannot be compromised and that it clearly limited royal jurisdiction to cases involving lay- men. If the Roman emperors called their laws eternal and per- petual, how much more so are Christian laws, which are promul- gated by the Holy Spirit.5 Just as the name of Christ should be universally honored everywhere on the globe, so ought the law of God be observed. Just because these troubled times have encouraged a general disrespect for that law, that is no excuse for our disobeying it.6 When Charles was an adoles- cent, as age when the mind lacks stability and is inclined to inappropriate practices, he managed to avoid violating the de- g #The most useful account of the whole affair is that of Schrors, o .cit., pp. 293-302, 315-353. 5Sirmond, II, 332: "Nam si imperatores Romanorum suam legem aeternam ae perpetuam appellaverunt, multo magis lex il— la aeterna est, quae est sancto Spiritu promulgate." 6Ibid., p. 333: ”Qua de reflens dice, et corde meeren- t1 gemens prenuntio, quia nunc lex Domini inreprehensibilis nostris infelicibus et periculossissimis temporibus tantum‘vi- Sorem non habet reverentia divinitatis, sicut antquam nomen Christi in honore per universum erbem fieret, leges Romanae habebant timore imperatoris.“ - 228 - finition of the episcopal ministry; now, having reached full maturity, he should not turn back on such a good start.7 The Gelasian theory, continues Hincmar, should also be a warning to the king that he not exceed the definition of his own of- fice by meddling in the affairs of the sacerdotal order.8 Such considerations make clear that churchmen are not to be judged by kings, for both they and kings are subject to the Ecclesia wherein pontifical authority is the greater.9 The initial conflict between Hincmar of Leon and Charles the Bald ended on a note of grudging compromise, though the theoretical dispute concerning jurisdiction had not been resolved. A second difficulty arose between the two men on similar grounds, but with important differences. This time, 7Migne, P.L.. cxxvx. 95: "quaestio contra eumdem Hinc- msrum commota, regulariter audits et ventilata est ac defini- ta, quantum ad ministerium episcOpale pertinuit, licet isdem episcopus ex intergro non fuerit revestitus. Contumacium au- tem eauss, alterum finem exspectat. Non igitur, qued in adol- escentia vestra, quando animus hominis lubricus, et ad inde- bita usurpanda solet esse proclivus, Domino vos custodiente, non accidit, in perfects aetste vobis subripi, minime autem persuaderi leges ecclesiasticae, vel in medice infringi, sive convelli a quocunque sustineatis.” 8Sirmond, II, 331: “ex verbis beati Gelasii, due sunt Quibus principaliter mundus regitur . . . solerter providers debetis, ne extra ministerium vestrum, sicut Dee gratias hac- tenus providistis, manum in sacerdotalem ordinem, et in his quae eidem ordini Spiritus Sancti dono commissa sunt, contra Praeceptum Domini extendatis." 91bid., p. 329: “Non est humanarum legum de talibus ferre sententiam absque ecclesiae principaliter constitutis pontificibus, obsequi solere principes Christianos decretis ecclesiae, non suam praeponere potestatem: episcopis caput subdere principem solitum, non de eorum capitibus iudicare. Unde constst quia si non licet principi, nec cuiquam alteri licet nisi episcopis, de episcoporum capitibus iudicare. Quin etiam ipsae leges publicae, ecclesiasticis regulis obsequsn- tes, tales personae non nisi ab episcopis sanxerunt iudicare.“ - 229 _ Hincmar of Leon appealed to Rome and thereby lost the support of his powerful uncle, Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar of Laon resorted to a number of violent acts, among which was an at- tempt te oust a royal vsssal from his benefice. When he was called to the assembly at Verberie, schedualed for April, 869, he told his diocesan clergy before departing that, should he be arrested and prevented from going to Rome, they were to cease performing the sacraments in the diocese of Laon. He was not arrested there, however, but at Servais somewhat later in May. The clergy of Laon found themselves in an awkward po- sition and decided they had better write their metropolitan, Hincmar of Rheims, to discover the proper course of action. Hincmar's refusal to let them carry out his nephew's order put the archbishop in Charles the Bald's camp, and, although the council of Pitres in July ordered Hincmar of Lanon's re- lease, it upheld the royal thesis regarding the state's re- lationship to the church in matters of jurisdiction. When he realized that his case was finally to be set- tled at the council of Attigny in June, 870, Hincmar of Laen wrote a full justification of his complaints against Charles. This work, the Pittaciolus, was based on.Pseudo-Isiderisn themes supporting the liberty of suffragan bishops, restric- ting the authority of ametropolitan to act without the consent of his subordinate bishops, and giving Rome the final juris- diction in legal disputes within the church. Hincmar of Rhems used the time available to him before Attigny to prepare a lsngthy argument of his ownr-the qusculum LN. capitulorum ad- - 230 - versus Hincmarum Laudunensem. When Hincmar of Laon saw that the bishops gathered at Attigny were not looking with favor on his case, he decided to make concessions by signing a pro- mise of fidelity to the king and respect for metropolitan au- thority, but on the condition that Hincmar of Rheims also pro- mise to respect the authority of suffragan bishops. Needless to say, the archbishop considered the request insolent and re- fused to do any such thing. The younger Hincmar decided that the best course was to escape from Attigny and seek papal sup- port, but unable to act because of combined opposition, he finally decided to change his position, accepting Charles' demand that he be tried by civil tribunal. The trial, held at Servais on 1 September, 870, represented a practical vic- tory of worldly authority in diSputes engaging both ecclesi- astics and laymen. In the qusculum LV. capitulorum Hincmar, seeking to challenge the Pseudo-Isidorian thesis, was forced to modify his previous theory of episcopal office. The concord of sa- cerdotal and worldly offices was no longer conceived of as being rational-—that is, the definitions of the two offices and their action in the world were no longer believed to be logically compatible with one another. What Hincmar substi- tuted was a mystical concordia, wherein the source of unity in the world.was the peace of Christ, not necessarily compre- hensible in worldly terms. Inconsistency in worldly action and apparent disunity are to be resolved by a humble love of God and the realization that the meaning or judgment given - 231 - something in terms of the world, although logical, might well be contrary to its essential meaning in reference to God. Thus, Hincmar claimed that the peaceful concordance of offices is a function of caritas and that, in fact, 2 5 and caritas have a dialectical relationship.1O Despairing of any ration- al conception of the compatibility of worldly necessity and sacerdotal responsibility, Hincmar turned to a mystical inter- pretation of the worldly action of episcopal office based on the writings of Pepe Gregory I. The central tenet of Hincmar's position was his belief that Christ, who is our Peace, permits the resolution of centre- diction.11 Thus, an apparent discord between episcopal action and Christian ideals is transcended by love of Christ, but only if the office holder acts in a humble spirit. Paraphrss- ing the thought of Gregory, Hincmar noted that we find sal- vation through conformity with God's will. One cannot, as Hincmar of Leon sought to do, use worldly wisdom and reason to dispute duly constituted authority within the church.12 10gpusculum LV. capitulorum, cap. xii: "Hinc etenim Pax et charitas mutuo se invicem complectuntur, et manst fir- ms concordia in alterna et Deo placita dilectione sinceritss, Quia unumquodque tunc salubriter completur officium, cum fu- erit unus ad quem possit recurri praepositus. 11Ibid., cap. v: ”Quis enim cum Christo, qui est pax nostra, et solute medio pariete fecit utraque unum, pacem ha- bere desiderans, non smplectatur qued dicit apostolus, 'Solli- citi servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis?'" 12Ibid., cap. xxxvi: "Quorum perditionem evidenter ca- tholica demonstrat ecclesia, quae ut pro haereticis, its con- iunctim et pro schismaticis orat, ut ad fidei et pacis redeant unitatem, sciens haereticos et schismaticos in haeresi ac schismate permanentes regnum Dei non intrsturos: quis nisi ad iudicium, in scissura mentium Deus non est, ut beatus dicit The archbishop of Rheims wanted to remove the structure of au- thority from the need of rational justification in worldly terms to the humble acquiescence to God's plan for men. Such a train of thought led Hincmar into a careful in- vestigation of the origin of authority. Just as there exists a structure of authority in Heaven, so there is one on earth because of man's Fall. Therefore, spiritual life is won by humble submission to authority and resistance to a prideful and selfish will.13 Quoting Gregory's Morslia, chapter x, Hincmar rejects any natural justification for worldly distinc- tions by asserting that all menare naturally equal and have in fact only diverse rank arising from divine dispensation.1h Grsgorius. Deus quippe in unitats est, et illi eius habere gratiam merentur, qui so a invicem per sectarum scandals non dividunt. Uhde per se veritas admonet dicens, 'Habete sal in vobis, st pacem habete inter vos.‘ Ut quisquis habere sal sa- pientiae studet, curet necesse est quatenus a pace concordiae nunquam recedst. Sed sunt nonnulli, qui dum plus sapere quam necesse est student, a proximorum pace resiliunt, dum ses vs- lut habetes stultosque contemnunt, sicut tu egisti, qui cum tuis complicibus, st tecum subscribsntibus, a vinculo et uni- tats pacis ecclesiasticae divisisti, contemnens auctoritatem tuae metropolis. . . ." 13Ibid., cap. xiii: “Nam si, ut legimus, angelus sn— gelo dicit, curre st loquere, st angelus obedit angelo, non debet homo dedignari homini obedire: praesertim cum inobedi- entia Salvatoris nostri, qui factus est obediens patri usque ad mortem.crucis, reparatio sit humanae salutis. Diabilus Quippe superbus hominem superbientem perduxit in mortem: Chris- tus humilis hominem obedientem reduxit ad vitam. Quia sicut ille elatus cecidit, st deiecit consentientem, sic iste humil- iatus surrexit, st erexit credentem." 1“Ibid., cap. xiv: "'Liquet, inquit beatus Gregorius, qued omnes homines natura aequales genuit, sed variants meri- torum ordine, slios aliis cups postponit. Ipsa autem diversi- tas, quae accessit ex vitio, divine iudicio dispensatur, ut Quia omnis homo seque stars non valet, alter regatur ab a1- tsro.'” In contrast to Stoic thought, Gregory's natural squali- ty is real, for man's real essential being is his relation to - 233 _ Again relying on Gregory, he insists that the hierarchy of the church and the "earthly republic" find their exemplar in Heav- 15 on Of course, Hincmar meant to weaken the rational argu- ments put forward by Hincmar of Laon based on the Pseudo—Isi- dorian decretals by questioning the applicability of legal reasoning itself as the only and ultimate criterion of truth. But, as the case of his defense of Charles the Baldhsinyasion of Lothringia, Hincmar's response to the challenge of the decretals compelled him to formulate a new theory of office. The rational concordia of the episc0pal and royal of- fice assumes that the actions of both in the world are logi- cally and legally compatible, which is to say that the mean- ing of worldly action is comprehensible in worldly terms alone. But Hincmar new questions whether in fact the world in itself provides a valid source of meaning. If it can be proved, as Hincmar seeks to do, that meaning is a function of man's $2? tentio-—thst is, his will-—¢hen rational distinctions between ideal action and practice, or between the ends of the church and of the king, lose validity. Not only is the royal office God, and Hincmar points out that worldly actions are irrele- vant to man's real worth. 15Ibid., cap. xii: ”Et quia legimus sacros ordines 1n caelo et in tsrrs, st in testamento veteri et in novo, dispo- sitos ad Dso, ex quo iuxta apostolum omnis paternitas in cae- 10 st in terrs nominatur, qui sint ordines, id est paternita- tss in caelo, et in ecclesia, st in terrena republics. . . ." "Et beatus Gregorius . . . in epistola ad episcopos Galliarum scribens ostendit . . .'Quia vere creature in uns eademqus se- Qualitste gubernari vsl vivere non potest, caelestium militi- arum exemplar nos instruit: quia dum sint sngsli, sint arch- angeli, liquet quis naturs aequales sunt, sed in potestate st ordine, sicut nostis, differt alter ab altsro.'" - 234 - now provided with the liberty to give an unhampered response to the necessities of the political situation, but the bishop is free to undertake actions which logically would be incom- patible with Christian ideals. The practical consequences of both of these corollaries of Hincmar's thought shed consider- able light on the obscurities of of his political action in the 870's. It must be emphasized that Hincmar's developing rejection of the rational aspects of law and offices does not at all mean he will deemphasize their disciplinary function or question their authority. On the contrary, he will show the older he gets an increasing tendency to push law and of- fice definition to the forefront of his adminitions, but in so doing he also avoids subjecting them to reason. The key to Hincmar's position is the traditional re- cognition that while pride, the assertion of the world, leads to discordia, the love of God unites the humble believer with the source of truth. Relying on Gregory's Homily number xxxii on the Gospels, Hincmar observes that worldly glory can divert the heart from God, and that such meaning provided by the world threatens one's humility.16 However, this is but one example of the dangers of pridefully grasping to oneself mean- ing arising from the world. If a person enjoys an elevated worldly position, the counsciousness of this distinction can negate whatever virtues he might have. As long as the ”roots 161bid., cap. xli: “'Cor quippe carnale, dum huius v1- tae gloriam quaerit, humilitatem respuit: st plerumque ipse homo qui irascitur, discordantem sibi reconciliari appetit, sed ire ad satisfaciendum prior erubescit. Pensemus facts veritatis, ut videamus quo iaceant nostrae pravitatis action- Q..II - 235 - of the heart" are imbedded in the world, man is spiritually dead.17 Another example concerns the reality of peace. Should worldly peace be sought with excessive zeal, then the ruler looses touch with the author of peace; should be become appre- hensive about human bickerings outside him, then he is "slain in the argument of his own internal foulness."18 But Just as pride casts a shadow over the meaning of one's action in the world, so a humble submission of the will to God gives a positive value to one's activity. Good works, for instance, are without meaning in.worldly terms alone, for without caritas-—the proper intentio of the heart-—they be- 19 come the source of discordant pride. This he makes yet clearer in a quotation from Gregory's Moralia to the effect that superbia is the root of all evil because it makes even good acts an expression of the vain desire for glory.20 There 17Ibid., cap. liv: "Attendendum est etiam, quae nobis verecundia tunc erit in conspectu totius humani generis, om- niumque virtutum caelestium confundi, at post confusionem quae nos poena sequetur, cum animam immortaliter morientem reatus involuit, et indeficienter deficientem carnem gehenna consum- et, si radices cordis huic saeculo perseveranter infixas ha- buerimus. . . ." 18Ibid., cap. xxxvii: "Pax igitur praesens ita tenen- da est, ut et diligi debeat et contemni; quae si immederate diligitur, diligentis animus in culpa capitur: et dum nimis humanam pacem disiderat, pravos hominum mores nequaquam redar- fuit, et consentiendo perversis ab auctoris sui se pace dis- iungit, et dum humana foras iurgia metuit, interni foederis discussions feritur.” 191bid., cap. xxxix: "quia quaelibet in nobis bona opera fuerint, si caritas desit, per malum discordiae locus aperitur in acie, ut ad feriendum nos valeat hostis intrare.” 20Ibid., cap. lii: "Ait enim, 'superbia, inquiens, Quam vitiorum radicem diximus, nequaquam unius virtutis extinc- - 236 - can be no doubt that wisdom is a worldly virtue, but without the humility which is the guardian of virtues, it is but dust in the‘wind.21 Not only is the meaning of worldly actio a function of the heart's intentio, but the very effectiveness of such action is thereby determined. In the case of exege- sis-here Hincmar of laon's use of sources to Justify his po- sition-—human powers of rational understanding must be com- bined with a humble frame of mind to attain the truth of the written'word.22 Hincmar wrote that the diversity of tradi- tion did not give one carte blanche, and therefore, his nephew should look into his own heart to discover the proper course of action by carefully‘weighing the appropriateness of his ends.23 Worldly power is also dependent on the attitude of tions contents, contra cuncta animae membra se erigit, quasi generalis ac pestifsr morbus corpus omne corrumpit, ut quic- quid illa invadente agitur, etiam si esse virtus ostenditur, non per hoo Dee, sed soli vanae glories servitur.‘ 21Ibid., csp. xxxvii: 'Scientia eteniM'virtus est, hu- militas custos virtutis, et miranda actio cum elatione non elevat, sed gravat. Qui enim sine humilitate virtutes congre- gat, in.ventum pulverem portat, et unde aliquid ferre cerni- tur, inde deterius caecstur.' "Ut quisquis habet sal sapien. tiae, studiose curet necesse est, quatenus a pace concordiae nunquam.recedat. Et as in pace tenenda quis erret, per somet- ipsam‘veritas, cum terrenam pacem a superna distingueret. . . .' 221bid., cap. xxxviii: 'Quia nimirum bene dicta prae intelligentss, fidelium mentes, quae iam aliquid de veritatis intellectu conceperant, psrvsrsa doctrina perimunt: st dum scientiae sibi nomen extendunt, parvulorum corda iam de ver- bi conceptione gravida erroris gladio scindunt, et quasi doc- trinaesibi Opinionem faciunt. Quibus primum necesse est ne inanem gloriam quaerant: quia si radix elationis absciditur, consequenter rami pravas assertionis arefiunt." 231n a letter to his nephew, Hincmar wrote (Migne,‘g; Lg, CXXVI, 550): "Quia vero de traditions tua quereris, et n1- hil sit in tsrra sine causa, nihilque quod aut non faciat De- us propitius, aut fieri non permittat iratus, et pluraliter fieri traditiones atque diversis modis diversos st pro diver- ~237- its holder, for without a fear of God and honor of fellow man, such power achieves nothing.2h Charles' successful imposition of his will in the case of Hincmar of Laon, which involved jurisdictions common to both the ecclesiastical and secular worlds is of direct sig- nificance for Hincmar's idea of office only insofar as the sphere of the spiritual authority was narrowed on the practi- cal level. And yet, in Hincmar's need to find answers to the Pseudo-Isidorian challenge (however suspect he may have held some of the decretals), he was forced to reconsider his epis- temology in reference to the concordance of offices. For Hincmar the only course of action other than conceding Hinc- mar of Laon's points was to challenge the validity of logic as the sole means of discovering truth in the legal sources. The epistemological stand which Hincmar assumed in the later 860's was not new to Christian thought, but it does represent the first significant application of Christian mysticism to political theory. Until this time, Hincmar had assumed that the sacerdotal and secular offices could work hand in hand, one by spiritual and the other by worldly action, to achieve not only their distinct obJectives, but common goals as well. sis causis traditos legimus, necesse est tibi subtiliter men. tem tuam discutere, ut meditatus cum cords tuo, et non dolosa, sed recta statera appendens mores, cogitationes, verbs, et ac- tus tuos, apud te invenias haec traditio tua undo, et a quo processerit, et quem processum habeat, vel ad quem findem spec- tat. . . ," qupusculum LV. capitulorum,. cap. v: "Quid enim, quan- tum sibi a potentia superna permittitur, non potest homo tem- Porali potestate suffultus, qui Deum non timet, et hominem non reveretur? mam et nos aliquid pcssumus, sed utinam semper in D00 possimus qui nos confortat." - 238 - But now that the decretals had challenged the practicality of such a scheme, and perhaps more importantly, now that a ra- tional use of legal sources had challenged the dignity of Hinc- mr's own metropolitan rank, the archbishop turned to anon- rational Justification and interpretation of the structure of worldly authority and offices. Perhaps the church reform party, in whose ranks Hinc- mar had been a leading spokesman, had naively hoped that through the spiritual action of the bishops a radical trans- formation of political and social life would take place. But Hincmar, now in his 60's, had suffered setbacks, not only through the challenge of the decretals, but in his physical constitution, and had witnessed a growing Norse threat and an increasingly apparent ineffectiveness of government. He was well aware that the period of Carolingian prosperity had by now passed and must have felt that the time had come for a return to those political means which had once been so effec- tive. In fact, in the matter of Carloman's revolt, which followed immediately on the heels of Hincmar of Laon's defeat, he used Christian thought to encourage an intensification of those means by removing traditional checks on royal action. CHAPTER X THE REVOLT OF CARLOMAN The study of Charles the Bald's invasion of Lothringia in 870 suggested that Hincmar's ideas tended at that time to reflect a decidedly new cast-—one favoring the freedom of the monarch to do whatever he felt politically advisable without direct episcopal interference. We now turn to another politi- cal crisis which followed shortly thereafter and seek to dis- cover whether, indeed, Hincmar had permanently abandoned a rational accord of the episcopal and royal offices. The issue to be considered here is the harsh punishment of blinding which Charles imposed on his son Carloman in 873 for banditry and treason. But well before this date, Hincmar had become involved in the atmosphere of increasing tension which divid- ed father and son. Being blessed with four sons, Charles the Bald decided in 85h to direct one of them-Carlomam-into a church career. The lad.was tonsured and provided with an ecclesiastical edu- cation by a certain Wulfad, a canon in Rheims and a bitter enemy of the archbishop. From here Carloman proceeded to Sens, where he attained the rank of deacon. Unhappy'with the lot which fate had dealt him, the young clerk preferred to ga- ther about him a band of desperados and turn to looting the countryside of Rheims.1 -239- - 240 - Charles found himself too involved in Burgundy to de- vote sufficient attention to his son's activities, and so he 'wrote Hincmar in the hope that the archbishop might obtain the assistance of a number of bishops and fideles to check the dis- orders.2 At the same time, Hincmar wrote Charles late in 870 in an attempt to sooth the irate king, lest upon his return from the south he take extraordinary measures against his son.3 However, it appears that a false rumor of Louis of Italy's death provided both Charles and Carloman‘with ample motive to 1Hincmar surveyed Carloman's life in a letter to Arch— bishop Remigius of Lyon (Sirmond, II, 353): 'Karlomannus, dom- ni nostri Karoli regis gloriosi carne filius, in dioecesi Re- morum spiritu sancto regeneratus, et a patre sacro altari ob- latus, religiosis divini servitii obsequiis mancipandus so in clericum tonsus, in dioecesi vero Senonensi, et in parochia Meldensi ab Hildegario eiusdem civitatis religiosa episcopo per singulos gradus usque ad ordinem diaconatus provsctus . . . nuper a patrs, post plurima benignitatis ac beneficientiae dona sibi collata, fuga lapsus congregavit secum plurimos fi- lios Belial, qui inaudita nostris temporibus mala in parochi- is dioeceseos Remorum exercuerunt, in rapinis st depraedatio- nibus, et homicidiis atque adulteriis, et ecclesiarum.viola- tionibus, aliisque quamplurimis flagitiis ac facinoribus, quae diabolica instigatione et humans crudelitate possunt patrari." For an account of Carloman's subsequent activities, see schrfirl, O seite. ppe 313-150 2Flodoard, Historia Remensis Ecclesias, III, xviii (M.G.H., 88., XIII, 505;: "Quando etiam filius suus Karolo- mannus clericus adversus sum consurrexit, et ipse rex ad Vien- nam contra Gerardum comitem, qui a se desciverat, profectus erat, huic presuli nostro litteras suas misit, mandans, ut convocaret coepiscopos regni ac laicos ipsi fidelies: ut epis- copi secundum ministerium suum prohiberent Karlomanno, ne ali- quod dampnum in hoc regno faceret, st laici resisterent illi, ne hoc facere posset.” 3Ibid.: 'Litteras quoque deprecatorias regni iam pro eodem Karlomanno direxerat et pro pace inter ipsum st patrem eius laborabat; multa tamen mala et depredationes ab ipso eiusque complicibus patiebatur." Calmette, o .cit., relates the fluctuating attitudes of father and son at this time to rumors of Louis II's death - 2&1 - resolve their differences as quickly as possible. unfortun- ately for the latter, he had placed himself at his father's mercy before discovering the rumor to be erroneous, and in January of 871, he submitted to the Judgment of the church and suffered excommunication. At the instigation of Hincmar of Laon, Carloman thought it best to try an appeal to Pope Hadrian II, but despite sharp letters from Rome demanding a lifting of the excommunication and an end of any use of force against Carloman, Hincmar seems not to have paid any heed. Realizing that his situation was rapidly becoming desperate, Carloman submitted to his father and accepted imprisonment at Senlis. But even there, Carloman remained the hope of dissident fac- tions, and by 873, a serious uprising was emerging'with a pro- gram calling for the release of their hero and the expulsion of Charles from the throne in his favor. For Charles the Bald, things had gone quite far enough. He condemned his son to death, but then, reconsidering the extraordinary nature of this punishment, decided that by blind- ing him he could achieve his central aim, for in Frankish o- pinion, a blind man can never become king. Thus far in the course of events, Hincmar has been involved in two ways. First, Charles knew he could count on the archbishop to coordinate church and secular powers in an attempt to put an end to Carlo- man's career as highwayman. But, apparently on his own initia- tive, Hincmar sought to calm the king's anger lest he take msaSures against Carloman more severe than the situation.war- ranted. Between these events of circa 870 and the blinding - 2&2 - of Carloman in 873, Hincmar seems not to have played any sig- nificant role. Despite Carloman's association with Hincmar of Leon, his appeal to Pope Hadrian, and his destruction of property within the see of Rheims, one finds little reason to suspect that Hincmar was so moved as to encourage Charles' im- posing on his son the maximum penalty of blinding. However, Hincmar addressed a tract to the king en- titled De regis persona et regio ministeria which could do nothing else than to support Charles in.whatever cruel action might be necessary to crush this challenge to his authority. Hincmar based his work to a large extent upon the Capitula 'diversarum sententiarum of Jonas of Orleans written earlier in the century, but he freely deleted those parts of Jonas' work which accorded poorly with his own ideas and added arti- cles designed to ensure the greatest freedom possible to the a An analysis of the content of De regis persons will king , indicate not only why Jonas' work proved so useful in the pre- sent context, but, more importantly, for Hincmar's new theory of ministerium. It is unnecessary to repeat here the arguments Hincmar brought forth in De regisgpersona supporting the important role of the bishop as advisor to kings. Admonitionr-a central responsibility inherent in the episcOpal office-was recognized 1‘For the relation of Jonas' Capitula and Hincmar's De regis persona, see Carl Erdmann, "Ein karolingischer Konzil;:' brief und der Furstenspiegel Hinkmars von Reims." Neues Archiv, L (1935). 1o6-13h. -243- by Jonas and found constant repetition throughout Hincmar's writings. Hincmar's abandonment of the rational concordance of offices would not curtail the episcopal responsibility for admonition but simply that the content of that advice may not always rationally accord with needed political action. However, what is of interest in the present context are the hints in De regis_persona that Hincmar's advice met considerable opposition among the king's other advisors. This seems the only way to account for Hincmar's emphasis of a point which Charles had long accepted as valid. But what would have met considerable opposition.was not Hincmar's right to advise the king, but the content of his recommendations. The shedding of the blood of one's relatives had long been considered one of the worst of crimes in a society based on the extended family group. Louis the Pious had blinded his half-nephew, Bernard of Italy, and the subsequent death of the Italian monarch so dismayed Louis ' contemporaries that his rule was shaken to its foundations and he was seldom again confident of the full support of his magnates. There must have been many who warned Charles against the dangers of repeating Louis' mistake by following Hincmar's advice. These considerations account for the emphasis which Hincmar placed on his own right to speak and the obligation of the king to listen.5 Quoting Ambrose, always a good source for the episcopal responsibility for admonishing kings, Hinc- __‘ 5De regis_persona, cap. iv: "Similiter et in consiliis agere debet consiliarius, quia est et in consilio maxima li- beralitas." - zhh - mar advised the monarch to seek good councillors. Theirwords are like water pouring from a fountain: what is the use of having*wisdom should Charles refuse to drink?6 But, on the other hand, Hincmar suggests that the king is also open to pernicious advice. He warns that kings should avoid such vil- lainous friends, for their influence turns Charles away from God.7 If Hincmar's description be accurate, the reader even finds a hint as to their method of swaying the king, for he warns against being decoyed by gifts, smooth talk, and adul- ation.8 In.sum, it would appear that Hincmar met considerable opposition at court from certain parties favoring a more len- ient handling of the rebellious son and suggesting to the king that it would be to his benefit not to carry out this harshest of punishments. One of the central themes running through De regis per- so is the use of Christian ideas to strengthen the royal * office. If Charles was to take such a bold step as blinding his own son, he would need all the ideological support he 61bid., cap. iv: "quis vero quamvis instructum ad con- silii opem, difficilem tamen accessu ambiat, in quo sit allud, tanquam si quis aquae fontem praecludat? Quid enim prodest habere sapientiam, si consilium neges? Si consulendi inter- cludas copiam, clausisti fontem, ut nec aliis profluat, nec tibi prosit." 7Ibid., cap. xxii: “Sed et cavendum est principbus, ne etiam huiusmodi sceleratorum amicitiis coniungantur, vel huiusmodi in familiaritatem suscipiant." 'Inimioos etiam Dei Perfecto odio odisse est, ad quod facti sunt diligere, et quod faciunt increpare, mores pravorum premere, vitae prodesse." 8Ibid., cap. xxi: ”Timeatque princeps quod in Regum Historia legitur, ne muneribus vel blanditiis cuiusquam scel- ersti pelliciatur, vel adulationibus decipiatur." - 2&5 - could find, and the idea of Christian office gave him exactly the needed Justification. Hincmar could not have chosen a better work than Jonas' Capitula for emphasizing the divine Justification of royal action, for it regards monarchy as es- sential for the realization of God's will on earth. Hincmar's own contribution was to emphasize that the responsibilities of the king to God, as implied in the royal office, transcen- ded any worldly bonds, such as those of blood and love, which would discourage Charles from punishing his son. The law serves to aid men in seeking their salvation, but what can it accomplish if the king's mercy negates the rigor of that law? If a doctor discovers the scar tissue of a malignant in- terior wound, he ought to cut back the infected flesh lest it spread further. But if he is turned away from his pur- pose of cutting and scraping by the patient's tears and covers with medicaments what whould have been revealed by the scalple, is not this mercy injurious were the whole body to decay and the enjoyment of life and because of a transient incision and burning pain?9 Hincmar points to the Biblical example of Absalom, condemned by his father for rebellion: Charles, therefore, should have no fear of bringing such punishment upon his own flesh and blood, if the peace of the realm rsQuires it.10 It 9For the necessity of law for salvation, see ibid., cap. xxvii: ”Hoc so dictum est, ut sicamus secundum verbum Dei, secundum rationem dispensandam esse misericoridam debitoribus. Medious ipse, si serpentis interius inveniat vulneris cicatri- cem, cum debeat resecare ulceris vitium ne latius serpat, ta- men a secandi urendique proposito lacrymis inflexus aegroti, medicamentis tegat quod ferro aperiendum fuit, nonne ista in- utilis misericordia est, si propter brevem incisionis vel ex- ustionis dolorem, corpus omne tabescat, vitae usus interest?" 1oIbid., cap. xxxi: "Qui autem de maximis et publicie criminibus ex cords se non humiliat, sed ad excusandas excus- stiones in peccatis, peccata sua defsnere curat, huic non im- Pendenda est misericordia, quia praestari nullatenus praevalet - 2h6 - is true that the fundamental ideas brought out here by Hinc- mar are not original, but such an application of the Christian idea of the royal office in opposition to older traditions and customs represents an ever greater penetration of Christian values into political life." However, this is not the only theoretical considera- tion for strengthening of royal action found in De regis 22r- 3223, Hincmar also applies older ideas regarding the distinc- tion between the man and his office to argue that the office holder is freed from those restrictions of Christian morality which would make many political acts a danger to spiritual well being. This is not to say that the office holder is freed of any consideration of Christian values, but rather, the crucial factor is the person's intentio. This drawing away from measuring an act strictly in terms of the world means that political necessity can in certain circumstances free royal action from such restraints of conventional morali- ty so as to assure the welfare of the people and peace in the realm. The appeal to necessitas has already been pointed out in Hincmar's Justification for Charles' invasion of Lothringia, indulgentio, sicut . . ." "Nam si aliter non meruit habere Pacem domus David, nisi Absalon filius eius in bello, quod contra patrem gerebat, fuisset extinctus, quamvis magna cura mandaverit suis . . .” "Quod si propriis visceribus in ser- vanda pace non est indultum, quanto minus in extraneis severi- tate legum censemus paroendum?” 11In other respects, too, the De re is ersona is a reflection of the extent to which (in theory at leasti Christi- an ideas had encompassed political life since the time of Jon- as. Hincmar rejects Jonas' ideas concerning fame and good re- Putation as worthwhile goals in life and also Jonas' interpre- tation of war in non-Christian terms. - 2&7 - but here it is cited in order to allow the king to transcend blood ties. The Apnales Bertiniani suggest that the revolt of Carloman was an affair of considerable political importance, for "there were many who expected to achieve their evil ends through him."12 It should also be recalled that rebellion at home complicated Charles' march toward Italy in 871, for he was first compelled to come to terms with his son. Although the rumors at that time of Louis II's death proved false, Charles still must have been.very concerned lest his hands be tied when a second opportunity arose to make a bid for the Italian throne. The most recent e cape of his son and the attribution of the royal title to Carloman by his supporters may well have convinced Charles that drastic steps were re- quired to eliminate permanently this thorn in his side. In the De regis peggop§_itself are found references to the necessities of the political situation demanding measures so harsh as the execution of a son. Pointing to the example of God, Who sent His Son to His Passion although He loved Him, Hincmar warned Charles that the "peace of the whole church and the general welfare“ should weigh more heavily in the scale of judgment than the ties of blood, especially in 13 the case of a degenerate son. But even considering all the 12Annales Bertiniani, a. 873: "Quia ergo multi erant in regno Karoli qui exspectabant at par Karlomannum adhuc re- diviva mala agerentur. . . ." 13De regis persona, cap. xxx: ”Hoe modo princeps fili- us vel propinquis, si peccaverint, recognoscentibus ac poesi- tentibus parcere debet, alioquin vindictam secundum.modum cul- Due in peccantes exercere." ”. . . et tamen pater amavit fi- lium, quem ad passionem misit, qui, ut item dicit Apostolus, - 2h8 - factors which would demand the severest of punishments, Hinc- mar wanted to emphasize the freedom of the king to act as he best saw fit. The king can suspend just punishment if "in the time of necessity," he recognizes that such a course is ap- propriate.1u Whether Charles is to condemn his son or not de- pends on the realities of the political situation and not on the natural sympathies of a father for his son. Because of . the royal ministry, the king should not allow family ties to interfere with his judgment of criminal acts against the church or the republic.15 It was noted in the study of Hincmar's attack upon Hincmar of laon.that he turned to an emphasis on the mystical rather than rational concordance of the episcopal and royal offices. Not only was this tendency continued in De regis persona, where worldly criteria of action in office were re- jected, but it is also crucial in another work written at about this same time for Charles' edification, the De cavendis viti- ig et virtutibus. Relying heavily on the mysticism of Gregory the Great, Hincmar turns his attention toward a clearer inter- —_— as pro ecclesia tradidit, necessaria praeponderare debet pax ecclesiae universalis, et soliditas generalis, dilectioni eti- am dilecti, multo magis autem degeneris filii,“ 1“Ibid., cap. xxviii: 'Quod etiam his, qui pro scel- eribus puniendi sunt, si in tempors necessitatis, et periculi urgentis instantia, vel in ultimo spiritu, praesidium poeniten- tiae, et mox reconciliationis petierint, nec satisfactio in- terdicenda sit, nec reconciliatio deneganda. . . ." 15Ibid., praef.: "Rex propter ministerium regium, eti- am nec quibuscumque propinquitatis necessitudinibus, contra Deum sanctamque Ecclesiam atque contra Rempublicam agentibus criminaliter, affectu carnali parcere debeat." . - 21:9 - pretation of the meaning of action in office to emphasize that law and tradition are not in themselves adequate criteria for judging a king's acts. Hincmar insists that action engages the whole person, both in body and mind. But just as bodily acts relate one to the world, so does the mind direct the heart to God. The resulting tension beWeen the world as giv- en and God's will for man yields a particularly dynamic psy- chology from which action emerges as being neither totally com- prehensible in terms of the world nor of man's ultimate ends and values. This being the case, to judge royal actions in terms of objective criteria alone-—whether expressed in law or in traditionr—is to leave out of consideration one cru- cial dimension of the human condition. For Hincmar's immedi- ate purposes, he seeks to emphasize that the particular de- mands placed on the king by political necessity may not be logically compatible with Christian norms or values-assuming these to represent God's will. As a person, the king natur- ally is obliged to obey divine law, but as an office holder meeting the needs of organized society, his actions do not have to conform logically with any law and are free to meet the needs of the realm. The distinction made between the person of the king and his office not only permits the assertion of an ideal of action independent of personal intersts, but it also allows action in office to be free of objective limitations. Such action can at once satisfy the objectivie necessities of the world (often having little relevance to Christian life or even - 25o - contrary to it) and the personal imperative of Christian goals and values. Hincmar is realist enough to recognize that poli- tical necessity does not always conform to the Christian val- ues relevant to the individual. He notes that it isgood that a virtuous king rule long, but the virtue is more useful to the king than the length of the rule. ”In this world the realm of good men is benefited not so much by [the king's piety and probity] as by temporal things."‘6 One of the most obvious examples of this is the contin- uing presence of warfare in Christian society. It is necessi- tas which causes war, for through it the discord which makes peace impossible can be checked.17 But Hincmar is not simply seeking to justify warfare in all circumstances, for it must be carried out as a function of one's office. The divine precept “Thou shalt not kill" can have exceptions, for if a person holds an office which involves killing, then he does so without danger to his soul.18 For Hincmar——and for Jonas 16 Ibid., cap. vi: "Si verus Deus colatur, eique sac- ris, veracibus, et bonis moribus serviatur, utile est ut boni longs latsqus diu regnent, neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis u- tile est quibus regnant. Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pig- tas et probitas serum, quae msgna Dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad veram felicitatem, qua st in ista vita bene agatur, et pos- tea percipiatur asterna. In hac ergo tsrra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur, quam rebus humanis.‘ 17Ibid., cap. viii: 'Bellum necessitas faciat, ut so- pita discordia pax recuperari possit.“ This is a quotation from Jonas' Capitula, cap. xxii. 18Ibid., cap. ix: 'Quasdam exceptiones eadem ipse di- vina fecit auctoritas, ut liceat hominem occidi. Sed his ex- ceptis, quos occidi iubet, sive data lege, sive ad personam pro tempore expressa iussione. Non autem ipse occidit qui ministerium debet iubenti, sicut adminiculum gladius utenti. It ides nequaquam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum - 251 - whom he quotes-—the concept of 235 is clearly not Augustinian, for the antonym of pg§_is not bellum but discordia. Hincmar is less concerned about conflict per so than a disruption to God's true order. But this is no crass indifference to human suffering, for true order brings with it caritas and human happiness on a level higher than mere absence of conflict. Hincmar seeks by which ever way he can to free Charles of objective criticism so that he can find the most rapid and effective solution to the difficulties attending his reign. It becomes impossible to challenge royal decisions on the basis of objective complaints over his rule. Quoting Saint Augus- tine, he noted that "there is nothing which God has not either made or justly permitted to be.” Good kings rule because of God's beneficent grace, while bad kings "are permitted to rule by divine justice, which however obscure it may be, is never 19 wrong." Having given Charles a free field for action, he also seeks to encourage the king to take advantage of his op- sst 'non occides,' qui Deo auctore bella gesserunt, aut per- sonam gerentes publicae potestatis, secundum eius leges, hoc est iustissimae rationis imperium, scslsreatos morte punisr- unt. . . . His igitur sxcsptis, quos vel lex iusta generali- ter, vel ipse fons iustitias Deus specialitsr occidi iubet, Quisquis hominem, vel ssipsum, vel quemlibst occiderit, homi- cidii orimine tenetur.' This is a quote from Augustine's Civi- tas Dei, I, xxi made in Jonas' Ca itula, cap. iv. 191bid., cap. 1: "sicut beatus Augustinus in libro de Bono perseverantias dicit, 'Nihil sit nisi quod aut Deus facit, aut fieri iuste psrmittit, cum boni reges regnant, sicut Dei Static boni sunt, ita st Dso agents regnant, sicut ipse dicit, 'Psr ms reges rsgnant,' st cum mali reges regnant, sicut mali sunt suo vitio, ita st regnars permittuntur divine iudicio, in- terdum ooculto, sed numquam iniuste. . . .’ Because of his pe- sition on the predestination question, Hincmar changed Jonas ' be- lief that God ggvs men bad kings to God Egrmits bad kings. portunities. He are ignorant of the time of our approaching death, and since nothing can be accomplished once we are dead, it remains that before death.we snatch at whatever time is granted us.‘20 Hincmar wished to convince Charles that the objective meaning found in the world has no relevance to his own value as a person. For instance, worldly power is a source of mean- ing which should be distinguished from the real nature of man. Excessive interest in worldly matters is in itself a grave sin, and he who pursues this risks spiritual death "just as a dog keenly following upon the tracks of a wild boar or stag per- ishes by the tooth or horn of his prey."21 The opinion others have of him can serve only to divert Charles from‘what he knows that political necessity requires. Adulation is a most psr- nicious disease which seizes upon the mind, and it is inane to believe what others think of us rather than.what we know to be true.22 Charles should tailor his acts not to win the 20D. cavendis vitiis, praef.: 'Quia ergo st ventures mortis tempus ignoramus, st post mortem operari non pcssumus, a“Perest ut ants mortem tempors indulta rapismus.‘ 21Ibid., cap. v: "Grave namque est curiositstis viti- um, Quae dum cuiuslibst msntsm sd investigandsm vitam proximi sxtsrius ducit, semper ei sua intima abscondit, ut aliens sci- ens ss nescist, st curiosi animus, quanto psritus fuerit sli- sni msriti, tanto fist ignsrus sui. Et saepe dun curiosus quisqus quae sunt aliens investigst, suam molestism sxcitst, sicut sanis apri vsl csrvi ssgacitsr vsstigia inssqusns, con- sequuti dents vel cornu perit." 22Ibid., praef.: 'Perniciosissima siquisdsm psstis est sdulatio, st cito subripit msntsm, nisi fuerit in ipse remote initio. Discutisndum igitur nobis est quid ds nobis audismus, et probars quid dicatur ex nobis. Crsdamus quis stultum est Plus aliis ds nobis quam nobis ipsis credere.‘ - 253 - praise of others, but do what is right in his own opinion, lest human esteem and gratitude divert him from his proper course s23 The idea of distinguishing between worldly office and the holder of that office is, of course, not original. Jonas and others before him had recognized that anyone having sle- vatsd positions in the world would be tempted by the flattery~ of others and the consciousness of his own fortune to take a self-satisfied view of the state of his soul. But Hincmar turns a moral admonition to political advantage by using it to free the king from criticism as well as flattery. The heart of Jonas' position is that the office one enters is for the benefit of others, and such worldly position is not indicative of one's own essential worth. The officer must always look into his heart, keeping in mind his natural equality'with all men and the superficiality of his temporal dignity. "For as much as power is externally conspicuous, so must it be dis— Paraged, lest it overcome the faculty of rational thought, lest in self-satisfaction it ravish the mind, lest now that the mind cannot rule itself, it submits to it in the passion 2h of domination." But for Hincmar, the freeing of the office ‘ _ 23Ibid., praef.: "Quasi latrunculus est enim appstitus laudis humanae, qui recto itinere gradientibus ex latere iun- Bitur, ut ex occultis educto gladio grandisntium vita trucids- tur. Cumque propositae utilitatis intentio ad studio private deducitur, horrendo modo unum idemqus opus culpa psragit, quod virtus inchoavit." "Unde etiam in bonis quae agimus necesse est ut cum magna cautela timeamus, ne per hoc quod a nobis rectum agitur favor aut gratia humans rsquiratur, ns appstitus laudis subripiat, st quod foris ostenditur, intus a msrcsds Vacustur.” - 25h - holder from the worldly definition of his action permits him the liberty to respond adequately to political necessities, whether the invasion of a land in violation of legal restraints or the execution of a son. Hincmar was also interested in keeping Charles' person- al obligations to a minimum, for these, too, could hinder the freedom of royal action. Particularly in the case of oaths, the royal office would find itself inhibited by the personal commitments of its holder. He advised Charles to avoid taking oaths, but should they prove necessary, then they are to be undertaken in all sincerity.25 The general implication of Hincmar's political thought after the late 860's is a strengthening of the royal office. In each case thus far examined, there can be found personal motives which might have encouraged Hincmar to take such a 2“De regis persona, cap. iii: "Cum ergo potentiae tem- poralis ministerium suscipitur, summa curs vigilandum est, ut sciat quisque st sumere ex illa quod adiuvat, st sxpugnars quod tentat. Teneamus ergo sxtsrius quod pro aliorum utilita- te suscepimus, tsnsamus interius quod de nostra asstimatione sentimus. . . . Servata autem auctoritate rsgiminis, ad cor nostrum sine csssatione rsdsamus, st considersmus assidue Quod sumus asqusliter cum ceteris conditi, non.quod temporali- tsr ceteris praslati. Potestas enim.quanto sxtsrius eminst, tanto prsmi interius debet, no cogitationsm'vincat, us in de- lsctstions sui animum rspiat, ns iam sub ss mens sam.regsrs non possit, cui ss libidins dominsndi supponit.” 250s cavendis vitiis, cap. v: ”Cevsndum est igitur iuramsntum, multo magis autem periurium..At si iursndi necessi- tas psrurgst st srctat, id puris verbis st mente pis geren- dum est. Nsc iursns vsrbi arts ss putet fallers Dominum Posse, cui nihil absconsum est, cui corda cuncta patent, qui non accipit sicut quis iurat, sed ut is cui iuratur iurasss putet." - 255 - stand. The most obvious and persistent of these was his fear that the implications of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals would destroy the rational concordia between spiritual and worldly action which had been his ideal before 865. Now that this uni- ty of action had been threatened on the practical level, Hinc- mar's attitude toward the royal office reflects a willingness to return to the king the personal initiative of a Charlemagne or Louis the Pious, but without abandoning the Christian ob- jective definition of the royal office. For Charles to achieve a greater freedom of action and to find justifications for transcending the political situation, it was first necessary to free the king from the inhibitions of traditional modes of action and Christian values, the former hindering positive ac- tion in the world and the latter providing means often inap- propriate to the needs of the time. Hincmar's recommendations regarding the punishment of Carloman, an act which ran con- trary to Christian values and to the traditional prejudices against shedding the blood of a relative, shows the develop- ment of a phenomenology of office allowing the king to respond freely to political necessity. Henceforth not onlwaould the concordance of offices be non-objective-that is, mystical, for the unity necessarily exists only in the mind of God, but also the action of office itself would be freed of objective criteria and find its sole meaning in its relation to God's will. CHAPTER XI THE ITALIAN SUCCESSION AND THE MYSTIC CONCORDANCE 0F OFFICES Both Charles the Bald and Louis the German had for some time looked forward to an opportunity for adding the Ital- ian realm to their territories. In 868 they had mutually sworn that, were it God's will for the domains of their ne- phews to fall into their hands, they would amicably arrive at an equitable division. Although Charles had taken advantage of the situation at Lothar II's death in 870 to seize all of Lothringia before his brother could act, they ultimately divi- ded the middle kingdom between them at Meerssn in 870. Then in the fall of 875 came the news from Italy that the Emperor Louis II had died, leaving no male heir. The details of Charles' res- ponse to this opportunity for obtaining not only the crown of Italy, but also inheriting Louis' imperial title are not of immediate concern in the present context, but it is important to observe Hincmar's reaction, for in it one perceives his new attitude toward the role of the bishop in political life. It is instructive to keep in mind that when Charles learned of Louis' death, he appears at that point to have a1- resdy laid careful plans to snatch what must have been for him a valuable prize. Louis died an.August 12. Couriers trans- -256- - 257 - mitted the message across the Alps and to the king in the Ardennes. Upon receipt of the news, Charles called together his supporters at the council of Ponthion, gathered his army, and‘was on his way to Italy by September 1-—all this within only eighteen days!1 The prime object of such an exceptionally well planned and executed move is not easily ascertained. Once in possess- ion of the imperial title, he found little difficulty obtain- ing the crown of Lombardy——perhaps this was the major goal he had in mind. Whether there was more involved-—such as re- uniting Europe under one head-—is hard to determine simply in light of subsequent events. There are hints hers and there that at least the papacy saw the imperial dignity as having wide ideological implications, but what impact such ideas had on Charles remains obscure.2 When he later asked his fideles to recognize his new title at Ponthion, he shocked many by adorning himself in Byzantine garb. Whatever he may have in. tended, it was not revealed in the course of this meeting. 1Annales Bertiniani, a. 875: "Karolus mense augusto ad Duciacum sscus Ardvsnnam pervenit, ubi certo nuntio Hludo- wicum nepotem suum Italiae imperatorem obisse comperit. Qua- proptsr mox inde movens, ad Pontigonem pervenit . . . kalendis GOPtembris itsr suum incoepit, st per Sancti Mauricii monas- terium pergens, msntsm Iovis transiit st Italiam ingressus fuit." 2One obtains some idea of the papal ideas from Percy Ernst Schramm, Der Konig von Frankreich (2nd ed.: Weimar, 1960), I, 32-h3. Although Schramm believes Charles sought to re-occupy the position in Europe once held by Charlemagne, other interpretations are possible. Suggesting a Byzantine model is Werner Ohnsorge, 'Byzanz und das Abendland im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert: Zum Entwicklung des Kaissrbegriffs und der Staatsidsologis," Saeculum, V (195k), 19h-220. - 258 - Likewise, his subsequent attempt to expand his borders at the expense of Louis the German reveals nothing strikingly new in European diplomacy. Whatever he may have thoughtcdfhis new title, it could not fundamentally alter the political situa- tion, for the Carolingian monarchs were no longer in a position to act unilaterally and contrary to the will of their fideles -now well entrenched as independent foci of power in their own right. Regardless of what Charles may have sought, it does seem clear that Hincmar understood his prime ambition to be the winning of north Italy, although he appears rather doubt- ful of its being worth the shedding of Christian blood.3 Hincmar felt that the agreement of Metz, proposing a peaceful division of Lothringia and Italy, should be observed, or if not, then contradictory claims at least not be so ardently pursued that it lead to discord among bishops, disruption of the church, affliction of the people, and fighting among the magnates.“ As subsequent events show, Hincmar was neither 3Hincmar makes no mention of the imperial title, but assumes that the conflict between the brother is over the king- dom of Italy. He recalled the whole affair in rather negative terms (Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. v): "Mortuo autem Hludowico fratre Hlotharii in Langobarida, requisite est patri vsstro a fratre suo st a filiis eius pars ds regni illius: un- de adhuc vivente Hludowico, sed et anno prasterito, tales de- venerunt missriae, sicut vobis sunt notae, st hoc anno talis Provenit lugenda infslicitas, quae per universum pens mundum, st per future tempors merito erit in opprobrium." He attri- butes Charles' motive as a desire to appropriate Italy (De f1- Carlo servanda, cap. iii): "regnum . . . defendant, donsc ip- se adepto regno ad quod accipiendum ivit, auxiliante Domino revertatur in pace.” thid., cap, xi: ”st quae conditio de regnis nepotum suorum inter illum st fratrem eius sit sacramento firmata, u- - 259 - to Charles' real ambitions nor even consulted concerning roy- al policy in general. However Charles may have looked at the matter, Hincmar certainly did not see the Italian adventure as a political ne- cessity. In fact, it was mistaken of Charles to forsake his kingdom and try his luck in Italy without adequate provision for his own realm's defense. Although he had made advance pre- parations for his march south, the requirements of secrecy de- manded that many steps vital for the continuance of order within his realm be made at Ponthion only after the news of Louis II's death. The Annales Bertiniani state that this in- volved calling tegether as many "councillors" of the region as possible and "from whomever Charles was able, to obtain sup- port for his march."5 This suggests that the approval of his fideles was not included in Charles' advance arrangements, and that his request for support was not too enthusiastically received. From Ponthion he proceeded to Langres, where, ap- parently still anxious to hide his intentions and conceal those who were destined to accompany him into Italy, he sent his wife Richilde to Servais and his son Louis Balbus into the Part of Lothringia under his control.6 While Charles was cros- tinam aut ignoraretur, aut inter eos ipsa conditio servaretur, et neque discordia ecclesiarum praesules, et servi ac ancillae Domini inquietarentur, et Christianus papulus affligeretur, ac inter regni primores viscerale bellum insurgeret, et rapinas ac depraedationes rerum ecclesiasticarum, atque divitum seu Pauperum conflagrarent." 5Annales Bertiniani, a. 875: "ad Pontigonem pervenit et quoscumque potuit de vicinis suis consiliariis obviam sibi venire praecepit et a quibuscumque valuit suppetias in itin- ere suo accepit." -260- sing into Italy, his wife and his son fulfilled the responsi- bilities of the royal office in West Francia. This raised an interesting question concerning the theory of royal office which Hincmar felt compelled to study. In light of the greater emphasis which Hincmar had placed in recent years on political necessity, an interpreta- tion of his attitude toward the events of 875 must consider what the archbishop felt to be the real as well as the ideo- logical parameters of royal action. It has already been in- dicated that Hincma‘ found no compelling reason why Charles should mix in Italian affairs. Furthermore, he was well aware of the need for firm leadership at home. Shortly after Charles' departure, Hincmar wrote a tract to the bishops and magnates (proceres) of the province of Rheims entitled De fide Carlo servanda, recommending that, whatever complaints they might have against the king, nothing permitted them to neglect their sword fidelity. He observed that ”now that the realm is sur- rounded by pagansl:the Norse] and false Christians-—that is, the Bretons-—and, as we have said, is perturbed by the viscer- al commotions which for some time now the fideles and govern- ment officials have been seen to cause in it," it is better not to enter into a conflict over Italy.7 6Ibid.: "Et inde Lingonas pervenit st eos quos secum in Italia ducere praedestinavit operuit; sicque Richildem, uxorem suam, per civitatem Remis ad Silvacum remittens, st fil- ium suum Hludowicum in partem regni quam post obitum Hlotharii nepotis sui contra fratrem suum accepit dirigens. . . ." 7De fide Carlo servanda, cap. xi: "Nunc autem qualiter regnum istud undique a paganis et falsis Christianis, ecilicet - 261 — The traditional view of the royal office presumed that the king was never so far away as to hinder seriously his per- sonal leadership. In practice, face-to-face ties between the king and his fideles continued to be essential for the effi- cient carrying out of political responsibilities, for the roy- al presence enabled the magnates to work together (hopefully) in the interests of the commonwealth. But even on the theore- tical level, the objective idea of royal office discouraged any physical absence of the king's person. The belief that through God's grace the king was able to pass Judgment and provide a correctio for the people in conformity with the di- vine will assumed the personal involvement of the monarch. Although some responsibilities could be delegated, neverthe- less, it was the presence of the royal person which ensured the smooth functioning of the whole and provided a final court of appeal. In light of the problems facing Francia-—the long stan- ding external threats and internal discord cited by Hincmar- it is necessary to ascertain what measures Charles took to meet such political necessities at home. While stil gres, he directed his wife Richilde (Queen Irmentrude had died in 869) to proceed through Rheims to Servais, apparently to reconfirm, in the absence of her husband, the oaths taken by the fideles to their king.8 Extraordinary as it was for a ¥ Britonibus, sit circumscriptum, st ut ita dicamus, viscerali commotione de his, qui aliquandiu in so fideles ac utiles visi fuerant extitisse, sit perturbatum: et quae conditio de rennis . . . aut ignoraretur, aut inter eos ipsa conditio servaretur - 262 - queen to be a party to oaths made to a king in absentia, she also deprived the chamberlain and master of the horse, Engil- ram, of his honors and position in the government-undoubted- 1y a result of his suspect loyalty.9 However appropriate the measures taken by the queen were, they certainly ran counter to traditional expectations of royal responsibility. Charles suspected that Louis the German would seek to force his return from Italy by invading West Francia in his absense. Therefore, he sent his son Louis Balbus into Loth- ringia to block any German advance.10 It was probably Engil- ram who reported to Louis the German Charles' departure for Italy and advised him to act immediately.11 While the magnates in rebellion against Charles rushed to give support to Louis' son, Louis the Younger, a propaganda war commenced which 8See note 5 above. Somewhat later in the year we learn that Richilde had confirmed the oaths of the magnates to their king (Annales Bertiniani, a. 875): "Ad quem obsisten- dun1primores regni Karoli, iubente Richilde regina, sacramen- to se confirmavsrunt, quod non adtsnderunt, sed ex sua parts regnum Karoli psssumdantss. . . ." 91bid.: "Engilramno, quondam Karoli regis camerario st domestico, suasions Richildis reginae ab honoribus deiecto et a sua familiaritate abiecto. . . ." 1OThe Annales Fuldensis specifically state that Louis' purpose was "ut sum de Italia exire compelleret.” The Annales Bertiniani (see note 5 above) observed that Charles had sent his son to guard the frontier in Lothringia against Louis the German. 11Annales Bertiniani, a. 875: "Hludowicus vero, per- suadente Engilramno . . . cum hosts st filio ac aequivoco suo Hludowico usque ad Attiniacum venit. Ad quem obsistendum pri- mores regni Karoli, iubente Richilde regina, sacramento se con- firmaverunt, quod non adtsnderunt, sed ex sua parts regnum Karoli pessumdantes, hostili more devastaverunt. Similiter et Hludowicus sum suo exercitu idem regnum in possum dedit. . . .' -253- raised some fundamental questions regarding Charles' role as king 0 What makes this prepaganda particularly interesting is that it originated within Charles' own territory rather than being an immediate product of Louis' machinations. Hinc- mar notes that when Charles is able to read the accusations, he will seek to correct himself, should any be true. When Louis reads them, he would be better advised to judge his own performace in light of the criticisms of Charles.12 Hincmar reviewed the arguments brought out by those supporting Charles' action as follows: New, however, whereas Charles left us and his realm of his own free accord and proceeded right on to Italy, it has been asserted by the mouths of many that Louis was coming with hostile intent to take over the kingdom, and Charles is said to have disposed military units-—in common parli- ance, posses-and to have deputized magnates for these bands to reisist his brother, lest he succeed in occupy- ing his realm. Also, that these, by the order of his wife, with his son Louis, are defending his kingdom from all enemies, whether Christian or pagan, with the council and help of the bishops and certain councillors.1 12De fids Carlo servanda, cap. ii: "Quatenus si rex noster ea lsgsrit quae ds illo dicuntur, si vsra sunt illa corrigat, si autem vera non sunt, de cstsro admittere caveat. Si autem st frater eius domnus Hlodowicus ea lsgerit, quae de fratre illius dicuntur notabilia caveat, st quae de 1110 lau- dabilia promittuntur exequi studeat.” 13Ibid., cap. iii: "Nunc atuem, quia domnus Karolus nos et regnum istud sponte reliquit, et in Italiam perrexit, domnus noster Hludowicus multorum oribus accipere regnum is- tud hostiliter venturus asseveratur, st domnus Carolus b911a- torum acies, quae vulgari sermons scaras vocamus, dispositae, st eisdem acisbus primores deputatos ad resistendum fratri suo, ne regnum illius occupare valeat, habere dicitur, qui iussione uxoris suae, cum filio suo Hludowico, regnum suum ab omnibus tam Christianis quam paganis hostibus, cum consilio st auxilio OPiscoporum ac ceterorum consiliariorum suorum defendant, do- use ipse adepto regno ad quod accipiendum ivit, auxiliante Do- mino revertatur in pace." - 26h - In sum, the essential responsibility for the defense of the realm had been adequately dealt with by delegation, and Charles had satisfied the constitutional requirement of obtaining 2227 silium and auxilium from the bishOps and at least a number of magnates. Although each of these justifications was open to dispute, they' were not altogether untrue. For instance, Hinc- mar noted that ministers of the republic had received a royal order to obtain the consilium and, by implication, the auxili- gm of the bishops.1h But there was another side of the argument to which Hincmar felt obliged to give some attention. He noted first that it is said that Louis was not coming simply to invade West Francia, but to restore it from destitution, defend it, procure peace and justice, and provide the church and its clergy with due honor and defense so that they and the people committed to them would not be exposed to danger.15 The im- plication of this recital of Louis' motives is that the central justification of his advance was the lack in West Francia of anyone to fulfill royal functions-—notably, to defend the 1I"Ibid., cap. iv: "in consilio, quod a nobis reipubli- cae ministri secundum domni regis mandatum petierint. . . ." 15Ibid., cap. ii: "Igitur dicamus libers Domini sacer- dotes, quae dicuntur notabilia et reprehensibilia de rege nos- tro, et quae dicuntur laudabilia promises de fratre eius dom- no rege Hludowico, qui venturus asseveratur in hoc regnum fra- tris sui. . . ." Ibid., cap. viii: "cum supervsnturus rex, ut fertur, dicat se non.venire ad regnum invadendum, sed ad destitutum restituendum, st defendendum, et pacem ac iustiti- am in so procurandam, et sanctae ecclesiae ac eius sacerdoti- bus debitum honorem ac defensionem exhibendam, et nos st oves nobis commissae periclitari videbimur." - 265 - church and the realm and to provide justice. To this Hincmar added other objections to Charles' withdrawal into Italy: We hear complaints from the people that it is not right for our king to abandon without consultation the kingdom, which is surrounded by pagans, internally disturbed and unsound, and to relinquish and desert the regents and de- fenders, whom he appointed to carry out God's will and who commended themselves to him for this purpose.16 Thus, the criticism of Charles assumes that a constitutional change had been arrived at in an improper manner, for not only was it done without consultation, but the regents could not be expected to carry out their tasks in the absense of the king. It must be born in mind that the personal absense of the king in times of emergency could be considered tantamount to abdication. Charles seems to have taken some precautions so that the royal functions would continue to be carried out, but for his contemporaries, this satisfied neither ideological nor constitutional prerequisites. Another factor to be considered before an evaluation can be made of Hincmar's position in the conflicting inter- pretations of Charles' actions is the extent to which prepa- ganda was meant to obscure underlying material interests. Hincmar implies that some were, in fact, tempted to break their loyalty to the king because of worldly gain, but also, there may have been legitimate complaint regarding past injuries.17 161b1d., cap. xii: "quad et a plebeiis conqusri audi- mus, quoniam non oportuerat regem nostrum regnum istud, a pa- ganis undique circumdatum, st intra commotum et non solidum, inconsultem dimittere, ac quos regendos et defendos iudicio Dei suscepit, et qui ad has 1111 se commendaverunt, relinguere ‘c doaeree e e e" - 266 - In 875 there was no wholesale shifting of loyalties as had occurred during Louis' invasion of West Francia in 858. This suggests that the West Frankish magnates had little faith ei- ther in the success of Louis' venture of the reliability of the East Frankish king. Rather than defend Charles' rule, Hincmar merely states that he is confident Charles will seek to correct those reprehensible acts for which he is responsi— ble.18 Whatever troubles the bishOps or magnates have suffer- ed the the past, it hardly serves as an excuse to invite Louis 19 into West Francia. Although the reader is uncertain just what these complaints against Charles were and to what extent material advantage played a part, there seems in De fids Carlo a clear suggestion that the theoretical implications of the current prepaganda were worth Hincmar's serious consideration. In light of these important questions, it is truly re- markable that Hincmar never directly responsded to the centre- dictory viewpoints he so carefully summarized in his tract, and his own position in the matter must be ascertained by ne- gative means. Addressing the magnates and bishops of Rheims, h 17Ibid., cap. viii: "Nos quidem, quia non pastores sed mercenarii, et apud Deum et apud homines iudicabimur." Ibid., cap. xxxiii: “Est etiam, quoniam ab alio quocumque iuste et rationabiliter credi non poterimus neque debemus, si quocumgue terreno lucro vel illata iniuria, salva in Deum fids, seniori nostro fidem non servaverimus." 18Ibid., cap. ii: "Quatsnus si rex noster ea legsrit Quae de 1110 dicuntur, si vera sunt illa corrigat, si autem vera non sunt, de cstero admittsrs caveat.” 19Ibid., cap. x11; "gt quia dicimus, non debere fret- rem suum regnum eius . . . invaders, aliquod incommodum passi fuerimus, patienter inlata portemus pro Christa. . . .' -257- he noted that the sheep committed to them wandered without a pastor and were dispersed, and that the resources of the church, which ought to be maintained for their support, being left without custodians, were plundered and devastated so long as they lacked the virtue of the king, by whose power they are defended.20 But Hincmar does not, as he well might have, use this worldly necessity to justify an appeal to Louis. For this he advances a double argument. First, the Christian vir- tue of humility demands the patient bearing of worldly burdens, and thus, Charles' improprieties should be faced in a similar spirit.21 A more telling argument was based on the idea of Christian kingship. The royal office is divinely imposed, and it is wrong for any man to resist the anointed of God.22 The first conclusion to be drawn from these arguments is that, however great the emphasis which Hincmar placed on ggcessitas for determining royal action, he did not extend this idea to the magnates of the realm. Apparently, the dir- 20Ibid., cap. viii: 'oves autem nobis commissae, quia sine pastors errabunt vel dispergentur, et facultates ecclesi- asticae, quibus sustentari debent, velut relictae sine custo- dibus, diripientur ac vastabuntur, si defuerit virtus princi- pis, cuius potestate defendantur, vel custodes, qui pro ovi- bus et earum alimoniis principi st defensori ac tutori ecclesi- ae suggerant.” 21Ibid., cap. xii:"patienter inlata portemus pro Chris- to, quia pro veritate illa sustinebimus, imitatores pro modulo nostro eorum, qui 'ibant gaudentes, quoniam digni habiti sunt Pro nomine Iesu contumeliam pati.'” 22Ibid., cap. xxxiii: "'Imposuisti homines super capi- ta nostra,‘ dominum st regem ipsum persecutorem suum vocabat, st cum saepe habuerit opportunitatem ut illum posset occidere, non solum non occidit, sed et socios ab eius occisione compos- cuit, dicens, 'Absit, ut mittam manum in christum Domini, quia unctus Domini est.'” — 268 - ect tie between the royal office and God granted it the free- dom necessary to give an unhindered response to the political situation rather than the imperatives of worldly action them- selves. Should a deeper appreciation of the latter have been the major reason for the change in Hincmar's idea of the roy- al office, then he would have applied the same principle to magnates facing serious difficulties without the support of their king. Furthermore, Hincmar's arguments for continued loyalty to Charles also reveal an increasing cleavage between the royal office and other positions subordinate to it. In response to the mounting troubles in the realm, Hincmar attem- ted to free the king from the worldly discipline of law and custom ‘while at the same time demanding an.ever greater un- questioned obedience on the part of all subjects. Despite a firm loyalty to his king, Hincmar's stand does reflect serious misgivings about Charles' course of ac- tion. He had many times in the past defended him against un- just accusations, but here he cites the charges without deny- ing them, merely showing how they are irrelevant to the essen- tial question at hand: whether the magnates will continue to observe their oaths of fidelity. However, he does state that the realm was torn by strife when Charles left, and he also suggests that the flock was abandoned to its own fate, thus aPPsaring to be in sympathy with the concrete objections of the propaganda favoring Louis the German. But more important than these practical matters is the theoretical question.whioh lay at the core of their objection. Can the ultimate responsi- - 269 - bilities of the royal office be fully delegated to others with- out constitutional and religious formalities? The context of Hincmar's theory of the royal office and his stand in the pre- sent crisis reflect his belisf that they cannot, and he must have been sincerely dismayed over Charles' policies in the winter of 875. Hincmar's De fids Carlo ssrvanda also sheds light on his new attitude toward the interaction of the royal and epis— copal offices in political life. The idea of the rational concordance of the two offices would tend to encourage the direct participation of the church in an internscins dispute, for there would be no sharp cleavage expected between church action and political ends of which it approved. However, in 875, Hincmar is anxious to preserve a strict neutrality, fin- ding a mystic (non—rational) solution to the anguish of de- ciding between Charles' request for support against Louis and the obvious need for order promised by the German king. No longer does Hincmar, as he insisted in 858, call for a gener- al synod representing the whole church north of the Alps to propose solutions for the crisis. God's will now expresses itself on the field of battle rather than through an assembly of bishops. Hincmar states that, while the ministers of the repub- lic had asked for the consilium of the bishops, the definition of the episcopal office clearly limits the nature of the coun- cil and aid which can be given. Following the mandate: grant - 27o - unto Caesar what is Caesar's, the archbishop concludes that the only auxilium he can give is to pray to God for an end to the spilling of Christian blood, particularly among brothers, 23 acquaintances, and relatives. As for consilium, the church has every right to contribute to the defense against pagans, but in civil war among Christians, the sources provide a dif- ferent answer.24 The bishOps are placed between the two bro- thers as between hammer and anvil, for while Charles tarries in Italy, Louis is on his way to relieve an unprotected church. Lacking any firm precedent, Hincmar decides that he would not recommend giving Louis support, particularly in view of the king's supposed purpose of bringing a restoration and defense for the destitute.25 — He makes the last remark because, should 23Ibid., cap. iv: ”Qua de re nobis episcopis satis agendum est, ne in consilio, quod a nobis reipublicae ministri secundum domni regis mandatum petisrint, a nostra ministerie excidamus, et ne de auxilio, quantum Deus unicuique nostrum posse dederit, abscsdamus, sequentes sententiam Domini dicen- tis, 'Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo.‘ In auxilio igitur praebeamus arms divina, ieiunia, ora- tiones . . . et auxilio divina ut non effundatur sanguis Chris- tianus seditionali certamins inter fratres st cognatos atque propinquoa e e e e 0! 2“Ibid., cap. v: "Si enim contra paganos bellum im- minerst, consilium daremus bellatoribus nostris, et hortare- mur eos adhortationibus, quas in litteris ecclesiasticis legi- mus. Nunc autem, quia civile et plusquam civile bellum inter Christianos instare opinamur, patrum innitentes vestigiis, v1- deamus quid ad haec sit nobis agendum." 25Ibid., cap. viii: "Inter duos reges earns fratres, de hoc regno in quo degimus satagentibus, velut inter malle- um et incudem, episcopi sumus. Si enim, quia secessit longi- us in regnum aliud rex noster, in adventu superventuri regis, ecclesiae nostrae quaquaversum nemine persequente, vel prae- iudicium, ut dicitur, inferre moliente, sugientes discesseri— mus, et nos ad superventuri tutelam regis non contulerimus, Pressertim, cum superventurus rex, ut fertur, dicat se non ven- ire ad regnum invadendum, sed ad destitutum restituendum et defendendum. . . ." Louis' objectives truly be pacific, he would not have need of military aid. The difficulty facing Hincmar concerning the partici- pation of the church in the conflict between the two kings—— between.two contradictory necessities, for defense and for obeying authority-ds resolved not by an appeal to logic, but to a mystical search for the will of God. In truth we are placed between the hammer and the anvil, and whatever is laid there is crushed, either to be shat- tered to pieces, or to be formed and shaped. Just as we read in the Book of Numbers, the Lord ordered Moses to make wrought silver trumpets between hammer and anvil, the din of which.was to bring forth the peeple to the worship of God and also to enflame the minds of the obedient for war. Between the hammer and the anvil we seek trumpets wrought in silver-—that is, God's eloquence-because it is the ”Silver tested by fire, seven times refined," making them resistant and viable. For their instruction we eag- erly learn in the anguish of our confusion.what we are to do in connection.with the necessary war, for otherwise we are cru hed and shattered to pieces between the hammer and anvil. No longer is church participation in political life so easily determined by rational or legal justifications. Hincmar, when now caught between apparent contradictions in his situation, 26Ibid., cap. xiii: "Verum, quia inter malleum et in- cudem positi sumus, st quod inter malleum et indudem ponitur aut frangitur vel conquassatur, vel producitur st formatur, sicut Numerorum libro legimus praecepisse Dominum Moysi, ut faceret tubas argenteas inter malleum st incudem productiles, quae clangore suo ad solemnitates Dei populum excitarent, at- que audientium animos ad bellum accenderent.” "Quaeramus tu- bas argenteas inter malleum et incudem productas, id est elo- quia Domini,cnnx1est 'argentum igne examinatum, purgatum sep- tuplum,' relucentes et virtute vigentes, quorum doctrina ad bellum necessarium et imminens discamus in perturbationis nos- trae angore quid nobis agendum sit, ne inter malleum et incu- dem frangamur vel conquassemur, sed producamur atque formemur, ut per eorum vestigia inoffenso pede gradientes non aberremus." - 272 - seeks in anguish to discover God's will. Whatever active participation Charles' ministers may have requested from the bishOps, Hincmar firmly pursued a course of passive resistance. If, despite Hincmar's recommen- dation that the magnates respect their duty of fidelity to Charles, there appears no military resistance to Louis' ap- proach, then the church must acquiesce to the changed politi- cal situation and offer the new king all support consonant with their offices.27 Naturally, should God approve that Charles return, the bishOps would welcome him with joy, but were God's will contrary to their hopes, then they would obey in a sincere devotion and faith.28 No longer does Hincmar call for a general synod to resolve the differences between Charles and Louis as in 858 or even as in connection.with Lo- thar's divorce in 862. The higher dignity ofths episcopal of- fice and its influential role in political life is no longer the channel of God's will concerning the direction of political affairs. In 875, Hincmar understood God's will to be express- sd directly in the course ef political history without any ne- 27Ibid., cap. xxxvii: "Videlicst, si supervsnerit rex alius in regnum senioris nostri, st non fuerit militaris man- us quae ei resistat, sequamur nos episcopi, st in ordinatione ordinis nostri, et in censervatione fidei erga senierem nos- trum, patrum vestigia, st in receptions, et in ceteris, munus Placatienis erga superventurum regem, videlicet in receptiene.” ". . .quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, at Dec quae Dei sunt red- disse." 28Ibid., cap. xlii: "Si denique rex noster fuerit an- nuente Dee reversus, recipiamus sum cum gaudio. . . . Si vere, Qusd nen eptamus, alter iudicio Dei contigerit, devetionem ac fidem debitam erga illum sinceriter custodientes. . . .” - 273 - cessary intermediary ef the bishops. The action of the church within Christian society was to remain spiritual and its im— mediate ends and the state's were to be clearly distinct. As for the royal office, the archbishop wanted to en- sure it the greatest freedom to act in response to the needs of the political situation. Despite his doubts concerning the advisability of Charles' Italian venture, he made no direct criticism of the king and acquiesced to whatever the outcome would be. He trusted that Charles would seek to comply with God's will and by so doing would prosper in his enterprises. However, it was the religious implications of the royal office which permitted such a concordia, for Hincmar did not see in political necessity a justification for the magnates to turn to Louis for the requisite leadership needed to bring order to the troubled land. In neither the episcopal office nor the lower political offices did necessitas play a role-—it consti- tuded a factor in royal action alone. CHAPTER XII THE END OF CHARLES THE BALD'S REIGN AND THE CRISIS OVER THE ROYAL OFFICE When in 876 Charles the Bald returned in triumph to his realm, he held a general synod at Ponthion to have his new titles of emperor and king of Italy recognized and, further- more, to have the decrees of the council of Pavia held earlier in the year approved in West Francia. Although the meeting at Ponthion is generally referred to as a council, it was no- thing more than a synod wherein Charles sought to have the West Fankish church put its stamp of approval on his Italian venture. By adding his signature, Hincmar joined the rest of the churchmen in acquiescing to Charles' new dignities. In fact, however, he became a leading opponent at Ponthion of Charles ' attempt to enlarge his powers wherever he could. Charles be- lieved his new imperial title now permitted his going far be- yond the traditional limitations imposed on the royal office. However, he found that his every step was blocked, not only by Hincmar, but subsequently by the majority of the Frankish aristocracy. The formal expression of the emperor's new status was aPscified by the Iuramentum sworn at Pavia by the bishops and magnates of Italy and later demanded of the Frankish bishops -271... - 275 - at Ponthion. With the exception of repstitiously expressing a diversity of ties binding the fideles to the emperor, the oath contains few new elements. The subject must promise that for the duration of his life he will be faithful, obedient and helpful to his senior, providing auxilium and consilium (even "beyond the extent of one's knowledge and ability'!) and avoid any harm to his senior's honor, church, and realm.1 Hincmar signed the oath, but then proceeded to criticize it in detail, mocking the fruitless effort of the writer to find a theoretical expression for the power inherent in the newly won imperial dignity. Starting his attack with the oath's opening phrase, Hincmar objects to the words "I promise thus" being posited in such an aboluts manner as unrealistic, for we little know what lies in the future and in any case we are compelled to obey the will of God.2 Thus, Hincmar placed the dictates of conscience before any binding obligations to the king, but he undoubtedly meant this simply as the duty of his own epis- copal office rather than general license for anyone to resist the royal will should he think it to ill accord with God's “— 1Karoli II. imperatoris electio (M.G H. Ca it., II, 100): ”Sic promitto ego, quia de isto die in antea isti seni- ori meo, quamdiu vixero, fidelis st obediens st adiutor, quan- tumoumque plus et melius sciero st potuero, st consilio et aux- ilio secundum meum ministerium in omnibus ero. . e .' See al- so Hincmar's Iuramentum (Sirmond, II, 83h) for the same text as used at Ponthion. quramentum (Sirmond, II, 835): "Quod isto iuramento absolute positum est, 'Sic promitto sgo,‘ Iacobue Apostolus oontradicit, 'Qui ignoratis,' inquiens, 'quid sit in craetinum: Pro so ut dicatis, Si Dominus voluerit, faciemus hoc aut illus." - 276 - plans. Hincmar's whole theory of office rested on the assump- tion that officers would try their best to avoid superbia. The archbishop now had to face the truth that his ideas, while limiting authority in theory, could in practice encourage ab- solute rule, for there was no assurance the ruler would not use his position to satisfy personal ambition. While Hincmar had little choice but to sign the oath, his objections to it show how foreign to his thought was Charles' attempt to real- absolute and unilateral government in West Francia. Hincmar shows he is aware of Charles' superbia by ob- jecting to the use of the word senior in the oath, prefering that of imperator. He concedes that Charles may be more ex- cellent in the nobility of his person and in his imperial world- ly power, but he is not only younger than Hincmar, the Gelasi- an theory makes clear that the priestly order is superior to the lay.3 The implication of the word senior, expressing the archbishop'e subjection to the king, was undoubtedly meant by Charles the Bald to apply to Hincmar's person, but Hincmar in- troduces the idea of the higher authority of the sacerdotal office to register his dissatisfaction with a royal prerogative dictating his obligations. Hincmar made a petty objection to the wording of a Phrase in the oath which shows how much he wants to reserve k 3Ibid.: 'Ceterum rationabilius dicitur, isti Impera- tori, quam 'isti seniori meo,' qui est iunior aetate, licet sit excellentior personae nobilitate, st mundane imperii potestate, non autem sacri ordinis dignitate, sicut demonstrat sanctus Gelasius Papa soribens ad Anastasium. . . .' -277- absolute obedience to God alone and that worldly absolutes are to be avoided. The iuramentum expressed Charles' wish to re- ceive consilium and auxilium beyond the person's knowledge and ability. Hincmar found this to conflict with the monastic attitude that it is not proper to seek to know more than is fitting.“ He is referring to the traditional belief that guy Egrbia encourages an excessive interest in the world and draws a person's intentio away from God. Thus, excessive striving to satisfy the worldly demands of the emperor might obscure the subject's sense of what God demands of him. But it should be noted that such danger would not exist for Hincmar if he felt that there existed a rational concordance between the ‘worldly action of his own and his king's office, and both were filled in a spirit of humility. When the oath to Charles stated: "I will be faithful, obedient, and helpful, in all things, according to my office," Hincmar noted that such an oath is demanded by kings and lords from their subjects and even servants. But the Scriptures say that there is no man on earth who does only good and never sins. -— __ H uIbid.: 'Quod hic scriptus est, 'quantocumque plus st melius sciero et potuero,' non convenit apostolo dioenti, 'Non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem,' id est ad temperantiam.' 'Reotius igitur dictum est, Secun- dum meum scire et posse, quam, Quantocumque plus et melius s01- ero et potuero.‘ The monastic character of this can be appre- ciated when one compares it with Jean Lecleroq, "Un centon de Fleury sur les devoirs des mains," Analecta Monastioa, I (Cittd del Vaticano, 19h8), 75-90. This is a rich description of just what was implied by monastic renunciation at this time. -273- If it happens that our king, because of his absense, med- dles and orders something unbefitting the episcopal office, this wisest of writers [responsible for the oath] should consider whether the bishOp ought to be his obedient ac- complice in it. I would maintain that there exists no man who can be at the same time faithful, obedient, and cooperative with someone else in everything. Clearly, we would rather he always order and undertake things in'which we should and are able to comply. But the Apostle regognized this to be beyond human possibility, for all of us cannot do all things.5 Although there is a suggestion here that even the fideles might find it rather difficult always to obey their lord, Hinc- mar is primarily concerned with the liberty of his own epis- copal office. He was anxious to counter any appearance of theocratic kingship, such as Charles might seek new that he had the imperial title. However responsive subjects and ser- vants must be to the wishes of their lord, the bishop must preserve the freedom inherent within his office to obey the will of God and pursue the interests of the church. Especial- ly on the heels of the ill-advised Italian expedition, it had to be clearly specified that the church was free to dissociate 5Ibid., pp. 835-36: "Quod scripsit scribe doctus, 'Sec- dundum meum ministerium in omnibus scilicst fidelis, st obedi- ens, et adiutor ero,' contra consuetudinem iuramenti, quod principes et domini suis subiectis et etiam servis iurare iu- bent adscripsit. Sicut enim scripture dicit, 'Non est homo in tsrra qui faciat bonum, et non peccet, . . .'” "Si forte domnus noster, quod absit, subroptione aliquid iusserit vel egerit, quod episcopali ministerie non conveniat, videre debu- erat hic scriptor sagicissimus, si obediens et adiutor in hoc illi ipiscopus esse debeat. Et non puto ut ullus homo sit, Qui alteri homini in omnibus fidelis et obediens et adiutor in- simul esse possit.” 'Ut videlicet oupiamus sum ea semper iu- bere st semper agere, quibus debeamue st valeamus obedire, st ad quae illi debeamue et valeamus obedire, st ad quae illi debeamue et valeamus adiutores esse. Sed . . . aliter intel- lexit apostolus de humans possibilitate, quia non omnis pos- ‘umu. om..e e e s. -279- itself from any rash and foolhardy royal policies. Hincmar then launched into a long and sharp criticism of the duplication found in the oath. He noted that infidel- ity implies all the various machinations against the king which are so carefully spelled out in the oath. A detailed specification of all the means by which such disloyalty can be carried out Hincmar finds "ridiculous." Other phrases he finds "alien to reason" and the product of an "unsound mind.” More to the point would be an oathwwhichstates: "Besides the implications of my office, I will be faithful according to my knowledge and ability, just as an archbishop is rightly faithful to his emperor."6 Thus the personal tie of a bishop to his king-his fidelity, that is——ds conditioned by the demands of his office. And since the office must be free from royal obstruction, Hincmar feels an oath demanded from a bishop to be superfluous. The Iuramentum of the archbishop of Rheims then goes on to quote a series of passages from the Bible which discour- age or forbid the swearing of oaths. Furthremors, Hincmar considers the demand of an oath at this time to be a personal affront. 61bid., p, 837: "Nam sicut apostolus dicit, 'Dilsctio proximi malum non operatur,' st, 'Plenitudo legis est dilec- tio,’ st, 'Qui diligit, legem implevit, st, si quod est ali- ud mandatum, in hoc verbo instauratur,' ita omnia quae mente insane, quoniam caritate experts, scriptor iste conscripsit, in so continentur quod dictum est, 'Secundum meum scire ac Posse, iuxta ministerium meum fidelis ero, sicut archiepisco- Pus per rectum imperatori fidelis esse debet." Thus caritas rather than law is the chief characteristic of the episcopal ministerium. “—— - 280 - ‘Another oath should not now be required of me, who, for so many years, from youth to this advanced age, has served by written and spoken declarations. But it is not sur- prising if certain persons, burdened.with jealousy and without cause, have dislodged the friendly disposition of your mind to require of me what had not been required by either your father, who while living entrusted his secrets to me without hesitation for about eight years, or you for these past thirty six years.7 It is generally assumed that Hincmar was only one of many bish- ops who were requested to make this oath, but due to the lack of extant manuscripts, one cannot be certain in light of the above passage that Hincmar was not singled out to give formal attestation to a concept of imperial authority new to West Francia.8 The archbishop felt such an oath to be inappropri- ate in consideration of not only his past faithfulness, but also the dangers of compromising the freedOm of the episcopal office by worldly bonds. It would appear that Hincmar felt the imperial title added nothing to the position of Charles in Francia and might in fact encourage him into a dangerous 7Ibid.: "Et a me, qui . . . professa et subscripts per tantos annos a iuventute usque ad hanc senectutem servavi, nunc iuramentum aliud non debuisset requiri. Sed non mirum est, si per baiulos invidiae . . . sine cause animus benigni- tatis vestrae commotus nunc a me requirit, quod nec pater vee- tsr in vita sua, qui mihi per octo circiter annos secreta sua indebitanter credidit, requisivit, nec per triginta et sex annos hactenus requisistis." 8N0 manuscript superscriptions exist of Hincmar's oath, and only two modern editions give the following superscription: ”Iuramentum Hincmari archiepiscopi st reliquorum procerum." These are Sirmond, Concil. Galliae, III, 437, seq, and Baluze, Ca it., II, 235, seq. But it should be noted that when Sir- mond re-edited the oath in Hincmari Opgra, II, 83h, he simply entitled it: "Iuramentum quod Hincmarus Archiepiscopue edsre iussus est apud Pontigonem,“ and Baluze was actually editing the Pavia oath. Furthermore, there is no evidence that "232: cores" were at Ponthion. - 281 - presumption regarding his authority over the church. However much Hincmar disliked the implications of the Ponthion oath, his signing of it proves his unwillingness to break completely with the king. Nevertheless, there were a number of important issues brought up at this synod which met with his firm opposition.9 Charles had translated Bishop Fro- tarius of Bordeaux to Bourges and now was seeking the appro- val of the West Frankish bishops. Perhaps in his refusal to recognize the transfer Hincmar was recalling with bitterness Frotarius' refusal to cooperate in the condemnation of Hincmar of Leon at the ocuncil of Douzy in 871. It is equally possi- ble that the archbishop wanted in this manner to check any aspirations of the new emperor to take a firmer hand in the direction of the church. More important than this issue was the unwillingness of the gathered bishops to cooperate fully with their king in the appointment of Bishop Ansigisus of Sens as papal vicar north of the Alps. Charles sought for Ansigisus the power to convoke councils and apply papal decretals, except in the most important cases. In addition to this, the emperor had the fifteen articles adopted at Pavia recognized in the north. These emphasized the respect due to Rome from all churches and clerified regulations concerning bishops. Worth noting among the latter is that bishops act within their dioceses as the full representitives of the king in both potestas and auc- ‘ 9For Ponthion see Charles de Clercq, op.cit. - 282 - toritas.10 Also, the fifteenth article specifies that no one is permitted to protect or hide anyone unfaithful to the king.1 Both articles reflect Charles' ideas concerning the imperial authority. Although the former might seem to increase the power of the bishops, actually, by recognizing the bishops as the wielders of worldly potestas, it tends to compromise the independence of spiritual auctoritas from the will of the monarch. The latter article also blurs the theoretical dis- tinction between the royal and episcOpal offices, for the idea of ecclesiastical sanctuary assumes a possible diaparity be- tween the interests of state and Christian values. Being Rome's official protector and having a loyal bishop as papal vicar in both East and West Francia naturally tended to give Charles a considerable influence over the church. It is clear why Louis the German did everything pos- sible to frustrate Charles' plans, for he feared his brother now had both theoretical and practical strength for expansion toward the East. Hincmar, too, must have looked upon the Ansigisus appointment as a blow not only to his own prestige as the primate of Gaul, but also to his concept of the rela- 1oKarolii II. capitulare Papiense, a. 876 (M.G.H., Ca- it., II, no. 221), cap. xii: "Ipsi nihilominus episcopi sin- guli in suo episcopio missatici nostri potestate et auctori- tate fungantur.” 11Ibid., cap. xv: "Ut nemo fideliumnostrorum quodammo- do aliquem celet, quem nostrum scierit infidelem esse, neque si sustentationem quamcumque praestare pertentet, si sum nos- tram fidelitatem revocare nequiverit. Quicumque autem contra hoc fecerit, praedescessorum et progenitorum nostrorum iudi- cium experietur." 1 -283- tion of spiritual and political action. Hincmar's opposition.will not be recounted here in detail. Suffice it to say that the bishops gathered at Pon- thion said they were willing to obey the papal decretals, but that the claim of Ansigisus to represent the papacy should under no circumstances compromise metropolitan authority.12 Hincmar wrote a long work entitled De iure metropolitanorug, gum de Ansegisi primatu ageretur, the purpose of which was to assert his own primacy in the north. When Hincmar had re- ceived the pallium years before, he was given the primacy in Gaul, Belgica, and Germany, because he was the first metro— 13 politan ordained among the ones then in office. He appears at this time to have written the Vita Sancti_Remigii which also sought a historical Justification for the primacy of Rheims. To assert that Hincmar's sole motive was the preser- vation at any cost of his own personal dignity and the auto- nomy of the metropolitan office would be to miss its implica- 12Annales Bertiniani, a. 876: "Quorum responsio tal- is fuit, ut, servato singulis metropolitanis iure privilegii secundum sacros canones et iuxta decreta sedis Romanae ponti- ficum ex eisdem sacris canonibus promulgata, domni Iohannis papae apostolici iussionibus oboedirent. Et cum imperator et legati apostolici satis egerint ut absolute archiepiscopi res- Ponderent se oboedituros de primatu Ansigisi sicut apostoli- cus scripsit, aliud nisi ut praedictum est responsum ab sis extorquere non potuit. . . ." 130s iure metropolitanorum, cap. xvi: "Et quod de uno hoc primate Gallicano, qui a sede apostolica pallium acceper- at, dixit, hoc et de reliquis Gallicanorum et Belgicorum at- Que Germanicorum primatibus est utique intelligendem. Inter quos, sicut et inter reliquos episcopos, haec conditio re- gularis servatur, ut qui prius fuerit ordinatus, prior habea- tur." - 28h - tons for his political thought. When Hincmar lost hope in the efficacy of an inner worldly concordance between the epis- copal and royal offices, there were two possible alternatives left open to him: either to recognize the concurrence of world- ly and spiritual action in the person of the emperor, such as had been the case before Louis the Pious, or to emphasize the temporal distinction between political and religious ends, while preserving their concordance on a spiritual plane. The incompatibility of worldly action and Christian imperatives never presented much of a problem for Carolingian thinkers. This tendency to fuse the world and the spirit was further develOped by Hincmar as the only way to resolve the difficulties of a Christian acting in a world inimical to religious values. But Hincmar also held to an interpretation of the Gelasian theory which stated that it was Christ alone Who held worldly pptestas and sacerdtoal auctoritas, and thus, although the royal office contributed to the spiritualization of society, the king lacked spiritual authority. With.what- ever nostalgia Hincmar may have recalled the successful rule of earlier Carolingian monarchs, it certainly could not have included the re-incorporation of spiritual authority in king- ship. Hincmar's indifference or even appositon to Charles' assumption of the imperial title, then, becomes understandable. Perhaps seduced by the high dignity of his title and believing himself in a positon to enlarge his realm at his brother's expense, Charles undertook an expedition to extend -285- his eastern frontier to the Rhine. Louis had taken the pre- caution of submitting a number of his men to trial by water and iron, and the successful outcome encouraged the belief among them that God favored their cause. In October, 876, at Andernach, the first major battle between Carlongian monarchs in many years took place, and the outcome was such a devastat- ing defeat for Charles that a permanent blow was dealt to his own prestige as an effective war leader and to the royal of- fice. Even the Annales Bertiniani, which usually throws as good a light as possible on Charles' actions, observed that the emperor's hostile incursion into Louis' lands fulfilled the Scriptural saying:'"What, plunderers, will you not also be plundered?' Everything which the emperor's plunderers had was p1undered."1h Although Charles had proved himself unable to cape adequately with the difficulties facing his own lands, his new dignity now also meant he was responsible for the defense 15 of Italy against the Saracens. Pope John VIII repeatedly appealed to the northern monarch for support, but Charles suf- fered from a pleurisy which prevented any response until the summer of 877.16 He knew it was impossible to leave his 1“Annales Bertiniani, a. 876: "Et impletum est dictum prepheticum ubi ait: 'Qui praedaris, nonne et ipse praedaberis?' Omnia quae praedatores qui erant cum imperatore habuerunt, sed et ipsi praeda fuerunt, adeo ut qui amminiculo equorum effu- gore poterant, animas suae haberent pro spolio." 15For the last year of Charles' rule, see Calmette,‘2p. ci . 16The increasing desperate appeals of Pope John VIII are to be found in M.G.H., Epp., VII, nos. 31-33, 36. - 286 - lands in their present condition and thus sought to check the Norse raids through a tribute of 5000 librae of gold exacted from a resentful realm. This certainly must have been consi- dered an unworthy act in an age which so highly valued mili- tary prowess. Unable to defend the realm against the Norse or against internal feud, disgraced by an ignominious flight from Andernach, and now choosing to buy off the enemy so that he could once again absent himself from the realm which cried for his leadership, it is little wonder that Charles rapidly lost whatever sympathy there had existed for him in previous years. The church had particular grounds for complaint, for it was the most victimized by the lack of adequate leader— ship and defense, and furthermore, it carried the greatest burden of the tribute. Hincmar disapproved of this exaction, for undoubtedly he recognized that were the church thus forced to carry the burden of its own defense, its meeting of spiri- 17 tual responsibilities would be compromised. Charles knew that his health was precarious and that a full political settlement was a necessary prerequisite for his march into Italy. In June, 877, he called a council at Quierzy at which he formalized in law the traditional personal responsibility of the king to grant and guarantee the continu- ance of honors and benefices for the fideles. As in the case __ 17Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. viii: "ut Ec- lesiae in isto regno per occasionabiles circadas et per inde- bitas consuetudinarias exactiones, quae tempors Pippini, Caroli, et Hludowici non fuerunt, ante annos viginti imposi- tas non affligantur." - 287 - of the tributum normannicum, he sought to distribute the res- ponsibilities of the royal office onto the realm itself. One recalls that at Ponthon he had to do the same thing by recog- nizing the bishops as the competent wielders of royal authori- ty and power within their dioceses. Whether he recognized his personal weakness and that of his office to cope with politi- cal realities, of whether he simply wanted the freedom from responsibility in order to pursue the fruitless dream of uni- versal monarchy, Charles consistently pursued a policy in the 870's which reduced the importance of the monarchy in Frankish life because he went far beyond his resources in trying to overcome traditional demands placed on the monarchy by the bishops and magnates of the realm. Throughout his life Hincmar had constantly discouraged the king from making in- roads into the particular responsibilities and freedoms of the church. Nevertheless, he always tried to strengthen the position of the king within the definition of the royal office. This is perhaps one reason why Charles did not choose Hincmar as one of his son's advisors when he established at Quierzy a regency for the duration of his absence in Italy.18 In June, 877, Charles left for Rome despite the dis- approval of his fideles. This was the signal for the outbreak of the revolt which had been brewing for years but now invol- 19 ved nearly all the magnates and bishops of the realm. Hinc- 18The Quierzy document is found in M.G.H,, Capit., II, 355-363. 0f the regents appinted to care for the realm dur- ing Charles' absence, Hincmar's name is conspicuously missing. - 288 - mar's previous attitude toward the monarchy would suggest that however little he favored the imperial ambitions of the king, he would brook no resistence to royal authority. His position in regard to the revolt is difficult to ascertain, for he too suffered from 111 health and refrained from direct political involvement. However, he did write to Abbot Gozlin of Saint Germain in the hope of convincing his nephew Bernard not to participate in the sedition, but Gozlin was himself a rebel and did not deign to answer Hincmar's appeals.20 In lieu of other evidence, this would seem to be an adequate indication that Hincmar did not let his disapproval of Charles divert him from his loyalty. However mistaken the king's policies might be, he felt the royal office to be a necessary focus of discipline in political life. The Italian expedition proved too much for Charles' precarious health, and he suffered a relapse of his pleurisy. Seized by a fever, Charles drank a medicinal powder and eleven days afterwards, on October 6, ”died with a most vile swell- 21 ing.” This left Charles' son, Louis Balbus (The Stutterer) 19Annales Bertiniani, a. 877: "Imperator autem, ali- Quamdiu una cum papa Iohanne in eisdem locis immorans, exspec- tavit primores regni sui, Hugonem abbatem, Bosonem, Bernardum Arvernicum comitem itemque Bernardum Gothie markionem, quos secum ire iusserat, qui una cum aliis regni primoribus, excep- tis paucis, et episcopis adversus eumconspirantes coniuraver- ant." 20Flodoard, Historia Remensis ecclesiae (M.G.H.j $5., XIII), III, 24: 'Gozlino pro Bernardo, nepote ipsius, qui se- ditionem contra regem moliri ferebatur, hortans, ut ab hac in- tentions studeat sum revocare, et ut ipse Gozlinus pro nullo carnali affectu a recte via declinet. . . .” For Gozlin, see the Annales Bertiniani, a. 879-880. - 239 - to take over a crown little respected by the majority of his subjects and a realm torn by external attack and internal strife. In advising' the new king, Hincmar recalled a number of times the conditions prevailing at the end of Charles the Bald's reign asziwarning against the danger of abandoning the responsibilities of the royal office. Concern yourself with nourishing as much as possible a con- cord between yourself and God's faithful which is in ac- cord with God's will and was mentioned by your father re- cently at Quierzy. And handle yourself before themixnsuch a way that they are neither prevented nor frightened to give you advice. For I have heard that many despaired of any use in your government because the councillors who knew what was good and useful neither dared nor had any opportunity for speaking out.22 Clearly, Hincmar himself was one of these advisors who knew what was right and useful, but was unable to gain the king's attention. Confirmation is found in an interesting piece of pro- paganda which Hincmar circulated at about this time. A cer- 21Annales Bertiniani, a. 876: “Karolus vero febre cor- reptus, pulverem bibit, quem sibi nimium dilectus ac credulus medicus suus Iudaeus nomine Sedechias transmisit ut ea portna- ne a febre liberaretur. Insanabili veneno hausto, inter man- us portantium transito monte Cinisio . . .” ”Et XI die post venenum haustum in vilissimo turgurio mortuus est II nonas octobris.” 22Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. viii: "concor- diam, quae secundum Deum est, de qua nuper in Carisiaco pater vester mentionem habuit, inter fideles Dei et vestros haberi et vigere quantum potueritis satagatis, et vos talem erga eos praeparetis, ut verum consilium vobis dare possint et audeant. Quia, sicut per multos audivi, multum deperiit de utilitate in isto regno, pro eo quia consiliarii quod sciebant bonum et utile, dicere non audebant, nec ut dicerent locum habebant." - 290 - tain priest named Bernold belonging to Hincmar's diocese was supposed to have had a vision shortly before his death, in which the archbishop's enemies were pictured in Hell, suffer~ ing for their transgressions. Bernold recalled, I saw our King Charles lying there in the mire from the corruption of his own decay, and worms were gnawing at him and, now that they had eaten the flesh, there was no- thing left of his body but nerves and bones. He said to me, go to the Bishop Hincmar and tell him that I did not harken to the good council of him and the others of my fideles and the things which you see I bear for my sins. And tell him, since I always held him in trust, to help me so that I am freed of this punishment.23 In his instruction to Louis Balbus, Hincmar makes clear just what the principal failures of Charles the Bald had been. Discover with God and your fideles how to put an end to the plundering and depredations in your realm and how is to be found some remedy for the misery of the people, now for years afflicted by various and continuous depredations and by the exactions necessary for repelling the Norse, and how to revive that Justice and judgment, which are almost extinct in our realm, so that God return to us 2&5? Egg_against the pagans. For many years now there has been no provision in this realm for defense other than ransom and tribute, which have now destroyed not ogkythe poor people, but the former wealth of the church.2 23De visions Bernoldi presbyteri (Sirmond, II, 806): ”Et vidi ibi iacere domnum nostrum Karolum regem in luto ex sanie ipsius putredinis, et manducabant eum vermes, et iam carnem illius manducatam habebant, et non erat in corpore ip- sius aliud nisi vervi et ossa.' "Dixit mihi, Vade ad Hincmarum episcopum, et dic ei, Quia illius et aliorum fidelium meorum bona consilia non obaudivi, ideo ista quae vides, pro culpis meis sustineo. Et dic illi, quia semper in illo fiduciam habui, ut me adiuvet, quatinus de ista poena sim liberatus. . ..' 2“Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum, cap. viii: ”invenia- tis cum Dei et vestris fidelibus, qualiter istae rapinas et depradationes in isto regno cessent, et miser iste populus, Qui iam per plures annos depraedationes diversas et continues, at per exactiones ad Nortmannos repellendos affligitur, ali- Quod remedium habeat, et iustitia et iudicium, quae quasi smor- - 291 - Two elements are here brought forward which enable the king to accomplish his ends: consultation with his fideles and pro- per judgment. Both are the traditional basic elements in the idea of the royal office which Charles had allowed to lapse. His Italian venture was undertaken without the full consent of his fideles, and at Ponthion he had sought to delegate roy- al responsibilities to those under him. Such a manner of acting was altogether contrary to Hincmar's ideal of the royal office. As the above passage makes clear, the king's close tie with God is what enables him to be an effective ruler. His deliberations and acts of judgment must take into consideration the will of God, for otherwise they will be discordant and doomed to failure. Hinc- mar believsd that through justice and judgment-—ths essential agency of worldly correctio and thus of a discipline essential for man's salvationr—the king regains the virtus which enables him to effectively combat the Norse. This close relationship with God and the king's role in contributing to man's salva- tion were always central to Hincmar's idea of the royal office, and they prevented the archbishop from joining many of his con- temporaries in abandoning the government of a king. When Charles had sought to expand his realm and pur- sue the imperial dignity, he was acting in accord with a con- tua apud nos sunt, reviviscant, ut virtutem nobis Deus red- dat contra paganos: quia usque modo iam ante plures annos lo- cum in isto regno defensio non habuit, sed redemptio st tri- butum, et non solum pauperes homines, sed st Ecclesias quon- dam divites iam evacuatas habent.” - 292 - ception of government foreign to the Frankish tradition. For Hincmar, an increasing emphasis on the power and freedom of the royal office to restore order in the world was not a turn to a theocratic and absolute government such as Charles seem- ed to advocate after his return from Italy. However much Hincmar emphasized the essential disciplinary function of gov- ernment, he never abandoned its larger context. This context was the belief that government served to liberate man by bringing him into a closer relationship with God and to spiri- tualize society by making caritas the axis of all social and political action. A lack of effective kingship was as much a danger to mankind as an autocratic and unilateral rule do- minated by superbia-—dn neither case could the essential pur- poses of government he achieved. While both these dangers seemed present in the later years of Charles the Bald's rule, the succession of a series of ineffectual kings made clear that the future trend would be the abandonment of viable mon- archy altogether. CHAPTER XIII THE SUCCESSORS OF CHARLES THE BALD (877-882): OFFICE CONSIDERED AS A PROGRAM OF RADICAL RE-EDUCATION Following the death of Charles the Bald in 877, there was a succession of Carolingian rulers in West Francia whose personal abilities fell considerably'short of those of their more illustrious predecessors. Charles' son Louis II Balbus reigned only until 879, when a malady which had hindered his rule ultimately took his life. Then, from 879 to 882, West Francia was subject to Louis' youthful sons, Louis III and Carloman. These facts alone would suggest that Hincmar's political involvement was to be quite other than had been the case in previous years. However, there were also theoretical considerations, as we have seen, which discouraged the active participation of churchmen in the immediate concerns of poli- tical life. As Charles' rule drew to its close, the relation- ship between him and Hincmar grew increasingly tense, until the king's striving for the imperial title in Italy and the imposition of Ansigisus of Sens as papal vicar at the head of the Frankish church entirely discouraged Hincmar's participa- tion. In exchange for the archbishop's sharp criticisms of Charles for not listening to his advice, the king disregarded Hincmar as one of the advisors appointed for Louis Balbus at Quierzy (877). - 293 - - 29h - Although much remains uncertain in the career of Louis Balbus, enough is known to throw light on the factors lying be- hind his succession in 877.’ Louis had revolted against his father in 862, and it was not until the meeting at Quierzy early in 877 that Charles was compelled by a need to arrange for the succession before leaving for Italy to come to terms with his son. Louis' first marriage was with Ansgard, the daughter of Count Hardouin, who was promoted to a position of some power in North Neustria by Charles the Bald. Cir- cumstantial evidence has led Carlrichard Brfihl to suggest that Ansgard's brother Odo hoped though the marriage to gain for himself an advantaged position with the possible future king of West Francia. It also seems probable that Louis him- self expected to use the Ansgard family connections to forge for himself a powerful clientel at the expense of the group of primorgg_who shared with his father the rule of the king- dom. These matters have direct bearing on the definition of royal office, for in failing to take over the realm on his own terms, the bishops and magnates imposed on Louis their concept of the royal office, providing a clear delineation of Just what was expected of the young king. There is no need in the present context to go into ‘Bruhl, ”Hinkmariana, II," o .cit., provides the most recent analysis of the factors surrounding Louis' coronation, but his conclusions do not seem in all cases to be beyond Question. - 295 - the details of Louis' succession except to indicate the full extent of his failure to do so on his own terms. Louis was in Orville when he heard of his father's death, and he im- mediately gathered about him whatever supporters he could, promising to each certain rewards, such as monasteries, coun- ties, and villas. The primores of the realm were indignant at this effort to forge a new power base by unilateral means, and under the leadership of Louis' stop-mother, Queen Richilde, formed a conspiracy against him at Compiegne. After a series of negotiations, Louis had to yield on all points, even, it seems, agreeing to put aside Ansgard and accept in her place a certain Adelheid, a member of the traditional aristocracy. In his election professio, Louis reveals the extent to which he accepted an objective idea of royal office-an office which he owed to God's will and "popular“ election ra- ther than to any right of his own, such as inheritance.2 Since his office was granted him by God and the people, he was obliged to respect the interests of each. He ruled the church only to the extent to which it was compatible with ec- clesiastical autonomy as set forth by the definition of the 3 episcopal office and by canonical regulations. 7 Furthermore, _— 2Capitula electionis Hludowici Balbi (M.G.H., Capit., II, 36h): "Ego Hlodowicus, misericorida domini Dei nostri et elections populi rex constitutus, . . ." 3Ibid.: "promitto tests ecclesia Dei omnibus ordini- bus, episcoporum videlicet, sacerdotum, monachorum, canonicor- um atque sanctimonialium, regulas a patribus conscriptas et apostolicis adtentationibus roboratas ex hoc et in futurum tempus me illis ex integro servaturum.” - 296 - he ruled the people only to the extent that he recognized their rights. These rights were guaranteed by laws ensuring the well-being of the people and the prerogatives of the {is 931.23 to take counsel with their king in important matters.“ One sees here the conception of state towards which Hincmar had been moving in recent years. Each of the three orders had its autonomy ensured by law and the definition of office, but this autonomy was not absolute, for, to the extent permit- ted by these regulations, the king had supreme authority. This use of a definition of office and law to ensure the freedom of each order while at the same time permitting the king to preserve a central role reveals the extent to which the idea of ministerium was the axis of Carolingian political life at this time. However, it would be mistaken to go only this far and consider the constitution in purely legal terms, forru>constitution, however perfect, can success- fully function unless there exists a commitment to it be all parties concerned. To a certain extent, this was the reason for the Carolingian collapse, for the ideological implications of the constitutionr—the preconditions for its viability-—were not sufficiently accepted by all. Everyone Jealously guarded his own autonomy and saw in it a means for enriching himself or extending his own.pewer at the expense of his neighbor. Louis Balbus' difficulty at succession is a case in peint. uIbid.: ”Polliceor etiam me servaturum leges et sta- tuta populo, qui mihi ad regendum misericordia Dei commit- titur, pro communi censilio fidelium nostrorum, . . . ." - 297 - If the liberties incorporated into this constitution were understood by everyone as merely a license to seek thoroughly selfish ends, then it would have led to anarchy-' the war of all against all. This, indeed, is what many his- torical accounts consider characterizes the situation in tenth-century France. But is this a Just evaluation? Before dealing with the question more carefully, it would first be worthwhile to delineate the function of office in the consti— tution in more than Just legal terms, for ideological impli- cations go far in explaining its relative success or failure. The full implication of Hincmar's idea of office is that it allowed a disciplina of the realm's subjects in accord with Christian ultimate ends and values. This has been clearly apparent in Hincmar's activity during Charles the Bald's reign, but it is also true that office served to educate (in the full sense of the word) its holder. It is this latter function which characterizes Hincmar's advice to the ineffectual Louis Balbus and his successors. When Louis was compelled to turn to the traditional powers in West Francia to ensure the continuance of his rule, Hincmar once again found himself in a position to become in— volved in the course of political life. In order to advise Louis, Hincmar wrote an Instructio ad Ludovicum Balbum 'which reveals the theoretical implication of the constitution and of the royal office within it. This is best understood not in legal, but in monastic terms. The Instructio was written largly in response to a -298- crisis existing between Louis and his fideles, and thus the royal office is discussed in relation to the constitution. First of all, the king serves all the people, not just his own interests by means of a handful of powerful magnates. Hincmar felt that it was a major flaw in the Roman imperial constitution that emperors won the throne by means of factions rather than through the consent of all the primores.5 Just as Louis' attempt to seize the royal title with the help of a few clients, at the expense of the remaining aristocracy, brought disorders, so the Roman emperors could only with dif- ficulty keep peace among the various military factions. To some extent, the royal election was very real, for it appears that the primores of the realm had despaired of Louis' ability to keep the peace and preferred looking to their own interests rather than relying on the king. Hincmar wanted to correct this situation by encouraging Louis to abandon his selfish aims, concern himself with the general welfare, and especially, take the magnates into his counsel, 6 so that no one would fear retribution if he spoke out. 5Instructio ad Ludovisum Balbum, cap. 1: ”Legimus in antiquis historiis, quia saepe, quando reges constituti sunt, inter regni primores discordia orta est, quoniam aliqui sine aliorum consilio eius constitutionem vindicare sibi voluerunt. Quae discorida non sine impedimento fuit pacificata.” 61bid.. cap. viii: "Quinta, ut concordiam, quae secun— dum Deum est, de qua nuper in Carisiaco pater vester mentio- nem.habuit, inter fideles Dei et vestros haberi et vigere quan- tum potueritis satagatis, et vos talem erga eos praeparetis, ut verum consilium vobis dare possint et audeant. Quia, sicut Per multos audivi, multum deperiit de utilitate in isto regno, Pro eo quia consiliarii quod sciebant bonum et utile, dicere non audebant, nec ut dicerent locum habebant." _ 299 - Louie cannot unilaterally resolve the troubles of the realm, for he must not only take cognizance of God's will, but also the needs and advice of the fideles.7 It is here that ideology and practical matters met, for the royal office was the nexus of God's will and the peo- ple's needs. The king fulfilled this difficult role through his realization of justice-—a Justice which served God and subject, not the king alone.8 The appropriation of justice to his own ends-an expression of cupiditas, the root of all evil—-can do nothing but disturb the status quo and encourage the primeres in turning to bribery for their honors and bene- fits.9 Justice thus has both a spiritual and a worldly func- tion. While it serves as a correctio of men according to 71bid.. cap. viii: "Quarto, ut inveniatis cum Dei st vestris fidelibus, qualiter istae rapinas et depraedationes in isto regno cessent, et miser iste populus, qui iam per plures annos depraedationes diversas et continuas, et per ex- actiones ad Nortmannos repellendos affligitur, aliquod remed- lum habgat. e e e" 81bid.. cap. ix: ”Facienda est iustitia, non pro ullo terreno lucro, sed pro eo ipso quia iustitia est." "Facien- dum est iudicium pro iniquorum corrections, et pro iniuriam sustinsntium directions, non pro malevolentiae ultione, nsc pro iustam causam habentium oppressione. Nam qui iniuste iu- dicant, non iudioant iudicium, id est, iure ac legaliter dic- tum, sed praeiudicium.” 91bid., cap. viii: "Tertio, qualiter regni primores cum debita securitate ac honore erga vos consistere possint, et ceteri nobiles homines in regno securitatsm habeant, ne per diversa ingenia a suis opibus quas habere potuerint de- spelientur: quia postquam radix omnium malorum cupiditas in regno iste exarsit, ut nullus aut pene nullus henerem aut ali- Qued benum sine pretio posset adquirere, aut tenere, aut se- curitatsm habere, pax et consilium, et iustitia, atque iudici- um, sicut necesse fuerat, locum in isto regno non habuerunt." - 300 - God's will, it also assures an equitable and rational distri- bution of material benefits. In common.with all successful education, whether in the fifth-century Athenian polis or a Benedictine monastery, worldly action is so disciplined as to shape the individual and direct him toward ideals and values which transcend the world. Carolingian government was no more anti-worldly than Benedictine monasticism, for by this attachment to values be- yond the selfish interests of the individual, worldly action would become ever more efficient. Hincmar firmly believed that if Louis was indeed able to restore true justice to his government, not only would internal disorder be resolved, but he would actually gain military success against the Norse.10 This correlation of worldly effectiveness with consciousness of ultimate ends and values is not simply a naive belief that God would be on his side, but a deeper appreciation of the basically destructive nature of egocentricity. The Athenian citizen believed that his freedom, won through active politi- cal participation in the polis, was the best guarantee of mi- litary victory over the Persians; the Benedictine monk, as the miles christi, greatly contributed to the creation of a new economic and social order in the early middle ages; and Chairman Mao assures his people that reading his thoughts contributes to the building of better truck engines and makes the people unconquerable. In each case, there is the use of —.k ‘Oxbid., cap. viii: 'Ut iustitia et iudicium, quae quasi emortua apud nos sunt, rsviviscant, ut virtutem nobis Deus reddat contra paganos." _ 301 - an almost military discipline to shape the individual so as to exorcise selfishness and encourage ideological conscious- n.“ e Hincmar's idea of office is an example of a theoreti- cal scheme for democratization, for it has within it both a broad program of discipline which educates subjects toward freedom and an open-ended potentiality for self-rule. The archbishop's attitude toward the lower social orders reflects his scepticism regarding their readiness for self-rule and participation in government, yet his idea of universal office opens the possibility of their ultimate liberation. Although Carolingian government lacked the resources for re-educating the common people away from parochialism and superbia, the greater impact of monastic education and episcopal admonition upon the magnates meant the possibility of their sharing with the king the political responsibilities of the realm. The ex- tent of their ideological preparation would prove a decisive factor in determining whether the public disorders and break- down of monarchy would mean a retreat to anarchy or the en- couragement of local political viability and social-institu- tional creativity. Hincmar, however, continued to rscOgnize the essential role of the king for providing the necessary discipline to counter disorder. Just as the magnates, the king was to keep in mind that his office was an instrument for achieving objective non-personal ends. For the sake of analysis one might speak of a double - 302 - objectification of office in Hincmar's thought. On one hand there is the insistence that action in office be objectively defined by law and constitution, and on the other, that the intentio of the office holder be ever directed to God rather than to egocentric and acquisitive ends. The former, the ob- Jectification of means, seems to have been accepted since Coulaines by the majority of the aristocracy. Particularly in the case of Louis III, his acceptance of the constitution was the condition of his entry into office, and only a min- ority of ambitious magnates sought to achieve their aims through a return to older personal government. It is not difficult to understand why the objectifi- cation of means was so readily accepted. The alienation of fisc lands continued to make unilateral royal action ever more difficult, the Norse invasions were of the nature that only a distributed political viability could hepe to cope with them, and the magnates were desirous of forging local bases of political power to better pursue their ambitions. In con- trast with this side of the question, however, the objectifi- cation of ends was a much more difficult idea to convey to the magnates of the realm, for it involved a fundamental change in human nature. It is important to consider the fac- tors which contributed to reduce this tension between Hincmar's monastic attitudes and lay mentality. Included among these are the extent to which the aristocracy was tained in monas- teries, and their exposure to the homilies of Caesarius, Gregory, or Hincmar himself, which were used in church services. - 303 - The element lacking which prevented a more successful im- position of church views was the very limited and partial discipline of action afforded by government. Although Hinc- mar's view of political life was monastic, the intensity of monastic discipline was lacking, especially with the slow fragmentation of royal power. While the monastery combined the discipline of the mind, body, and spirit in one organi- zation, the Carolingian situation was quite different, for the government looked to worldly action while the church re- led on rational and spiritual action. The declining ability of the king to provide the discipline required became evident after Charles the Bald's death. His son, Louis Balbus, was a young and intemporate man, and his rule was severely dampened by a serious illness which led to his death in.April, 879. at the age of 33. Succeeding to the government were his two sons, Louis III (sixteen years of age) and Carloman (twelve or thirteen years old). The magnates of the realmwere not too happy about this state of affairs, especially since Louis III and Carloman were the children of Ansgard, whom they had so carefully ousted from any association with the throne. Although Louis III's rule was not as unfortunate as one might expect, there was sufficient trouble to encourage the magnates to turn to the East Frankish ruler, Charles III. It was hoped that Charles would adopt the youths of the neighboring realm and act as regent until they were in a position to rule on their own account. In writing to Charles, Hincmar made clear once - 30h - again not only his idea of the royal office, but brought out certain points regarding the government's role as an instru- ment of education, whereby it looked to a fundamental re- shaping of the whole person.11 The central objective of this education which Charles III should undertake for the sake of Louis III and Carloman was to make of them new men. Hincmar noted that Alexander the Great's undisciplined youth meant that, although he con- quered kingdoms, he could not rule himself.12 Quoting Pseudo- Cyprian, Hincmar emphasized that the royal office educates the subject through a correctio, which shapes the individual in accordance with Christian ideals.13 This discipline or correction primarily involved the objective definition of office in law. By word and example, Charles is to teach the youths to conserve justice and the law appropriate to each 1h office. For Charles to have directly disciplined the boys 11Ad Carolum III imperatorem, cap. 1: "istos iuvenes, reges nostros, propinquos vestros, et pupillos sine patre loco filiorum teneatis, . . ." For a study of Louis III's reign, see Ehrenforth, "Hinkmar von Rheims und Ludwig von gestfranken," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, XLIV (1925), 5‘98e 12Ad Carolum III immperatorem, cap. ii: "Et quia legi- mus de Alexandre Magno, cuius paedagogus Leonides nomine fuit, quod citatos mores et inhonestum incessum habens in pueritia idem Alexander, ex praefato paedagogo suo eadem accepit vitia, quae adultus in seipso corrigere voluit, et cum omnia regna vicerit, seipsum in hoc vincere non potuit, . . ." 13Ibid., cap. v: ”Regen inquiens, non iniquum, sed correctorem iniquorum esse oportet." "Nemen enim regis in- tellectualiter hoc retinet, ut subiectis omnibus rectoris of- ficium procuret." 1“Ibid., cap. iv: "Doceant eos verbo st exemplo, reg- - 305 - 'would have been to violate the constitution, for they were not subject to him. For this reason, Hincmar could advocate at most merely a verbal admonition. Just as with the episco- pal office, Hincmar appreciated the effect of words to shape others in ways both good and evil.15 Office serves, however, not only to shape the exter- nal actions of men, but to relate those actions to ultimate ends and values. Not only as kings, but anyone enjoying worldly power must have three essential qualities: be an ob- ject of fear, hold an office, and act out of love. It is love of God which yields efficacy to action in office, for it keeps such action from being turned toward selfish ends. If the officer follows this, then the one holding power will gain the respect and obedience of those subject to him.16 ni primoribus et ceteris regni fidelibus, atque sanctae ec- clesiae defensoribus, unicuique in suo ordine oompetentem legem st iustitiam conservare, . . ." 15Ibid., cap. vi: "Et sanctus Gregorius admonet nu- tritores filiorum Imperatoris Graecorum, . . . inquiens, nu- trientium, aut lac erunt si bona sunt, aut venenum si mala.” 161bid., cap. v: "Et nor1 solum regi, sed st omni qui in dominationis est potestate, tria necessaria habere opor- tet, terrorem scilicet, ordinationem, et amorem. Nisi inim ametur Dominus, et metuatur, ordinatia illius constare mini- me poterit. Per beneficia ergo st affabilitatem procuret ut diligatur, et per iustam vindictam, non propriae iniurias sed legis Dei, studeat ut metuatur. Et in his et aliis omnibus princeps semper Deum cogitet, st illi adhaereat: quia, nisi conditori suo pertinaciter adhaeserit, st ipse, et omnes qui ei consentiunt, cito deperient. Omnia igitur qui praeest hoc primitus tota animi intentions procuret, ut per omnia de Dei adiutorio omnino non dubitet. Si namque coeperit in ac- tibus suis auxiliatorem habere Dominum, nullus hominum con- temptui habere poterit eius dominatum. Non est enim potes- tas nisi a Bee. Ipse elsvat de stercore egenum, et sedere fecit cum principibus populi sui. Deponit potentes de sede, et exaltat humiles.” - 306 - This effort to create political order by insisting that anyone holding power humbly subject it to the will of God was certainly expecting much from the magnates of the day.17 And yet, if the interaction of offices within the constitution was to work at all, this utOpian ideal had to be realized to some extent. It was not that the magnates would henceforth don a mien of monkish humility, but that they take seriously the state of their souls and worry enough about God's judgment to permit some modification in the configuration of their world view and and in their daily actions. However, as a direct effort to change radically human nature through political office, Hincmar'a ambitions far ex- ceeded the capacities of the age. An excellent illustration of this is the difficulty which Hincmar had trying to keep Louis III from imposing his own candidate, Odoacer, on the see of Beauvais, despite the election rights of the clergy and despite Hincmar's excommunication of Louis' candidate. On 2 April, 881, Hincmar called s synod at Fismss with the pur- pose of admonishing the king to respect the liberties of the church, its freedom of election of bishops, and the distinct sphere of spiritual action.18 L.— 17Ibid., cap. vi: "Ipsi autem baiuli magnopere provi- ders debent, ne super socios suos se extollant, sed iuxta Scripturam dicentem, 'quanto magnus es, humilia to in omni- bus, et coram Dec invenies gratiam.'" 18For an analysis of this synod, see Charles de Clercq, op.cit., pp. 317-19. A detailed study in terms of canon law of the struggle between Hincmar and Louis III is traced by Gerhard Ehrenforth, o2.cit., which stresses the extent to which church regulations were shaped to meet the church's po- litical needs. - 307 - This synod reflects the failure of the rational con- cordance of royal and episcOpal offices. It was called on the initiative of the bishops without royal request or parti- cipation. However, it is important to note that its acts were not cousidered public law as had been the case in older mixed councils, but remained on the order of admonition.19 It drew upon a variety of sources, chiefly the acts of ninth- century councils, to discourage human superbia on a number of levels. Although the injustice of the king's domination of the church to further his own selfish ends was the focus of its criticism, it also tried to counter human acquisitiveness in general: excommunication awaited those guilty of usury and expropriation of property. This tension between traditional human nature and Hincmar's attempt to change it through the ideological and worldly implications of ministerium found further expression in a letter which the archbishop sent Louis III along with the acts of Fismes. Here again, Hincmar tried to encourage a monkish humilitas-—the humble subjecting of the king's will to God's purposes.20 The king as well as bishops should act in full realization that the authority of both comes from Christ.21 It is this which assures not only the concor— ‘ 19Hans Barion, Das frankisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frfihmittelalters (Bonn, 1931), pp. 2944§5. 2OAd Ludovicum III. Re em, cap. ii: "Et non debetis inflexibilem Dei voluntatem, qui si mutat sententiam, non mu- tat consilium, ad humanam st fragilem voluntatem vestram vel- le inflectere, quod fieri non potest: sed vestram voluntatem D01 valuntati BUbderOQ s e e e" .. 303 - dance of their actions with one another, but maintains the essential liberty of each. The royal power was given Louis by Christ not to be soly ruler of the world, excluding the church, but rather, also "president" of the church. What has been well established by the church is to be protected; what is wrong, to be corrected.22 This assures the liberty of the church in the world. The episcopal action is spiritual, and thus it is not for the king to interfere with its realization.23 In the present con- text, the attempt to impose Odoacer, a mere layman, by world- ly means, on a see to which he was not elected, and for materi- al interests alone, violated the whole idea of the distinct nature of the sacerdotal office.2h The Odacer case well illus- 21Ibid., cap. v: "Quatenus devotions et operations ostendatis, quia Christus, a quo legitimus omnis episcopatus cepit exordium, et omnis principatus accepit provectum, auc- tor sit vestri reginimis, et protector fiat vestrae sublimi- tatis." 22Ibid., cap. ii: “regiam potestatem vobis non ad solum mundi regimen, sed maxime ad ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam, ut ausus nefarios comprimendo, et quae bene sunt statuta defendatis, et veram pacem his quae sunt turbata res- tituatis." Note that a restorati2_of true peace remains in part the duty of the king. 23Ibid., cap. v: "Et quoniam sine sancto spiritu min- isterium episcOpale non agitur, non sit vobis leve in episco- Pis contristare spiritum sanctum, . . ." 2“Ibid., cap. iii: "Nam si quod a quibusdam dicitur, . . . illum debent episcopi st clerus ac plebs eligere, quem vos vultis, et quem iubetis, (quae non est divinae legis elec- tio, sed humanae potestatis extorsio) si ita est, . . ." Act of excommunication levied against Odoacer (Sirmond, II, 81%): "Et Odacrus invasor vacantis ecclesiae, . . . per saecularem Potestatem prius res et facultates ipsius ecclesiae vacantis obtinuit, ut saltu quoquo modo ad altitudinem episcopalis no- minis pervenerit, et sacerdos non esse, sed dici tantummodo - 309 - trates the magnitude of Hincmar's problem. While the change of heart which he would bring about in all men depended on the episcopal admonition encouraging an ideological inter- pretation of office, the concurrent worldly discipline ex- pected from public government was vitiated. Not only was Louis III personally incapable of providing that discipline, either because of a paucity of real concern for the church or personal worldly ambition, but also his action in regard to the see of Beauvais would compromise the role even of the spiritual agency to meet its responsibilities.25 Whatever hope Hincmar may have had for a conscienti- ous fulfilling of office to discipline and educate Louis III, it was doomed to disappointment, for on 5 August, 882, Louis died and was succeeded by his sixteen year old brother Carlo- man. Again, the archbishop undertook to admonish a youthful king to act properly. Carloman himself had turned to Hincmar for help, but is is also clear that a number of concerned magnates had encouraged him in this to assure a more rational 26 and effective ordering of the machingery of government. inaniter concupivit. Non attendens, quia sic ab ipso Christo, summo pontifice ac rege regum, sunt distincta potestatum of- ficia, ut spiritalis actio a carnalibus distaret incursibus, st militantes Deo minime ss negotiis sascularibus implicarent, ac vicissim non illi rebus divinis praesidsre viderentur, qui essent negotiis sascularibus implicati." 25Louis' personal shortcomings are outlined by Hincmar in Ad Ludovicum III. Re em, cap iv: ”qui minoris potestatis st aetatis atque sapientiae adhuc estis, . . .' 26While the title of this tract, commonly called 2: ordine pglatii, is open to some dispute, its content gives some idea of its purpose. It was written as a function of Hincmar's office and by Carloman's order (De ordine, cap. iii): - 31o - Hincmar sought to educate the king in the manner of organizing a government, using as a model the reign of Louis the Pious. However, this admonition formed part of a broader corpus of writings which should properly be considered as a whole.27 While the acts of the synod of Fismes defined the liberties and responsibilities of the church, the De ordine palatii provided a model for secular government. Another work, short- ly to be discussed, summarized these as well as his De regis persona, and taken together, they represent Hincmar's final admonitions for the three orders of the realm.2 Because De ordine is primarily concerned with the organization of government, it deals with the worldly objec- tification of means rather than the spiritual objectification of the ends of office——that is, it emphasizes the disciplin- "Ego autem, et pro imposito ministerie et pro bona et rationa- bili vestra iussione, aggrediar exequi quod rogatis non meo sensu neque verbis meis, sed . . . ." However, Hincmar ad- dressed himself to the magnates or advisors (Ibid., cap. 1): "Pro aetatis et sacri ordinis antiquitate, posteriores tem— pore, boni et sapientes viri, rogatis exiguitatem mea ut . 11 27Ibid., cap. xxxvii: "Personae autem hominum, et mores ac qualitates illorum per quos si aliqua sunt collapsa restituantur vestra solertia providebit, quoniam de his quos tempore domni Hludowici imperatoris vidi palatii procurator- es et regni praefectos, neminem scio esse superstitem: . . .” Although the work of Adalhard upon which Hincmar based his De ordine may have been written before Charlemagne's death, Hincmar almost always looked back on Louis the Pious' reign as a model for kingship. 28Ibid.: "Post illa quae in synodo apud martyrium sanc- tae Macrael Fismes] de majorum constitutionibus collecta et regi Hludowico nuper defuncto fuere directs, haec de ordine pa- latii et dispositions regni, vobis ad institionem istius regis nostri ac ministrorum eius regnique provisorum, . . .” This makes clear that Hincmar intended De ordine to serve to edu- cate the secular order, both king and public officers. - 311 - ary function of office as expressed in law. Furthermore, since the immediate problem seems to be ineffectual monarchy rather than undisciplined primores, there is also an emphasis on the educative or disciplinary impact of the office on the holder himself. The royal office cannot correct others if the king does not first correct himself.29 This means an objec- tification of action on the levels of both spiritual ends and worldly means. The significance of the former is contained in the admonition that the king and his officers are to direct their hearts to God rather than love of worldly gain.30 However, Hincmar is more interested here in the world- ly means of office. First and foremost, this concern suggests that each individual who holds a public responsibility is ob- liged to keep in mind the purposes for which it exists.31 These purposes found expression in law, and it is this law which Hincmar emphasizes, although in the context of his thought, law in itself is not sufficient, for it must be spiri- 291bid., cap. vi: ”Sed qualiter alios corrigere po- terit qui proprios mores ne iniqui sint non corrigit." In cap. 1, Hincmar repeats the anecdote about Alexander (see note 12 above). 30Ibid., cap. x: "Tales etiam comites et sub se iudi- ces constitutere debet, qui avaritiam oderint et iustitiam diligant, . . ." "Et sciat quod, sicut in principatu hominum Primus constitutus est, ita quoscunque peccatores sub se in praesenti habuit, nisi se st illos correxerit, supra se modo implacabili in illa futura poena habebit.‘ 31Ibid., cap. iii: ”Sancta Scriptura in omni ordine st professions unicuique administratori praecipit, ut intelle— Sat cuncta quae ait. Quoniam, si intellegit administratio Quam gerit unde exordium caepit, sollicitius satagit, ut de administrationis talento sibi credito rationem redditurus.‘ - 312 - tualized by a directing of the intentio to God. Because it is essential for everyone to keep in mind the objective res- ponsibilities of office, it is likewise important for him to 32 be fully aware of the law. Law and order are essential on- ly because they serve higher purposes and are not ends in them- selves. Nbr more than the ordering of monastic life, did these rules and regulations have meaning independent of man's central purposes, and to consider them detached from those purposes distorts their'true significance. The regulations to which Hincmar refers have little explicit religious con- tent, and yet they were to act as a discipline of the person 33 and as a springboard of salvation. Less than a month before his death, Hincmar followed up his De ordine with another admonition, again addressed to Carloman, but also meant for the edification of those hold- ing lesser offices in the realm. This Ad episcopos regni, ad- mgnitio alteragpro Carolomanno apudggparnacum facta served to 32Ibid., cap. viii: "Cum enim dicitur nulli liceat leges nescire vel quae sunt statuta contemnere, nulla per- sona, in quocunque ordine mundano, excipitur, quae hac senten- tia non constringatur. Habent enim reges et reipublicae min- istri leges quibus in quacumque provincia degentes regere de- bent, . . ." This reflects also the gradual shift in empha- sis away from admonition of the king alone to a greater re- liance upon the magnates for self-discipline. 33This is not to say that the primores were not also obliged to obey divine law, which was specifically Christian in content. Ibid.: ”Multo minus autem regi vel cuilibet in quocunque ordine contra leges divinae licet agere per contemp- tum. Unde, principi terrae magnopere providendum atque caven- dum set, no in his Deus offendatur per quos religio christi- ana consistere debet st caeteri ab offensione salvari." - 313 — summarize Hincmar's thought for the benefit of other bishops taking it upon themselves to advise the kings and magnates in the future. Because it relied so heavily on Hincmar's earli- er writings, there is little point in studying it in detail, except to emphasize his recognition of the dominant role of the primoreg_in the realm. Without doubting for a moment the important authority of the king, he nevertheless gave the low- er officss the same political-theological function. This re- presented less a fundamental change in his theory of office than its adjustment to contemporary political conditons. Hinc- mar had tried to re-inforce the authority of the royal office under the last years of Charles the Bald, but now that the realm was administered by an ineffective monarch, the arch- bishop looked to law as a substitute for the disciplinary effect of kingship. Regardless of the office, Hincmar insisted that its holder act in accordance with its objective definition.3u Just as the king, the dukes and counts are to seek justice in accord with God's will and thereby contribute to the salvation 35 of the people. Like the king, they are not to measure them- 3hAdmonitio altera pro Carolomanno facta, cap. iii: "Diligenter igitur quisque debet in ordine st professions sua quo nomine censetur attendere, st maiorem in modum providers, ns a nomine discordet officio." 35Ibid., cap. xiv: "Qui autem post regem populum re- gere debent, id est, duces st comites, necesse est ut tales instituantur, qui sine periculo eius qui eos canstituit, quos sub se habent cum iustitia st aequitats gubernare intelligent, atque cum bona voluntate quod intelligunt adimplere procur- ent, scientes se ad hoc positos esse, ut plebem salvent st rOSGHt . e e e N - 31h - selves in terms of worldly advantage, but to recognize that 36 they participate in God's work of salvation. It is easy to find evidence in the sources for a royal theology, but it was but one expression of a political theology which encom- passed the whole of society and every office within it. Thus it is the whole structure of authority within society which provides the discipline and correction which con- tributes to the salvation of all. Public officers not only have a spiritual function in public life, but they themselves are judged by their use of office to further God's ends. How— ever, to consider this order, or the law defining it, as sim- ply God-ordained (and thus commanding absolute obedience) is to miss Hincmar's intention. Law and political authority are justified because they originate in Christ, and mere obedi- ence without a consciousness of this divine connection is in- sufficient}.7 Office is the nexus of Christian.values and worldly situation, and any attempt to define it in purely 36Ibid., cap. xiv: "neque ut populum Dei suum aesti- ment‘lcounts and dukes] , aut ad suam gloriam sibi illum.sub- iici, quod pertinet ad tyrannidsm st iniquam potestatem." Ibid., cap. 1: “sic actionibus propriisllking's], dignitati- busque distinctis officia potestatis utriusque descrevit, su- os volens medicinali humilitate salvari, non humana superbia rursus, e ee interclpi. e e .fl 3'7Ibid., cap. xv: "Et in his omnibus non solum non solvunt fasciculos secundum.Isaiam deprimentes [regarding one who merely follows the letter of the law, thinking himself justified by fasting], sed etiam superaddunt super miseros st sgentes. Quando enim spsrant aliquid lucrari, ad legem se convertunt: quando vero per legem non aestimant acquirers, ad capitula confugiunt: sicque interdum sit, ut nec capitula pleniter conserventur, sed pro nihilo habeantur, nec lex." See also chapter IX, notes 1h-19 for further examples. - 315 - worldly or legal terms would be to subvert their true signi- ficance. Hincmar insisted upon this, and it seems also a valid criticism of modern historiography which tries to "un- derstand" an institution in legal terms without penetrating its deeper function in an epoch's total Gestalt. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to permit the generalization that as Hincmar grew older, he placed in- creasing weight on the importance of law and the definition of office.37 The later years of the archbishop's life were in part devoted to an encouragement of viable monarchy just when it seemed least likely to be forthcoming. The chaos into which public life was slipping naturally encouraged the writing of such as work as De ordine palatii which defined to the smallest detail the various responsibilities of pub- lic officers. It seems probable that this shift in emphasis toward the legal aspect of ministerium found its analogue in his modified attitude toward the involvement of the episcopal office in political life. The mystical concordance of offi- ces had the result of curtailing potential criticism of royal action by the sacerdotal order except on a narrowly moral plane, so that the disciplinary function of the king would be less conditioned. Although the logical conclusion of this trend in his thought might seem ultimately to have been the abandonment of his theory of ministerium altogether, Hincmar never modified his central tenet, that love and discipline, 37For the development of Hincmar's use of law, see the sketch of Jean Devisse, Hincmar st la loi. ~316- ‘whether applied to a single office or to the total collectivity of offices making up the whole of society, enter into a dia- lectical relationship assuring creative order and personal liberation. CHAPTER XIV CONCLUSION It would be superfluous here to retrace the definition for the various public offices as formulated by Hincmar. They are not unfamiliar to students of Carlingian history, and the present study has not seriously challenged the familiar lists of royal virtues and responsibilities on one hand nor the definition of episcopal liberties and duties on the other as found in the various tracts of the ninth century and in law. However significant the definitions of various offices might be for ascertaining the Roman or Germanic roots of lat- er medieval institutions, the pressnt investigation has tried to clarify the significance Hincmar's ideas had for his own time by revealing their function in society. For Hincmar, the crucial difference was between the sacerdotal and the sec- ular office and their respective modes of action, rather than emphasizing the distinctions between the levels in a hierarchy of authority. Where the present investigation has really sought to plough new ground is in suggesting a different methodological approach to the study of institutions. More specifically, it has attempted to ascertain the meaning of ministerium by study- ing its functional relationship to both the deeper levels of -317... -318- psychic existence and to the material situation in which the office was expected to operate. To detach what we know of the legal definition of various offices from their ideological and material context is to hamper seriously our understanding of their significante for the time. For this reason, a consi- derable amount of attention has been devoted to the political events to which Hincmar responded and to the broader reaches of his thought. The suspicion that Hincmar's world view was fundamen- tally Benedictine is aroused by recalling that he was educated in a monastery at a time when monasticism was enjoying a re- formation and an increasing influence upon all aspects of life. This re-evaluation is further verified by a careful consider- ation of the manner in which Hincmar used certain terms fun- damental to Christian thought, such as 2251 22921 caritas, and superbia. In particular, although his explicit legal de- finitions of various offices derived in part from non-Bens- dictine sources such as Ambrose, his idea of the role which offices played in the fabric of social and political life can only be understood as an expression of monastic views. When he attempted to explain how offices related to man's effort to find salvation, he most often had recourse to ideas con- tained in Gregory the Great and the Benedictine rule. Because monastic thought had proven highly successful in reshaping the world and the monk himself by integrating worldly action and spiritual ends, it provided an ideal base for Hincmar's idea of office, for here too, there was need to - 319 - understand the workings of government and social structure in terms relative to Christian ends and values. His concept of. political office, which thus provided the nexus of political action and ideology, became for him the axis of Carolingian political life. He was quite justified in believing that were his views generally accepted, they would provide a more coher- ent and efficient action in the world, comparable to that achieved by Benedictine monasticism except on a much broader scale. When Hincmar‘s idea of office is placed in the broad- er context of his thought, it appears that he saw ministerium basically as a mechanism for the radical re-sducation of both the holder of the office and the persons subject to its author- ity. This, in turn, suggests both the strengths and weakness- es of his position, for directing men's actions in the world is a much easier task than reshaping the whole man. Office considered externally, as the objectification of worldly means, found Hincmar readily adjusting his ideas to political realities. He abandoned his early hope for a rational con- cordance of offices, and then, when the monarchy became in- capable of providing a necessary disciplina for its subjects, he emphasized that all men held office and thus all men were subject to some descipline regardless of the state of the monarchy. Not only kings, but also dukes, counts, and even private persons hold an office wherein they act so as to realize God's will on earth in terms of objective responsibili- ti.‘ e ’ "- 'kesfl'rtzmp...1_w - 320 - When Hincmar considered the inner aspect of office-' as the objectification of spiritual ends-he found the least response from his lay contemporaries. His effort to encour- age a humble turning away from treating worldly goods as ends in themselves toward an opening of the heart to God's will fell on the hard soil of an avaricious and ambitious aristo- cracy. Due to his monastic training, Hincmar believed that a three-fold action corresponding to each of the three ele- ments of man's being could actually bring about a fundamental change in human nature: the discipline of worldly authority, the adminition of spiritual action, and God's saving grace. He failed to appreciate that Carolingian government was not so tightly organized as the Benedictine abbey and was more open to disturbing outside influences. Hence, the radical re-sducation for which.he strove was doomed to failure. One must ask, therefore, whether his efforts had any appreciable effect. Most of his admonition was directed to a monarchy soon to become a minor factor in public life, and as for the aristocracy, there is ample evidence from tenth- century France that humility was the farthest thing from their minds. On the other hand, there is also evidence of a grows ing lay piety. Despite the watering-down of religious thought and the subjection of the church to lay powers, there was (perhaps as the consequence) a much more intimate relation- ship between the church and the broad reaches of soceity. Certainly Hincmar's opposition to a monarchic structure of authority in the church and his encouragement of a dynamic in- _ 321 - teraction of Christian ideals and political action encouraged this tendency. However difficult it may now be to grasp, this increased lay piety could not help but influence the thought of the crude warriors and poor villagers of the time. It is now increasingly realized that the tenth and eleventh centuries witnesses a period of dynamic growth. Here took place the rapid development of socio-economic (manorial) and socio-political (feudal) structures which. were to enjoy a long life and provide a great source of strength and well-being for medieval EurOpe. There appears to have been a major revolution in agricultural technology, an expansion in economic activity, a clearing of new lands, and a rapid in- crease in population. It would be tempting to explain this phenomenon in part by reference to this new piety, whereby the people of Western Europe were able to understand worldly action in relation to Christian ideology-—an.ideology sanc- tifying the world by subjecting it to spiritual purposes. In other words, what Hincmar was trying to do for the political structure of the ninth century, laymen on a much less ration- al and sophisticated level may also have done for their own action in the world. Here again, one can be misled by appearances. Tenth- century France is generally considered a period of feudal anarchy about which little good can be said. However, every effort should be taken to study this atmosphere of conflict more closely. Through their ambitions to expand and consoli- - 322 - date their power in order to better enter into conflict with neighboring princes, the feudatoriss of the tenth and ele- venth centuries developed sophisticated instruments of govern- ment and efficient means for expoiting resources. One might call this I'meaningful" conflict, in contrast to conflict which simply squanders resources and produces social and political disorientation and anomie. Social theorists suggest that a precondition for what we are here calling "meaningful“ con- flict is some degree of agreement over ultimate ends and val— ues. Without this, rather than building the viable princi- palities which emerged in tenth to thirteenth-century France, there may'well have been the kind of self-defeating conten- tion which so vitiated life in the late Merovingian period. In the ninth century, as vassals appropriated royal prerogatives and responsibilities, they also found themselves exposedto ideas associated with them, including the objective idea of office in means and perhaps also to some extent in ends. This being the case, then the emergence of the "mys- tique' of vassalage in the ninth century may not be as absol- utist as is assumed.1 If one looks beyond the legal definition of office, then one realizes that subjection to the lord pro- vided a saving discipline which represented neither~weakness of the vessel's part nor any so-called totalitarian right of the lord. The subjection of office was felt to be subjection to Christ-an easy yoke, for it was one which liberated man * A _.___ _...____ 1Francois L. Ganshof, Feudalism (2nd English ed.1 New York, 1961). pp. 32-33. - 323 - and set him free. This not only justified the structu authority, it made of it a welcome bondage, for it served the most fundamental and far reaching interests of the vessel by providing a saving discipline. No doubt such considerations were often lost sight of in the brute realities of life, but had they been totally lacking, the creative social and political activity of this and succeeding centuries may well not have taken place to produce medieval civilization. Besides this more general consideration of the impact of the idea of office on non- royal areas of political life, there is a more restricted con- nection which, although difficult to verify, yet remains in- triguing. When Hincmar thought of office as being at once submission to authority and freedom through committment, as well as the nexus of ideology and political necessity, there was a close resemblance to later knightly attitudes. In an interesting article on the relationship between the knightly ideal and its reality, Arno Borst has suggested that a com- bination of freedom and subjection emerged as decisive for the character of late eleventh-century knighthood.2 Such attitudes as freedom in committment emerged as part of a growing knightly class consciousness, but it was a class which had appropriated the public prerogatives and res- ponsibilities of the king. The history of this appropriation 2Arno Borst, “Des Rittertum im Hochmittelalter. Ides und Wirkliohkeit," Saeculum, x (1959). 213.231. - 32h - is well enough known-it can be traced in some detail through the ninth and tenth centuries-—but the literacy of this class was so restricted that today the study of a possible appro- priation of royal ideology has barely begun. The present investigation has attempted to show how Hincmar placed the idea of the royal office in a Benedictine context and then extended its application to the whole of government. Further study might well reveal that this side of his activity con- tributed greatly to aristocratic class consciousness and thus more to the emergent medieval world than his furthering of an ideal of kingship- BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY The various works of Hincmar relevant to the purposes of this study have received detailed attention in the text, and here discussion will be devoted to secondary bibliography. Something should be said, however, of the editions used for Hincmar's writings. A number of the texts most important for a study of his idea of political office were contained in a manuscript of the cathedral of Spire. This document was destroyed, but fortunately, before that happened, Jean Buys had edited them in his Hincmarusj Epistolae. Ex ms. membrane- ceo cod. bibliothecae nd. et cathedralis Ecol. Spirensis des- criptae . . . ed. J. Busaei (Monguntiae, 1602). Because of the rarity of the Buys volume, the present study has used the edition of Jacob Sirmond, gigcmari Archiepiscppi Remensig, ‘nggg, duos in tomos digesta (2 vols.; Paris, 16h5). Migne's Patrolggga Latina , although the most convenient edition of Hincmar's works, was considered too full of errors to provide always reliable readings. In certain cases, however, there have been editions of individual works of Hincmar which are prefarable to that of Sirmond. This is particularly true of the partially com- pleted collection of Hincmar's letters comprising the Monumen- ta Germaniae histories . . . E istolas, VIII, pars 1 (Berlin, 1939). Furthermore, a number of Hincmar's writings have been - 325 - - 326 - edited in recent years in scholarly journals. This is the case of Ad reclusos st si lices, edited by Wilhelm.Gundlach, 'Zwei Schriften des Erzbischofs Hinkmar von Reins," Zeitschrift fur Kircheggeschichte, x (1889), 258-310; De ecclesiis et ea- llis, edited by Wilhelm Gundlach, ”Zwei Schriften des Erz- bischofs Hinkmar von Reims,' Zeitschrift fur Kigchengeschichte, x (1889), 92-1h5; and Memorandum for the T113131 of 120th of Soissons, edited by E. Perels, 'Eine Denkschrift Hinkmars von Reims im ProzeB Rothads von Soissons," Nous Archiv, XLIV (1922), 43-100. Finally, to complete this list of primary source editions, Maurice Prou's De ordine palatii epistola (Paris, 1885), was used for this important work. For the sake of analysis, it is perhaps best to dis- tinguish three types of secondary works relevant to Hincmar's idea of office, corresponding to the three facets of his thought presented in the body of this dissertation. First, one has to consider his legal definition of various offices. Second, an appreication of the interrelation of his idea of office and the social and political context requires a care- ful evaluation ofthe'evsnts to which Hincmar responded and the course of which he tried to influence. Third, this disserta- tion has argued that Hincmar's ideas cannot properly be under- stood isolated from the whole of his Weltanschauung. There- fore, one is compelled to seek the relation of his concept of office to more general ideas-ddentifisd here as essential- ly Benedictine. - 327 - There exists an extensive literature dealing either directly or indirectly'with Hincmar's legal definition of the royal office, and no effort will be here made to provide an exhaustive bibliography. Albert Werminghoff, "Die Fursten- spiegel der Karolingerzeit," Historische Zeitschrift, LXXXIX (1902), 193-21h, provides a general, although useful, intro— duction. The present study has suggested that a narrow legal investigation of Hincmar's idea of office would overesmphasize his reliance an.Augustinian concepts, and make his writings seem recherché and irrelevant to political life. Contribu- ting to this I believe mistaken line of endeavor was Hugo Tiralla, Des gugustinische Idealbild dergchristlichen Obrig- keit als Quells der "Fursetnspiggel" des Sedulius Scottus ung Hincmar von Reims (Greifswald, 1916), who detailed the extent to which Hincmar was dependent on Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Pseudo-Cyprian. The most convenient summary along this line of Hincmar's ideas, although not without factual errors, is that of Lester K. Born, "The 'Specula Principis' of the Carolingian Renaissance," Revug_belge de philologz et d'histoire, XII (1933), 583-612. Born has the virtue of see- ing the fundamentally moral rather than religious nature of the mirrors, and, although recognizing this to be somehow original and imporant for the future, fails to appreciate its full significance. Carl Erdmann, “Ein karolingischer Konzilsbrief und der Furstenspiegel Hinkmars von Reims,“ Ngu.. Archiv, L (1935): 106-131;, still maintains that Hincmar was more a man of action than of original thought. The only per- - 328 - son to seriously challenge Hincmar's supposed legalism and Augustinism is H. M. Klinkenberg, ”Uber karolingischs Fflrstsn- spiegel,“ Geschichte in Wisssnschaft und Unterricht, VIII (1956), 82-98. To some extent, the present investigation has been in effect a realization of some of the suggestions made by Klinkenberg. The most recent general study, that of Werner Andreas Schmidt, Verfassungslehrsn im_9. Jahrhundert (Dies. Mainz, 1961), although a convenient categorization of ideas, contributes little that is new. Jakob Schmidt's Hing: mar's "De ordinsgpalatii" und seine Quellen (Diss. Frankfurt a.M., 1962), was not available to the present writer. Klinkenberg's suggestions have not elicited an immedi- ate response from other scholars, and in fact, in one case, they have been challenged. Erna Buschmeann, "Ministerium Dei -idoneitas; Um Deutung aus dem mittslaltsrlichen Fursten- spiegeln," Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXXII (1963), 70-102, sug- gests that monastic morality did not constitute the basis of the royal office, but rather, was attempt to check the unlimi- ted power which the king derived from God. Since neither. Klinkenberg nor Buschmann attempted to do more than suggest hypotheses, hopefully the present study throws further light on the question. Although Buschmann's observations may well be relevant to what the monarchs themselves thought, it also seems clear that Hincmar saw in monastic humilitas not only a means of checking undesirable royal action, but also a con- tribution to its strengthening when directed to proper ends. - 329 - Generally speaking, no attempt was made in the course of the present work to re-interpret Hincmar's political acti- vity beyond what is suggested in light of his thought. For the details of Hincmar's political career, one turns first to Karl von Noorden, HincmarLgErzbischof von Rheims (Bonn, 1863) and Heinrich Schrors,§i_§kmarj Erzbischof von Rheims (Frsiburg i.B., 1884). Both of these works are sound and valuable ac- counts, especially the latter, which catalogues Hincmar's writings. However,'what these two men found interesting in Hincmar's career does not only reflect the same preoccupations which concern the historian today. Our differing interests and the considerable amount of work which has subsequently been done in ninth-century history means that a fresh bio- graphy of Hincmar is a prime desideratum. Until such a bio- graphy appears, one can turn to other studies detailing Hinc- mar's political involvement, such as Ernst Dummler, Geschichte des ostfrfinkischen Reiches (2nd ed., 3 vols.; Leipzig, 1887- 88), and Joseph Calmette, La diplomatic carolingienne (Paris, 1901). The most recent history, pleasant reading while con- tributing nothing new, is that of Paul Zumthor, CharleL ls Chauve (Paris, 1957). There are a number of very good reasons why a biography of Hincmar has yet to appear, although the need for one is often asserted. One of these factors, immediately relevant to the problem at hand, is the lack of agreement as to Hincmar's attitude to law; If one begins with the assumption that Hinc- mar was devoted to the preservation and enforcement of law, - 33o - it is possible to find much evidence to support it. Jean Devisse, Hincmar et la loi (Dakar, 1962), even suggests that Hincmar was responsible for a renaissance of Roman law in West Francia. Once given this estimate of Hincmar's attitudes, then it is possible to construct complex edifices designed to illuminate Hincmar's action in public life. A recent at- tempt to do this is Karl F. Morrison's The Two Kingdoms; Ec- clesiology in Carolingian Political Thought (Princeton, 196k). Is it true, though, that Hincmar saw the maintenance of law as an end in itself? If not, then the greatest of caution must be exercised lest elaborate arguments prove no- thing more than sand castles contributing to a misunderstand- ing of the man and his times. Casting doubt on Hincmar's absolute devotion to the letter of the law are Gerhard Ehrenforth, "Hinkmar von Rsims und Ludwig III. von Westfran- ken," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, LXIV (1925), 65-98, and Carlrichard Bruhl, "Hinkmariana, II: Hinkmar im Wider- streit von kanonischem Recht und Politik in Ehefragsn,‘ Deutsch- es Archiv, XX (196h), 55-77- It is hoped that the present study has thrown some light on this crucial question by suggesting that for Hincmar, formal definitions of action, whether in law or ministerium, lay in.a field spanning the worldly situation and God's will. Thus, while law was to be revered because it was an expression of the divine will, it was also subject to dynamic change be- cause anchored in the changing circumstances of life. If this - 331 - thesis regarding Hincmar's thought has been sustained with any success, then one finds a resolution of the apparent con- tradictions which have caused modern historians such diffi- culties when dealing with the archbishop . Perhaps we stand too much under the shadow of ninteenth-century bourgeois his- toriography, which forgot that law simply objectifies power relations and to be viable must serve ends which lie above it. Perhaps modern historians are in a better position to understand Hincmar's idea of office by seeing it in terms of actual ninth-century power structures and also in terms of that society's ultimate ends and values, for they have less of a vested interest in hiding real power relations with a legal veneer. BIBLIOGRAPHY SOURCES Benedict of Nursia. The Rule of St. Benedict. Trans. by F. A. Gasquet. London, 1908. Reprinted in New York, 1966. Grat, Felix, et al. Annales de Saint-Bertin. Paris, 1964. Gundlach, Wilhelm. "Zwei Schriften dss Erzbischofs Hinkmar von Reims," Zgitschrift ffir Kirchengsschichtg, X (1889), 92-145, 258-310. Mansi, Giovanni D. Collectionis conciliorum nova et amplis- sima collectio,_. . . New Edition. 53 vols. Paris, 1901-1927. Migne, Jacques P. Patrologiae cursus completus,_. . . Series Latina. 221 vols. Paris, 1841-1864. Monumenta Germaniae historica, . . . Legeg, Legum sectio II: Capitularia regum Francorum. 2 vols. Ed. Boretius and Krauss. Hannover, 1883-1897. flpnumsnta Germaniae historica, . . . Epistolae. 8 vols. Berlin, 1887-1939. Monumenta Germaniae historica, . . . Scriptorss rerum Mero- vingicarum. 7 vols. Ed. Krusch et al. Hannover, 1884-1920. Monuments Germaniae historica . Scri tores. 32 vols. Hannover, 1 2 -193 Perels, E. "Eine Denkschrift Hinkmars von Reims im ProzeB Rothads von Soissons," Neues Archiv, XLIV (1922), 43-100. Prou, Haurice. De ordine palatii epistola. Paris, 1885. Sirmond, Jacob. Hincmari Archiepiscopi Remensis, Opera, duos in tomes digests. 2 vols. Paris, 1645. - 332 - - 333 - SECONDARY WORKS Arquillidre, H. x. LtAugustiniems politiqus. Paris, 1934. Barion, H. Das frankisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frfih- gittelalters. Bonn, 1931. Reprinted Amsterdam, 1963. Berger, Adolf. ”Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law," Trans- actions of the American Philosophical Society, XLIII, 2 (Philadelphia, 1953), 333-808. Born, Lester K. “The 'Specula Principis' of the Carolingian Renaissance," Revue belgs dsgphilologie st d'histoirs, XI: (1933), 583-612. Borst, Arno. "Das Rittertum im Hochmittelalter. Ides und Wirchlichksit," Saeculum, x (1959). 213-231. Brfihl, Carlrichard. "Hinkmariana, II: Hinkmar im Widerstreit von kanonischem Recht und Politik in Ehefragen," Deutsches Archiv, xx (1964). 55-77. Buchner, max. “Zur Entstehung und zur Tendenz der 'Gesta Dagoberti.'" Historisches Jahrbuch, XLVII (1927), 252-274. Buschmann, Erna. "Ministerium Dei-—idoneitas. Um ihrs Deut- ung aus dem mittslaltsrlichen Furstenspiegeln." His- torisches Jahrbuch, LXXXII (1963), 70-102. "" Bfittner, Heinrich. ”Aus den Anfangen dss absndlandischen Staatgedankens; Die Kanigserhebung Pippins," Das Kbni - tum, ed. T. Mayer (Darmstadt, 1963), pp. 155-137. Calmette, Joseph. La di lomatie caroli ienne du Traitb de Verdun d la mort de Charles le Chauve. Paris, 1901. Carlyle, A. J. A Histo of Medieval Political Thoe in the West, 1. 3rd impression. Edinburgh, 1950. Chambers, Mortimer. "The Crisis of the Third Century," The Transformation of the Roman World. ed. Lynn White Berkeley, 19 , pp. 30-5 . Classen, P. ”Dis Vertrflge von Verdun und von Coulaines 843, als politische Grundlagen des Westfrflnkischen Reiches,” Historische Zeitschrift, cxcvx (1963). 1-35. Clercq, Charles de. La l‘gislation religiouse caroliggienne, II: De Louis le Pieux la fin du si cle. Anvers, 1958. -334- Cochrane, Charles Norris. Christianity and Classical Culture Revised edition. New York, 1957. Conrat (Cohen), Max. 'Ein Traktat fiber romanisch-frankisches Amterweseni" Zeitschrift fur Rechtsgeschichts, G.A., xxxx (1908 . 5593560. Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glsncoe, 111.. 19561 D'Arcy, M. C. The Mind and Heart of Lovgj A Study in Eros and Agapg. Cleveland, 1962. David, Marcel. La souverainet‘ et les limites_juridiques du pouvoir monarchique du IXa au xv5 siécls. StraBburg, 1954. Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augus- tine. New York, 1963. Devisse, Jean. Hincmar et la loi. Dakar, 1962. . "'Paupsres' et 'Paupertas' dans 1e monde carolingien: ce qu'en dit Hincmar de Reims," Revue du Nord, XLVIII (1966), 273-287. Diesner, Hans J. Studien zur Gesellschaftslshrs und sozialsn Haltung Augustine. Halls, 1954. Dummler, Ernst. Geschichte dss ostfrankischsn Reiches. 2nd .de 3 V018 s 1161p21g. 1887-88 s Dflrig, Walter. ”Disciplina; eine Studie zum Beteutungsumfang des Wortes in der Sprache der Liturgie und Vatsr," Sacris Erudiri, IV (1952), 245-279. Edelstein, Wolfgang. "Erutitio" und "Sapientia:” Weltbild und Erzeihung_in der Karolingerzeit. Freiburg i.B., 1965. Ehrenforth, Gerhard. "Hinkmar von Rheims und Ludwig III. von Westfranksn,' Zeitschrift fur kirchenggschichte, XLIV (1925) o 65-980 Ensslin, Wilhelm. "Auctoritas und Potestas; Zur Zeigewalten- lehre des Papstes Gelasius I," Historisches Jahrbuch, Lxx1v (1955). 661-668. Erdmann, Carl. "Ein karolingischer Konzilsbrief und der Fur- stenspiegel Hinkmars von.Reims,” Neues Archiv, L (1935). 106-134. Esmein, Adh‘mar. Le mariage en droit canonigue. 2nd. ed. 2 vols. Paris, 1929-35. - 335 - Ewig, Eugen. "Zum christlichen Konigsgedanken im Fruhmittel- alteg," Das Koni tum, ed. T. Mayer (Lindau, 1965), pp. '73 o Faulhaber, Roland. Der Reichseinheitsgedanke in der Literatur der Karoliggerzeit bis zum Vertrag von Verdum. Berlin, 1931. Feine, Hans Erich Alfred. Kirchlichs Rechtsggschichte, I. Die katholische Kirche. 4th ed. Koln, 1964. Fiske, Adele. ”Paradisus homo amicus," Speculum, XL (1965), “36-h59 e Fleckenstein, Josef. Dis Bildungsreform Karols des GroBen als Verwirklichung_der Norma Rectitudinis. Bigge-Ruhr, 1953. Fournier, Paul and Gabriel Le Bras. Histoire des collections canoniques en occident, I. Paris, 1931. Freund, Walter. Modernus und andsrs Zeitbsgriffe dss Mittel- alters. Kbln, 1957. Ganshof, Francois L. Feudalism. Trans. P. Grierson. New York, 1961. . "La 'Paix' au trés haut moyen Age," La Paix, I (Bruxelles, 1961), 397-h13. Genicot, Léopold. ”La noblesse dans la soci‘té mtdiévale," Moyen.Agp, Lxx1 (1965), 539-560. Graus, Frantiisk. Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Herovingpr. Prague, 1965. Halphen, Louis. Les barbares dss ndes invasions aux con- qu‘tes turques du XI siecle. 3rd ed. Paris, 193 . 'L'Idés d'ttat sous lss Carolingisns," Revue his- tori ue, CLxxxv (1939), 59—70. . Charlemagne et l'Empire carolingien. Paris, 1947. ' Vor- Hsmpe harl. ”Zum Streite Hincmars von Reims mit seinem , ganger Ebo und dessen.Anhangern,' Neues Archiv, XXIII (1898), 180-195- Herwegen, Ildefons. Der heilige Benedikt. 4th ed. 1951. lalterliche Hflrten Heinz. “Gregor der GroBe und der mitts . Episkopat," Zeitschrift fur Kirchsrlggschichte, LXXIII (1962), 16-477 Dusseldorf, - 336 - . ”Alkuin und der Episkipat im Reiche harls dss Grossen,” Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXXII (1962), 22-49. . "'Libertas' in der Patristikr-Jlibertas episcopalis' im Fruhmittelalter," Archiv fur Kultuggeschichte, XLV (1963), 1-14. Jolivet, J. ”Quelques cas de 'platonisme grammatical' du VII. au XIIO s.,“ Mtlanges René Crozst, I (poitiers, 1966). 93-99. Kern, Fritz. Gottepgnadsntum und Widerstandrecht im Fruhen Mittelalter. 2nd. ed. Darmstadt, 1954. Keyes, Gordon Lincoln. Christian Faith and the Interpretation of History. Lincoln, Nebraska, 19663 Klinkenberg, H. N. "Uber karolingische Ffirstenspiegel," Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, VIII (195), 82-98. Kroeschell, K. "Amt," Handwortsrbuch zur deutschen Rechts- geschichte, I (196E), 150-153. Ladner, Gerhart B. "'Homo Viator': Medieval Ideas on Alien- ation and Order," Speculum, XLII (1967), 233-259. Latouche, Robert. The Birth of the Western_Economy. Economic Aspects of the Dark Ages. London, 1961. Leclercq, Jean. "Un Centon de Fleury sur les devoirs des moins," Analscta Monastica, I (citta del Vaticano, 1948). 73:90. . The Love of Learnipg and the Desire for God. New York, 1961. Lesne, Emil. "Hincmar & l'Empereur Lothaire," Revue des ques- tions historiques, LXXVIII (1905), 5-58. Levillain, Léon. "Etudes sur l'abbaye de Saint-Denis a l'époqus mérovingisnne," Bibliothsgue de l'Ecole des Chartes, Lxxx11 (1921), 5-1161 Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York, 1964. Liebeschfitz, Hans. ”Wesen und Grenzen dss karolingischen Rationalismus,” Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, XXXIII (1950). 17-hh. Lot, Ferdinand. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnipgs of the Middle Ages. New York, 1961. - 337 - Lovejoy, Arthur 0. ”The Communism of Saint Ambrose," Journal of the Histggy of Ideas, III (1942), 458-468. Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociolpgy of Knowledge. New York, 1936; Marx, Karl. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1845. New York, 1964. Mayer, Theodor. "Staatsauffassung in der Karoingerzeit," Das Konigtum (Darmstadt, 1963), pp. 169-183. . Das Konigtum. Seine eisti en und rechtlichen Grund- la en. Lindau-Konstanz, 195 . Reprinted Darmstadt, 1965. McIlwain, Charles Howard. The Growth of Political ThOpght in the West. New York, 1932. Meyvaert, Paul. “Diversity within Unity. A Gregorian Theme,“ The Heythrop Journal, IV (1963), 141-162. Mohr, Walter. ”Die Krise des kirchlichen Einheitsprogrammes im Jahre 858,“ Archivium Latinitatis Msdii Aevi, XXV (1955). 189-213. . "Die kirchliche Einheitspartie und die Durchfflhrung der Reichsordnung von.817," Zeitschrift fur Kirchen- geschichte, LXXII (1961), 1-45. . Die karolingische Reichsidee. Munster, 1962. Mommsen, Theodor. "St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Piggrezs,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XII (1951), 3 “’37 e Morrison, Karl Frederick. The Two Kipgdoms. Ecclesiologz in Carolingian Political Thought. Princeton, 1964. Niermeyer, J. F. Medias Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. Leiden, 1954‘s w Ohnsorge, Werner. 'Byzanz und das Abendland im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert; Zum Entwicklung des Kaiserbegriffs und der Staatsideologie," Saeculum, V (1954), 194-220. Parisot, Robert. Le royaume de Lorraine sous lee Carolip‘iens. Paril , 1 899 s Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. 2nd ed. NOW York, 1fl9e Rosenthal, Joel T. "The Public Assembly in the Time of Louis the Pious,” Traditio, xx (196k), 25-no. - 338 - Rostovtzeff, M. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford, 1957. Scharf, Joachim. "Studien zu Smaragdus und Jonas," Deutsches Archiv, XVII (1961), 333 384. Schatajerman, E. M. Die Krise der Sklavenhalterordnun in Weston dss Remischen Reiches. Berlin, 1964. Scheibe, Friedrich Carl. "Geschichtsbild, ZeitbewuBtsein und Rsformwille bei Alcuin," Archiv fur Kulturgeschichts, XLI (1959). 35- 62. Schlesinger, Walter. "Karolingische Konigswahlsn,” Zur Ge- sichte und Problematik der Demokratie (Berlin, 1958), pp. 207-264. . "Herrschaft und Gefolgschaft in der germanisch- deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte," Beitrags zur deut- schen Verfassungsggschichte (Gfittingen, 1963), pp. 9-52- Schmidt, Werner Andreas. Verfassungslshren im QigJahrhun- dert. Diss. Mainz, 1961. Schneider, Reinhard. Brfldergemeine und SchwurfreundschaftL Der AuflfisungsprozeB des Karlingerrsiches im Spiegel der caritas-Iprminologge in den Vertragsn der Karling- ischen Teilkanigs des49. Jahrhunderts. Lfibeck, 1964. Schramm, Percy Ernst. Der Kfinig von Frankreich. 2nd. ed. 2 vols. Weimar, 1960. . ”Karl der GroBs: Denkart und Grundauffassungen-— Dis von ihm bewirkte Correctio," Historischs Zeit- schrift, CXCVIII (1964), 306-345. Schrfirs, Heinrich. Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Rheims. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Freiburg i.B., 1884. Ssmmler, Josef. ”Reichsidee und kirchliche Gesetzgebung," Zeitschrift fur Kirchsngeschichts, LXXI (1960), 37-65. Sprengler, Anneliese. "Die Gebete der Krfinigsordines Hink- mars von Reims fur Karl den Kahlen als Khnig von Loth- ringsn und fur Ludwig den Stammler," Zeitschfirt fur Kirchengeschichte, LXIII (1950/51), 245- 267. Stutz, Ulrich. Die Eigenkirchs. Berlin, 1895. Reprint: Darmstadt, 1955. Sullivan, Richard E. "Some Influences of Monasticism on Fourth and Fifth Century Society," Studies in Medieval Cul- ture, II, ed. John Sommerfeldt (Western Michigan University, 1966), 19- 34 - 339 - Tellenbach, Gerd. Church, Stats and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest. Oxford, 1966. Tiralla, Hugo. Das augustinischs Idealbild derggristlichen Obrigheit alsgguelle der 'Ffirstenspiegel“ dss Se- dulius Scottus und Hincmar von Reims. Dies. Grsifs- wald, 1916. Walbank, F. W. The Decline of the Roman Empire in the West. London, 1946: Wallace-Hadrille, J. M. "The 'Via Regia' of the Carolingian Age," Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. Beryl Smalloy’IOxrord. 1965). pp. 22-41. Weiler, A. G. "Deus in tsrris: Mittelalterliche Wurzeln der totalitaren Ideologie," Acta historica Neerlandica, Werminghoff, Albert. "Die Ffirstenspiegel der Karolingerzeit," Historischs Zeitschrift, LXXXIX (1902), 193-214. Zeller, H. "Amt," Lexikin fur Theologie und Kirche, I (Frei- burg, 1957), 001.. “51-52e "'TITI'ITIQiITILJEIMIflfljlflfyififlflflfllifflms