é. a
Amman

    
        

 

Jim.

. ‘
“91hr: fl“.

MW...

  

 

             
 

 

uRY

PA
BY.
1ch

v

  

 
 

    

 

"wens
BW-‘f

PA
£0.

E.
H

c

9

  

   

      

J'r...:“......ndmaiu z

    

agree

Aid

 

             

.2)?!
. .rwflnfl
I. .
y i.
f z m.

. H

 

A.
E11!

ma
m

iA‘N ,

't 6}:
N SW

2

 

8 AND T

fbr

t

:PIOU
08
E

A
i:
T

l
H
Am
A:

t

9A a

 

A

AA
BO"
INC

 

 

   

 

 
   

. S. :F...: 8: ..\

 
 
 
 

 

 

ABSTRACT

LOUIS THE PIOUS AND THE PAPACY: LAW,
POLITICS AND THE THEORY OF EMPIRE
IN THE EARLY NINTH CENTURY

BY
Thomas F. X. Noble

This dissertation seeks to respond to two basic
questions: What developments in papal-imperial relations
occurred during the years 814-840 for which Louis was
principally or solely responsible? What were the major
themes and thrusts of papal policy during those same
years? This study also has three secondary objectives.
An attempt is made to reflect on the nature of Louis'
piety in order to determine whether it was a debilitating
force in his dealings with the head of the Church. Louis'
abilities as a policy-maker, in so far as these abilities
appear in his dealings with the papacy, are studied and
evaluated positively. This suggests the possibility
'that a major rehabilitation can be undertaken of the
negative judgment passed by generations of scholars on
Ixouis. Finally, attention is paid to the dangers of

assuming that some of the prevalent themes of early

Thomas F. X. Noble

' \Of
”.060
ninth century political thought are truly reflective of
the actual historical situation. .

Papal-imperial relations during Louis' reign are

treated in episodic fashion because the sources dictate
such a treatment. Six events are singled out for par-
ticular emphasis and a chapter is devoted to each of them.
They are: the imperial coronation of 816, the Pactum

Ludovicianum, the Constitutio Romana, the second icono-

 

 

clastic controversy, the Roman synod of 826 and the
"Field of Lies." Minor events in papal-imperial history
814-840 are arranged around these major events.

The author contends that in all that concerns
papal relations Louis' reign divides into two periods.
The years from 814 to 824 may be called imperial because
the key initiatives arose from Louis and because Louis'
policies and actions demand greater attention than those
of the papacy. The years 825-834 may be designated papal
because during that decade some very new and important
initiatives were taken by the papacy. After 834 we hear
of no further dealings between Louis and the papacy.

Louis' coronation by Stephen IV in 816 is studied
in great detail and it is set into the context of earlier
and later Carolingian coronation practices. The coro-
nation is interpreted as a profound elevation of Louis'
imperial dignity. The idea that this coronation gained

for the papacy a constitutive role in conferring the

Thomas F. X. Noble

imperial office is met and refuted. The Ludovicianum is

 

interpreted as the first attempt by the Carolingians to
define their rights in and around Rome and also as an
initial effort to integrate the papacy into the insti-

tutional structure of the empire. The Constitutio Romana

 

is seen as a consistent and coherent extension of the

policies begun with the Ludovicianum. A number of minor

 

events in papal-imperial relations are interpreted as

having been precursors to the issuance of the Constitutio.

 

An attempt is made to show that each of these events
demonstrated to Louis either the partial inadequacy of
the Ludovicianum or facets of papal action with which he
had previously been unfamiliar.

By 824 the papacy had been effectively integrated
into the institutional life of the empire and a Caro-
lingian legal and political presence had been created in
Rome. The very unclear legal and political position of
the papacy before 814 was resolved in favor of the empire
and Louis had used his coronation in 816 to demonstrate
that his imperial dignity was the highest dignity in the
Christian world.

Having been rather effectively excluded from
political intrigue and having had its legal footing in
the empire defined, the papacy turned to a concerted
affirmation of its spiritual prerogatives. As the chief

priest of the Christian world the papacy was in a

I

w
I}.
III

 

‘~..
.._
I
0
a
...
"v.
'-
n...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas F. X. Noble

position to exercise considerable spiritual authority and
the years after 822 provide several important examples of
how widely the papacy was able to construe its spiritual
functions. A great Frankish cleric, Hrabanus Maurus,
was severely censured and the papacy seized control of
Louis' mission to Denmark. In 825 the papacy refused
to submit to the Carolingian theology on icons and in
826 a great synod was held in Rome in which the papacy
tried to regain its leadership of Church reform. Finally,
in 833, Gregory IV appeared in Francia, amidst a great
rebellion against Louis, to pass judgment on the sins of
the emperor and to restore peace to the Christian world.
Gregory IV made an attempt to regain political influence
for the papacy and, very importantly, he tried to do so
on the basis of a spiritual prerogative, namely, the
right of a priest to judge a sinner. The failure of
Gregory IV in 833 to gain recognition of his right to
judge Louis is important. Although it served as a pre-
cedent for similar interventions by the papacy at a later
time, it proved that, during Louis' reign, the papacy
could involve itself in a secular, political dispute only
at its peril.

Three conclusions are offered. First, Louis'
papal policy was a well-conceived one and it failed
shortly after his death because a new set of political

circumstances made it impossible for Louis' policies to

 

..
,....
.l'I -
~
.0.-
,
I! I
\
n..-
. o
.
P n
c

 

... ‘
.

 

 

Thomas F. X. Noble

be continued. Second, during Louis' reign the papacy
turned to a concerted assertion of its spiritual pre-
rogatives and it was these prerogatives which ultimately
allowed the papacy to rise to the summit of the Western,
Christian world. Finally, the years 814-840 were marked
by a set of profound ecclesiological tensions, turning
mainly on the question of papal or episcopal control of
the Church, and that these tensions had to be resolved
before the clergy as a whole could turn to a full inte-
gration of kingship into its conception of the world

order.

LOUIS THE PIOUS AND THE PAPACY: LAW,
POLITICS AND THE THEORY OF EMPIRE

IN THE EARLY NINTH CENTURY

BY

Thomas F. X. Noble

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of History

1974

@Copyright by
THOMAS F. X. NOBLE

1974

UXORI CARISSIMAE
LINDAE

COMITI INDEFESSAE
PER VITAM ATQUE LABOREM

ii

 

 

 

 

-..

 

 

 

 

   

I
h
| .
u
x -
~
.1
\"
‘ .
“
.
~
\ '-
I. ‘

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My years as a graduate student and, particularly,
the more than two years I have spent researching and
writing this dissertation, have been filled with many
rewarding and gratifying personal and professional
experiences. I count it as the most pleasurable of all
the tasks which have engaged me during the last few years
to acknowledge and thank at least some of the persons
and institutions who have befriended, encouraged and
supported me.

Pride of place must go to my master, Dean Richard
E. Sullivan. He has read and reread every page of this
dissertation and has made comments which were always
incisive and frequently challenging. Though errors
remain these are due to my ignorance or stubbornness
and the reader will thank Dean Sullivan for much of
Whatever merit this work may possess. In a larger sense,
I owe an incalculable debt to my master for the influence
Which his superb teaching, expert scholarship and deep
humaDity have had on me. I only hope that I can live

up to the standard that has been set for me but, even

iii

 

 

 

 

4

'Q..
I

‘..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if I fall short, I can derive satisfaction from the fact
that, having been Dean Sullivan's student, I have had
to set my own standards higher than most.

During my years as a student I have had the
pleasure of working under kind and capable teachers.

I owe much of my formation as an historian to Professors
Marjorie E. Gesner and Eleanor G. Huzar of Michigan
State University and to Professor Ralph V. Turner for-
merly of Ohio University. Professor Gesner kindly took
time from her busy schedule to read this study in its
early stages and to make a number of helpful comments
and criticisms.

Most of my research was done in the Bibliothéque
Royale Albert Ier in Brussels. The hospitality of that
institution is exceeded only by its efficiency. My year
in Belgium was made possible by a Fulbright-Hays fellow-
ship for which I am most grateful. I am equally thankful
to the amiable and efficient administrator of Fulbright
Programs in Belgium, Mrs. Dorothy Deflandre-Moore. She
smoothed out virtually every problem which arose for my
fami1y and me while we were overseas.

While in Belgium I had the privilege and pleasure
0f Consulting with two men who are very beloved of Clio.
Professor Leopold Genicot of Louvain provided some wise
°°un8el and useful bibliographical information at the

beginning of my work and Professor Francois-Louis Ganshof,

iv

emeritus of Ghent, discussed with me, at a later stage,
many of the most difficult problems which I encountered.
I shall always be deeply appreciative of the gracious
hospitality extended to me by these remarkable men.

I must also mention my good friend John J. Con-
treni of Purdue University. His encouragement was
decisive at one point in my career and he has helped me
in dozens of ways both while I was in Belgium and since
I have returned.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the history depart-
ment of Michigan State University for yearly assistant-
ships during times of financial stringency. Without
those stipends I should have been unable to keep body
and soul together. In this same connection, I must thank
my parents, Mr. and Mrs. E. L. Noble, and my father and
mother-in-law, Dr. and Mrs. Nelson H. Jones, for coming
to the rescue on more than one occasion. It is, of
course, impossible for me to say how much I have appre-
ciated the encouragement of these four splendid people.

There are simply no words to describe adequately
What I owe to my wife, Linda. I hope she will understand
that, at this time, I could do neither more, nor less,

than dedicate this work to her.

To F. X. N.

East Lansing , Michigan
0 June, 1974

 

cu‘

‘h,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

 

CHAPTER
I. PROLEGOMENA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. IMPERIAL CORONATIONS: 813, 816,
817, 823 . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
III. THE PACTUM LUDOVICIANUM . . . . . . . . 116
IV. THE CONSTITUTIO ROMANA . . . . . . . . 178

 

V. LOUIS, THE PAPACY AND THE SECOND
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY . . . . . . . 242

VI. THE ROMAN SYNOD OF 826 . . . . . . . . 292

VII. EMPIRE AND PAPACY ON THE 'FIELD
OF LIES. O C O O O O O O O O O O 321

VIII. EPILEGOMENA.. . . . . .. . . . . . . 353

APPENDICES
Appendix
A. ERMOLDUS NIGELLUS VS. 942-1031 . . . . . 370

B. BENEDICTIO AD ORDINANDUM IMPERATOREM
SECUNDUM OCCIDENTALES . . . . . . . . 372

C ' PACTUM LUDOVI CIANUM o o o o o o o o o 3 7 4

vi

.00-

00"

 

Appendix

D. THE

CONSTITUTIO ROMANA

 

E. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CANONS OF THE
ROMAN SYNOD OF 826
EARLIER FRANKISH LEGISLATION

B IBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

B IBLIOGRAPHY

COMPARED WITH

vii

Page

378

380

387

394

 

 

ZACH?

I

1313C:

l

 

.EECDIJquet

/O
W
"1
z

0
3’

l

l"!
U)
H

/E
Q
an

EA
N07
d:

ABBREVIATIONS

Archiv ffir Urkundenforschung

Bibliotheque de l'école 92
chartes

Bibliothéque de l'école des
hautes études

J. F. Bahmer and E. Mfihlbacher,
Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten
des Kaiserreichs unter den
Karolingern

Recueil des historiens des
Gaules et de_Ia France, Vol. VI.

F. L. Ganshof, The Carolingians
and the Frankish Monarchy

Deutsches Archiv ffir Erforschung
dés MittelaIters

Fonti_per la storia d'Italia

Historisches Jahrbuch der
G6rresgesellschaft

Historische Studien

Historische Zeitschrift

J. P. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum con-
ciliorum nova et ampIissima coI-
lectio , 53 vols .

Mitteilungen des Instituts ffir
Osterreichés Geschichtsforschung

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

viii

w“!

euxs

\u.\\

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cap.
Conc.
Dip. Kar.
___§P_E-
FIGA
____.S_S_
SSrG
__ SSrL
qua
13$
IPJL.
El:
ESEEEQ
w
IN?
._;§ESE
2:
‘rSEESi
2:
%.
\—’E
\,1{£

Capitularia Regum Francorum, 2
vols.

Concilia Aevi Carolini, 2 vols.
in 3 and supplement.

Diplomata Karolinorum, Vols. I,
III.

Epistolae Aevi Karolini, Vols.
III, IV, v.

Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqui

Scriptores, 30 vols.

 

Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum
in Usum Scholarum

 

Scriptores Rerum Langobardicorum
Neues Archiv

J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia
Graeca, 161 vols.

J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia
Latina, 221 vols.

Révue belge de philologie et
d‘histOIre

 

Révue d'histoire ecclésiastique

Révue de l'histoire de l'église
de France

 

Die Welt als Geschichte
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
Eur Rechtsgeschichte

germanistische Abteilung

kanonistische Abteilung

ix

 

CHAPTER I

PROLEGOMENA

When setting out to write a work an historian

has, basically, three choices. He can, having discovered

a hiatus in existing scholarship, seek to fill it. Or,

if he has a particularly fertile mind, he can raise a

new question or find a new approach to an old question;

in short, break new ground in some way. Finally, the

historian can synthesize the information already uncovered

on a given subject. The following work fits, for the

I“(>st part, into the first category.

The early ninth century is one of the least known

and most misunderstood of all periods in European his-

tory. This is peculiar in at least one way. Compared

to most earlier, and even to some later periods, it is

rather richly endowed with source materials. This is

II‘Dt to say that these materials are all that we would
3‘ ike them to be, much less that they are easy to master.

But they do exist in considerable quantity and they have

t1°": been sufficiently exploited. There are many reasons

.«r I

no '
. , l

.
m. u
,. . .
. ...

H...

I...

‘9‘.

~‘._

 

 

‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

for this, but two of them are of particular interest as

far as this work is concerned.
First, Louis the Pious has largely been both

maligned and avoided by modern historians- Later in

these introductory remarks I shall try to detail some

of the reasons for this. For the present, it need only

be said that Louis has suffered from comparisons with

his father and from a tendency to view his reign as the
beginning of the end for the Carolingian Empire. This
latter tendency has very often caused scholars to focus

their interest earlier, on the rise of the Carolingian

Empire, or later, on the rise of the successor states,

F'JE‘ance, Germany and Italy. Second, papal history between

tillee coronation of Charles and the accession of Nicholas I

has been neglected. Scholars seem to be of the opinion

tilléit the popes during these years were of no particular
leiterest or importance when compared to earlier popes of

the Carolingian era like Hadrian or to later ones like

N 5- cholas .
Consequently, having become aware of these two

areas of neglect and, at the same time, convinced that
the source materials, or lack of them, are not the
Ifeason for the neglect, I decided to attempt to fill
two gaps by means of one study. I hasten to add, how-

er . . .
er, that my goals have not been quite so ambitious as

1: . .
he preceding remark might Indicate.

 

This work does not, indeed cannot, attempt to

supply the full scale study of Louis which has so long

been needed. It seeks only to study his relations with

the papacy and to clarify the few problems which arose

directly out of those relations. However, a study of

Louis' papal relations also brings with it one or two
1))r-products towards which I have directed some attention.
It provides an opportunity to assess Louis as a conceiver

Of policy and to study the success, or lack of it, which

those policies enjoyed. This is not to say that what

holds true for Louis' papal relations necessarily holds

true for his dealings with his sons, or his bishops or,

for that matter, with anyone or anything else. It does,

however, provide at least one perspective from which
Louis' reign may be judged.

Likewise, this study does not provide a full study

of papal history during the years 814 to 840. Such a

S‘tudy is needed, and this work attempts to fill a large

part of the gap, but, to be complete, factors which I

have ignored would have to be studied. Chief among them

would be papal-Byzantine relations and papal relations
i" 1th the non-Greek and non-Carolingian world, but very
important too would be a full study of the ecclesiologi-

Qal problems in which the papacy was involved.

So much for what this work does not attempt to

It does attempt to respond to two basic questions.

Q0

 

 

up" H

Iv.

“Ovu-
- a

fin..-

 

u
a
n
v

I.”-
l b
s ‘..
5A.. '

n

I...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What developments in papal-imperial relations occurred
between 814 and 840 for which Louis was solely or prin-
cipally responsible? And, what major themes and issues
characterized the history of the papacy during those
same years?
Also, but nearly always as a secondary theme,
I have attempted to shed some light on the old assumption
that Louis was, apart from his presumed weakness, so
Gazcczessively pious that he was incapable of dealing intel-
ligently with the Church. This theme is worthy of a
Separate study but since the present work treats exclu-
Sively Louis' dealings with the head of the Church, the
" Summum apicem" as one Carolingian writer put it, it
Would be foolish not to take advantage of this Opportunity
to evaluate Louis' conduct 171.2 g gig the Church. The
results obtained from this evaluation do not tell the
whole story about Louis' piety but, like the other "by—
products" of this study, they provide another perspective
from which Louis can be viewed.

Total comprehension of any man, or period, or
E2"":‘Oblem comes only after many preparatory studies have
been written and many different vantage points taken.
I shall consider this work a success if it fills the
11%ed for a preparatory study--preparatory to a history

0
:6 Louis' reign and to papal history in the ninth

,—.u

”l I

 

 

 

~~

 

   

5...,

 

 

 

 

 

.‘.

 

 

 

century--and if it suggests a few new perspectives for

the history of either of these problems.

I hope that these remarks will adequately describe
Additional comments must now be

the scope of this work.

made on its problems and its tone. What follows is often

polemical and, sometimes, combative. This tone may be
offensive to some readers but it was, I believe, dic-

t:e:ted by several problems which are not of my own creation.
They are rooted in Carolingian history, in papal history

and, especially, in modern historical literature treating

the Carolingians. Let me now turn to these problems by

Way of showing how they have affected my study of Louis'
papal relations and why they have seemed to dictate the

approach and methodology I have used.

The achievements of Louis' father, Charles, or

Cazrolus as he appears in the sources, or Carlovech as

his nonlearned contemporaries probably addressed him,

Were difficult to match. The sources for Charles'

reign often convey a larger-than-life picture of him

and he quickly became a legendary figure. By the

late eleventh century he had been immortalized in works
8Llch as the Chanson de Roland and in 1165 he was canon-
lzed, which certainly stimulated the already lively cult
\

 

Q 1How quickly can be gleaned from the late ninth
Mfihtury biography by the Monk of St. Gall, De Carolo
\aggg, MGH, gs, II, pp. 726-63.

 

 

q.—

..vn -
..-~.
I.- .

 

 

‘.
'-

 

 

 

 

associated with him. The propagandistic value derived

from Charles' memory by Frederick Barbarossa is well
known and Philip Augustus' attempts to prove his Caro-

lingian lineage is another example of the captivating

force exercised on later generations by Charles. We

need hardly remind ourselves that, even today, Charles

is Charlemagne to the English and French speaking world,

Karl der Grosse to the German, Carolo Magno to the

Italian, etc. Finally, it may be noted that in 1965 an

enormous exposition was held at Aachen in honor of the

eight-hundredth anniversary of Charles' canonization,

and that, from time to time, the prestigious Prix de
Sharlemagne is awarded to an individual who has made

5111. outstanding contribution to European unity.
It cannot be denied that Charles was an extra-

ordinary man and a great ruler. His achievements were

rl"ale and great.3 But he had his faults and there is no
4

reason for us to defend an idealized picture of him.

\

2On the cult see Robert Folz, Etudes sur le culte

#turgique de Charlemagne dans les églises de l'empire,
QParis, 1951). On the growth and proliferation of the
Charles-legend see idem, Le souvenir et la legende de
firlemagne dans l'empire germanique, (Paris, 1950) .
3The best concise and sane appreciations I know

:re both by F. L. Ganshof, "Charlemagne," CaFM, pp. 17-
7 and "Charlemagne: sa personnalité, son—Rfitage,"

\iété Royale d' Archaeology de Bruxelles, 1965 (pamphlet).

4Again, studies by Ganshof are fundamental: "The

1;. . .
past Period of Charlemagne's Reign: A Study In Decom-
Qsition," CaFM, pp. 240-55 and "Charlemagne's Failure,"

 

Similarly, it is unhistorical, if not unfair, for us to
judge his son and successor, Louis, by a yardstick com-
posed of Charles' deeds. Louis was different from his
father; different in interests, tastes, education and
priorities, to mention but a few areas. More than this,
however, one dare not say without giving up even the
slightest pretense to objectivity. In other words, Louis
must be judged on his own merits, or lack of them.

Even a hasty survey of the literature on Louis
will show that it is only recently, and sometimes grudg-
ingly, that scholars have acknowledged Louis' accomplish-
ments. In some ways, at least, this is peculiar. Louis'
reign is far richer in source material than that of his
father and the basic sources are quite favorable to Louis.
Ikawas the subject of three complete or partial contem-

5

Porary biographies which are quite laudatory. The source

h

ibid., pp. 256-60. H. Fichtenau, The Carolingian Empire

In the Age of Charlemagne, trans. Peter Munz, (New York,

9647] is remarkable in its balance and objectivity, par-
ticularly for a German, or, in this case, Austrian, work.
Chi this point see Munz' preface.

 

 

5They are: The verse life by Ermoldus Nigellus
‘Vllich runs only to the mid-820's entitled, In Honorem

-££Sfludowici Christianissimi Caesaris Augusti EIegiacum

'SEFtrmen, ed. E} Faral,‘TLes C1asSiques de 1THIStoire de

e3553ance au Moyen Age, noI‘I4, Paris{“l932); Astronomer,

Effiéfga Hludowici Pii, ed. Pertz, MQH, SS, II, pp. 607-48;

I egan, Vita Hludowici Inlperatoris, Ed. Pertz, 1391, _S_§,
33:, pp. 590-604. Allen Cabaniss, Son of Charlemagne,

( Syracuse, 1961) , p. 7 goes too far in suggesting that

‘:lie first book of Nithard's Historiarum should be regarded

as a fourth biography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

q
.

 

 

 

next in order of importance, the Annales Regni Francorum,6
is basically neutral. In fairness, it must be said that
there are materials which are unflattering, if not openly
hostile, to Louis,7 but it is safe to say that sources
falling in the range from neutral to positive are in the
majority. Recently, an author has suggested that the
favorable light shed on Louis by various sources is a
result of literary conventions prevalent in the ninth
century and, in part at least, due to the models chosen--
chiefly haghiographical ones--by the several authors.8
This is no place for a detailed critique of this thesis,
but I think it goes too far. At any rate, it does not
solve the problem: Why has Louis been judged so nega-
tively by modern scholars?

One of the reasons, as already suggested, is that
there has been a tendency to compare Louis with his

father. This is precisely the approach of the first

 

6ed. Kurze, (1895), MGH, SSrG.
1. 7These problems will be taken up in greater detail
ater. For now it suffices to mention Paschasius Rad-

:ettus, Vita Walae. PL, CXX, 1557-1650, or Agobard of

Yen, FIeEi'I'is' Episté‘l‘a, MGH, ss, xv.1, pp. 274-79. As
n<>n as one points to essaYIStE—Such as these, however,
lieifia can point to, among others, Jonas of Orléans or
hIDanus Maurus, who stood on the other side of the Spec-
htun.

 

‘IQ 8Helena Siemes, Beitrage zum literarischen Bild
.izgggjpsers Ludwigs des Frommen In;der Karolingerzeit,
Jaeiburg im.Brengau, Phil. -Diss., 1966).

 

.l-‘l

Av.-

.Anp
-

,,..

.-..

 

 

 

 

modern student of Louis' reign, F. X. Funck. His title,

Ludwig der Fromme: Geschichte der Auflosung des frénkis-

 

chen Reichs (1832), is suggestive enough that little

 

need be said about the book, with two exceptions. First,
it was written well before many of the texts we now use
became available and is consequently lacking in reliable
documentation. This is particularly true in respect to
legal and diplomatic sources. Second, the book was
written at a time when German nationalism was just
beginning to be discussed seriously. It is easy to see
how an author writing in 1832 could have viewed Charles,
i.e. Karl der Grosse, as the founder of the Reich which
Louis, to his eternal discredit, allowed to collapse.
The book can safely be ignored today but its description
of Louis as a personally weak figure has lived on, par-
ticularly in German scholarship. It seems that the
Germans cannot tolerate weakness, or what they perceive
to be weakness, in a ruler.9

The nineteenth century saw two other attempts
to deal with Louis. The first was by A. Himly. His

book Wala et Louis le debonnaire (1849) is not without

 

 

9Cf. the characterization by Bernhard Simson,
Jahrbficher des frankischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem From-
men, 2 vols., (BErlin, 1874-76), I, pp. 37ff and, even
EEYe vividly, Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutsch-
lands, 5 vols., 5 ed., (Leipzig, 1935), II, p. 409: "Aber
seine Lobredner verwechselten doch natfirliche Schwfichen
in seinem Charakter mit Tugenden!" and "seine Schwache
hat den Verfall des Karolingerreichs herbeigeffihrt."

 

 

10

merit even today but it is written from an odd perspec-
tive. Wala and Louis are set next to one another and

the reign is discussed from this dual perspective. Not
only can the validity of this approach be questioned but
also allowances must be made for the author's obvious
prejudices in favor of Wala. The other nineteenth century

study is the Jahrbficher (1874-76) by Simson. This work,

 

like all of them in the series, remains a fundamental tool
for the student of Louis the Pious and is a lasting
monument to the heights attained by German scholarship.
However, the very nature of the work is such that it

lacks interpretation and makes no pretense to synthesis.
Still, the reader gets from it the impression that the
author was at no pains to depict Louis in a favorable
light.

So, it was axiomatic to scholars of the nineteenth
century that Louis was a weak character. This interpre-
tation has not disappeared in our own times. Indeed,
one of the greatest medievalists of this century, Ferd-
inand Lot, writes this of Louis: "An indefatigable
warrior, he demonstrated throughout his reign the most
deplorable weakness of character. His virtues, his good
‘will, his piety, were powerless to compensate for this

mortal defect in a chief of state."10 But, if the

 

loge naissance de France, 2d ed. by J. Boussard,
(Paris, 1970), p. 336.

ll

twentieth century has maintained the view that Louis

was weak, it has added precision and depth to it. Basi-
cally, theses have run in either or both of two directions:
Louis was too pious and subservient to ecclesiastical
interests; or Louis was too easily dominated by the

people around him.11

It is difficult to acquit Louis of the second of

these charges. The locus classicus for this interpre-

 

tation is found in the twentieth chapter of Thegan's

Vita Hludowici: "he did nothing improperly except that
12

 

he believed his advisers more than was fitting."
Following this lead, scholars have named quite a number
of individuals whose influence was great at any given
time. F. L. Ganshof, in one place, names no less than
six persons whose influence on Louis was decisive to
some degree: Benedict of Aniane, Wala, Helisichar,

Fridugis, Hilduin and Count Matfrid of Orleans.13 In

 

11Since I shall return to these ideas again and
again in the following pages, I do no more now than refer
the reader to the literature in Ganshof, "Louis the Pious
Reconsidered,” CaFM, p. 268 n. l.

12MGH, gs, II, p. 595.

13"Louis the Pious Reconsidered," CaFM, p. 262.
Virtually all scholars concede the importance of Benedict
of Aniane, though the precise nature of his influence has
yet to be determined. See in particular Fichtenau, Egg
karolingische Imperium, (Zfirich, 1949), p. 222 and Josef
Semmler, "Kirchliche Gesetzgebung und Reichsidee," EEG,
LXXI, (1960), p. 59, both with additional references.

On Wala see Lorenz Weinrich, Wala: Graf, Monch und
Rebell, (ESE, no. 386, 1963), pp. 42ff, 44ff} On

 

\
u...

 

12

another place he emphasizes the role of Judith, Louis'

14 Louis' half brother Drogo has been

second wife.
mentioned15 and it would not be difficult to make a case
for the influence, mainly evil, of the unscrupulous

Count of Septimania, Bernard.l6

The weight of scholarly
opinion and the numerous sources which could easily be
cited in favor of the view that Louis was dominated by
those around him lend it considerable probability. In
order to gain a complete picture, however, two obser-
vations may be added. First, the persons named here
were, in the main, extremely talented people. Second,
one dare not dismiss out of hand the possibility that
Louis deliberately surrounded himself with men in whom

he had confidence, whose abilities he recognized and

whose talents he intended to employ. This, obviously,

 

Hilduin see J. Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen
Konige, I Teil: Grundlegung, Die karolingische Hofkapelle,
(Schriften der MGH, XVI.1, Stuttgart, 1959), pp._59ff.

For Fridugis consult, Theodor Sickel, Urkundenlehre,
(Vienna, 1867), p. 159.

 

 

14"Am Vorabend der ersten Krise der Regierung
Ludwigs des Frommen," Frfihmittelalterliche Studien, VI,

15Christian Pfister, "L'archévéque de Metz Dro-
gon," Mélanges Paul Fabrg, (Paris, 1902), pp. 1-45.

 

16For information on Bernard one may turn directly
to the sources. Paschasius Radbertus, Vita Walae, II.7,
EL, CXX, 16158, II.9, 1619C; Nithard, Hist., 1.3, ed.
Rau, pp. 388, 390; A33. 533. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 829,
p. 177.

 

 

n-

p.-. .

a...

'0. .

a.-.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
s
I' .
u
I.

13

is not the same as saying that he was dominated by those
around him, though it does not deny the possibility.

Even if the door is left ajar, at least a little,
on the possibility that Louis' proclivity for domineering
types has been misinterpreted, there remains the second
charge, that he was excessively pious. The conventional
wisdom on this subject can be refuted only by selecting
a few examples of Louis' piety and analyzing them in
some detail.

The image of Louis the Pious . . . is an
example of the absolute Christianization of Frankish
kingship. . . . In other words, the far reaching
Christianization of the Carolingian Empire under
the reign of Louis . . . is shown in the description
of the personality of the emperor.17

With these words a recent scholar has characterized the
appearance of Louis in the source material of his age.
Elsewhere she points out that the pious, saintly, vir-
tuous and powerless image of Louis became rooted in the
European tradition in the twelfth and thirteenth cen-

18

turies in France and Germany. It is important to

note, however, that there was nothing particularly

 

17Siemes, Beitrage . . . zum Bild, pp. 23-24.

131bid., pp. 10f, 12ff.

14

negative in the tradition. Modern scholars have sup-

plied that dimension.19
Let us look first at the notion that Louis

wanted to enter a monastery in his youth but was for-

20 This is often

hidden from doing so by his father.
held up as an example of Louis' excessive piety. There
are several ways of looking at this. Before the deaths

of his two older brothers Louis had little prospect

for the future, except to remain Unterkonig of Aquitaine.

 

Some years before, when faced with the same sort of
choice, his grand-uncle, Carloman, had opted for the
monastic life. He has not been held up to ridicule
for this. It is also important to remember that when,
after the deaths of his brothers, Charles called Louis
to the throne, he answered the call, and when Charles
died, Louis proceeded expeditiously to the business of
governing the empire. Twice, in 830 and 833, Louis'
enemies tried to force him into the monastic life, and

he refused both times.

 

19In addition to those already cited see Karl
Voigt, Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem Grosse bis zum
Ende der Karolingerzeit, (Stuttgart,‘l9351, p. 365.

 

 

20Astron., Vita Hlud., 19, 32, MGH, SS, II,

pp. 616, 624. It should be noted that, besides Carloman,
other secular rulers in this age had gone into the monas-
tic life without bringing contemporary or modern oppro-
brium upon themselves. For examples see Philibert Schmitz,
Histoire de 1'Ordre de St. Benoit, 7 vols., 2 ed., (Paris,

I, p. 56 and for some very interesting observations
on this matter see J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic
KingshiEy (Oxford, 1971), passim.

 

 

 

 

15

It is also possible that some of Louis' con-
temporaries looked askance at his close association with
monastic reformers. In the first years of the ninth
century Louis began a reform of the monasteries in
Aquitaine. Louis was even then closely associated with
abbots Helisichar and Benedict of Aniane. It is known
that complaints, doubtless originating in the secular
aristocracy, about Louis' affiliation with these men,
and about the reforms which they were advancing, reached
Charles' ears.21 It is easy to see how, even in Caro-
lingian times, this could be conflated with an over-
whelming predilection for the monastic life.

Finally, it may be argued that Louis' esteem for
monastic life, virtues and organization was so high that
he made a concerted effort to organize his empire accord-
ing to the model of a monastery. This would explain
Ardo's statement that Louis regarded himself as the
father of all monks. Louis may well have seen himself
as an abbot figure. It would also explain Louis' quest
for organization and regularization. What could be
more like a monastic community than an empire in which
everyone had a place, knew his place and performed his

duties well? Louis' frequent attempts to emphasize

 

21Ardo, Vita Benedicti, 29, MGH, SS, xv.1, p. 211.

 

16

peace and harmony may derive from his understanding of
what the perfect monastic life entailed.22

If the ideas just advanced are correct, then
Louis' "monkishness" takes on a new and positive aura.
That Louis was pious and that he inclined particularly
to monastic piety cannot be denied. But this does not
mean that his inclinations were debilitating. To the
contrary, it seems that he turned these inclinations to
useful purposes in the realms of politics and insti-
tutions.

There have also been frequent assertions made to
the effect that Louis' irresolute character caused the
collapse of the Church-State system erected by his father.
It is usually maintained that Charlemagne ruled the Church
with an iron hand and that he paid little attention to
forms.23 This is only partially true and it also points

to the fact that Charles bequeathed to his son an empire

with a fragile institutional foundation.24 Let us

 

22Cf. MGH, Cap., I, Prooemium Generale (818-19),
p. 274; no. 150, Admonitio ad omnes Regni Ordines (823-
25), Pp. 303ff.

 

 

23Characteristic of this position is Erich Caspar,
"Das Papsttum unter frénkischer Herrschaft," ZKG, LIV,
(1935), pp. 132-254. Cf. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II,
assim; Emile Amann, L'époque carolingienne, (Histoire
Se I'Eglise, ed. Fliche and Martin, le1 VI, Paris, 1947),
jpp. 49ff, 7lff, 120ff.

 

 

 

24See the articles by Ganshof, supra, n. 4.

17

look at one of those cases where Louis' pious generosity
caused him, it has been suggested, not only to give up
his father's strict control of the Frankish Church but
also to adOpt a measure of dubious political wisdom.
I refer to episc0pa1 elections.

As one measure among many in the great ecclesias-
tical reforms of 818-819, Louis conceded, in principle,

25 Now, it can be argued that

free episcopal elections.
' what Louis was doing was bringing the Frankish Church
into conformity with the dictates of canon law. However,
episcopates were great and powerful offices, not only in
themselves but also within the institutional pattern of
the Frankish realm. Thus it might reasonably be argued
that Louis' step was a foolish one. That is, it may be
so argued only if it can be shown that Louis actually
gave up royal control of episc0pal elections.

In the form of the election itself the king could
exercise considerable influence. When a see became
vacant a petition seeking permission to proceed to an
election was directed to the king, through the apprOpriate
metropolitan. A royal diploma, Concessio Regalis, was

then issued. This was essential. The election was then

presided over by a visitator who, apparently, was

 

 

25MGH, £32., I, no. 138, c. 2, p. 276; "ut
scilicet eEIEcOpI per electionem cleri et populi secundum
statuta canonum de propria diocesi, remota personarum
et munerum acceptione, ob vitae meritum et sapientiae
donum eligantur."

_,..~ .

"no”

a
n. 5"
.

,.,_., p

c... ...
.

u- .
- I
m. .-

4.

 

 

so“
u l-
‘-
it.
n.
\
u... ~
4
n ~.,
..v
~-
A.
.
‘ .
‘ n
a
v..-
u_ -
.

 

. n.
g. _
u .

 

\

e
-

 

18

appointed by the metrOpolitan to discharge the duties
of the see during its vacancy. Royal influence in the

appointment of visitatores may be presumed. Finally,

 

the king could, and occasionally did, direct his missi

to preside over an election.26

Obviously, then, royal
influence was never precluded by a grant of free
election. There were numerous legal and quasi-legal
means by which influence could be exerted, which is to
say nothing about outright intimidation.

Did Louis give up all his rights in the elections
themselves? Hardly, He named his half brother, DrOgo,
BishOp of Metz, uncanonically, as it were, and despite

27 Louis intervened on

his age of about twenty-three.
behalf of Hildemann of Beauvais, according to Paschasius
Radbertus,28 who, in another place, says Louis regularly

filled bishoprics without any semblance of free election.29

 

26For all of this see P. Imbart de la Tour, Les
éléctions épiscopales dans l'église de France du IXe"33
XIIe siécle, (Paris, 1891), pp. 2-6’andiEmile Lesne, La
hierarcfiie épiscopale, (Memoirs et travaux des facultgg
catholiques as Lille, fasc. 1,71905), pp. 109-12, 112 n. l.

 

 

 

 

 

27Pfister, "Archévéque Drogon"; Astron., Vita
Hlud., 36, MGH, SS, II, p. 627.

28Vita Adalhardi, 79, PL, cxx, 1547B.

 

29v1ta Walae, 11.4, PL, cxx, 1612D.

 

19

Louis seems to have appointed Otgar of Mainz30 and many

other cases north of the Alps could be cited. Louis
also intervened in Italy. It seems that an increasing
number of Franks came to hold Italian bishoprics in

Louis' time.31

In fact, apart from these outright
appointments, there is a document from Piacenza which
illustrates Louis' attitude toward episc0pa1 elections
as clearly as possible. On April 27, 819, he conceded
free elections to Piacenza "if anyone can be found there
who shall be able to rule that Church completely accord-
ing to evangelical doctrine and the canonical statutes
and show himself to be faithful to the kings of the

Franks."32

 

30Ann. Xant., ed. Simson, SSrG, s.a. 825, p. 6:
"Haistulfus archiepisc0pus Magontiae civitatis abiit, et
successit in locum eius Otgerus capellanus dominicus."

This is to be understood in conjunction with NotkerTs
statement, De Carolo Magno, I.4, MGH, SS, II, pp. 732-33,
that there was agherd of official§_In Ehe palace seeking
lucrative bishOprics. See also Epistolae Variorum, no. 18,
MES, S223, V, p. 325, in which the people ofiMainz
requested that Louis give them back the bishOp he had

once appointed for them.

 

 

 

 

31Gerd Tellenbach, "Der grossfrankische Adel und
die Regierung Italiens in der Blfitezeit des Karolinger-
reichs," Studien und Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte des gros-
sfrfinkischen und frfihdeutschen Adels, ed. G. Tellenbach,
ih ForsChungen zur Oberrheinischen Landesgeschichte, IV,
(19571, p. 49.

 

 

 

32BM, no. 690. The significance of the language
of this dipIoma lies in the fact that Ebbo and the other
bishOps who rebelled in 833 were deposed for their breach
of fidelity. Flodoard, Hist. Rem. Ecc., II.20, MGH, SS,
XIII, p. 471: "Depositus est ab episcopatu pro IfifidEIi-
tate imperatoris." The depositions were, of course, car-
ried out by regular canonical processes.

 

 

20

Some years ago Hans von Schubert wrote that
Louis "probably" did not intend to give up his rights in
episcopal elections by the measure of 818-19.33 This is
an obvious understatement but it serves to show that in
the matter of episcopal elections, as in so many other
things during Louis' reign, appearances are so deceiving
that they have been badly misinterpreted.

One final example of Louis' supposedly debili-
tating piety will serve to round out the picture. In
821, Louis gained reconciliation with many of those
against whom he had moved either upon his accession or
after the revolt of his nephew, King Bernard of Italy.
The reconciliations were completed and confirmed at
Attigny in 822 and, before the assembled Franks, Louis
did public penance to atone for what he considered to be

his misdeeds.34

Some sources describe the event in very
neutral language but others depict it in such a way that
one might draw two conclusions: that churchmen were

behind the affair and that Louis was, if not compelled,

 

33Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frfihmit-
telalter, TTfibingen,l921), p. 494.

34Sgg. Egg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 822, p. 158:
"Publicam confeSSIonem fecit et paenitentiam egit";
Astron., Vita Hlud., 35, SSS, SS, II, p. 626; Pasc. Rad.,
Vita Adalhardi, 51, PL, CXX, 1534D-1535A. The event is
mentioned ih virtualIy all of the sources. Only a few
examples are cited here.

 

 

 

21

then certainly not entirely willing to go along with it.35

These interpretations can be found in a number of scholarly
works, particularly older ones.36

Louis Halphen was among the first to recognize
that Louis decided that the best way to placate God and
man for the troubles which his empire had experienced
would be a general submission to the commandments of
religion. Dissension had been rife and to a world that
regarded strife as an offense against God there could be
no more powerful gesture--and one dare not look solely
at its symbolic value--than a public confession of guilt
and an assertion of true contrition by that world's
leading citizen. Louis sought to provide a good example,
certainly, but there may also have been a stern warning

implicit in his action.37

 

35The first conclusion derives from 532. Fuld.,
ed. Kurze, SSrG, s.a. 822, p. 22: "Hludowicus imperator
sacerdotum usus concilio de omnibus, quae publice per-
peram gessit . . . poenitentiam egit." Identical words
are used by Ann. Sithienses, MGH, SS, XIII, p. 38. They
must have been copied. The second-Eonclusion derives
from 3 riori conclusions drawn by certain scholars or,
perhaps, from a peculiar line in Pasc. Rad., Vita Adal-
hardi, 51, PL, CXX, 1535A: "praesertim quod ejus velle
cunctos conEIderare, ejusque nolle conspicere manifestum
non ambigitur." I am not willing to attach much sig-
nificance to this line because it may be a literary
attempt to capture the feelings of a penitent--any peni-
tent: anxiety, apprehension, etc.

 

 

 

36E.g., Lot, Pfister, Ganshof, Les destinées de
l'empire en occident, (Paris, 1941), p. 499.

37Halphen, L'empire carolingien, p. 215. The
source which I believe is central to an understanding of

 

22

The penitence at Attigny has also been seen as
a humiliation. According to this view Louis was a tool
if he succumbed to priestly adjurations and a fool if he

38 Now Louis did, indeed,

acted on his own initiative.
humble himself at Attigny, but not in the sense in which
humiliation has sometimes been understood. The many

Ffirstenspiegel of the Carolingian age are, for the most

 

part, commentaries on the ruler-virtues set forth in the
Old and New Testaments. One of the greatest of these
virtues is humility. Without it, a king could not be

christianissimus.39 Viewed from the proper perspective--

 

the Carolingian perspective--the penitence at Attigny can

 

this affair is Jonas of Orléans, De Institutione Regia,
3, ed. Reviron, p. 138: "Bonis operibus . . . ut ab ea
ceteri subiecti bonum exemplum semper capiant." Cf.
Wallace-Hadrill, EarlyfiGermanic Kingship, p. 124, who
points out that Louis sought an identification with Theo-
dosius. This identification is dangerous because it is
clearer that Theodosius was forced to do penance than is
the case with Louis. Finally, it is to be noted that

the bishOps also admitted their culpability and did
penance. MES, £22,, I, no. 174, c. l, p. 357.

 

 

38These views are carefully discussed by Theodor
Schieffer, "Die Krise des karolingischen Imperiums,"
Aus Mittelalger und Neuzeit, Festschrift ffir Gerhard
Kellen, ed. J. Engel,*(Bonn, 1957), p. 9.

39Smaragdus, Via Regia, 16, PL, CII, 9563-C:
"Esto humilis, esto in'humilitate fufidatis; quamvis sis
sublimis, magnus et summus, humilitatem tene.” Also, 17,
957B: ”Nemo enim se apud Deum magis exaltat, quam qui
se apud semetipsum propter Deum humiliat." On Smaragdus
see H. H. Anton, Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der

Karolingerzeit, (Bonnerihistorische Forschungen, 32,
I PPO ff-

 

 

23

only be regarded as an indication of the intensity of the
Christian principles upon which rulership had come to

be based and, consequently, as a powerful enhancement of
Louis' office and, through it, Louis himself.

It ought now to be clear that Louis' piety has
been misinterpreted very often or, at least, seen out of
perspective. To remove from Louis the two charges which
have been most frequently hurled at him, however, is not
necessarily to get any closer to a real understanding of
him. In fact, mere exculpations have something inherently
apologetic in them and an apology would be no better than
the searing criticisms of previous generations. Fortu-
nately, it is not necessary to stop with apologies or
exculpations, for recent scholarship has been, to a con-
siderable extent, favorable towards Louis, even though
Louis' piety and lack of initiative are still sometimes
taken as axioms.

The first book which deserves mention in this

regard is rather old now: L'Empire carolingien by Arthur

 

Kleinclausz (1902). Kleinclausz was the first scholar

properly to assess the significance of the Ordinatio

 

Imperii of 817. He saw the revolutionary significance
of the measure and realized that it must be taken as
the focal point for the whole of Louis' reign. Next came

Louis Halphen who in his Charlemagne et l'empire caro-

 

lingien (1947) broke with tradition in arguing that

24

during approximately the first decade of his reign Louis
was quite able and energetic. But in the face of the
public penance at Attigny, the emergence of Wala as a
political antagonist and of Agobard as an ideological
foe, the birth of the future Charles the Bald and the
increasing disaffection of Louis' eldest son Lothar,
Halphen returned to the safe harbors of weakness and
misguided piety to explain the rest of Louis' reign.
More than a century had passed between the
appearance of Funck's book and that of Halphen, and
Louis had been conceded about ten good years, and these
mainly because of the enormous amount of ecclesiastical
reform that filled the period. Then in the mid-1950's
two scholars working at the same time but in different
places, and with no knowledge of each other, reached
remarkably similar and virtually heretical positions.
Theodor Schieffer attacked many of the long-standing
interpretations of Louis' reign. His major observations
were that the years after 814 have too often been
ignored and that, when studied, they have been mis-
takenly regarded as uniform when, in fact, they exhibit
constant change. Also Louis' policies have often been
seen as radical departures from those of his father.
This, according to Schieffer, is not only untrue but it
also misses an essential point: Louis worked hard, with

meager resources, to make a success of his father's

25

half-finished and sometimes poorly begun business.
Finally, Schieffer maintains that the role of the
radical reformers and their elevated concepts of govern—
ment--they may well be regarded as the products of the
Carolingian renaissance--has usually been misinterpreted.
In very short order, it can be said that these men did
not oppose Louis, nor he them, but that together--albeit
they found themselves at cross-purposes at times--they
tried to implement an ideal, in fact, a set of ideals.
With a few strokes of his pen Schieffer made it not so
much desirable as necessary to re-examine the assumptions
upon which researches into Louis' reign had long been
based.40

The other iconoclast was Ganshof. He has long
been a close student of law and institutions and related
matters, which is not to say that he is not sensitive
to ideas,41 and, as one would suSpect, when he submitted
Louis' reign to a careful scrutiny he discovered a number
of examples of concrete achievement. His epoch-making

article is entitled "Louis the Pious Reconsidered" and

 

40"Die Krise des karol. Imperiums," pp. 1-15.

41In my opinion his "Over het idee van het keizer-
schap bij Lodewijk de Vrome tijdens het eerste deel van
zijn regering," Mededelingen van de koninklijke Vlaamse
Academie voor wettenschappen, letterenen en schone kunsten
van Belgié, KIasse der letteren, XV, (1953), no.i9, is
as good as anything that has been written on the principal
ideas current during the years ca. 814-21.

 

26

42

it first appeared in 1957. Unlike Schieffer, Ganshof

pursued his researches and gained greater clarity and
precision for his ideas.43
These studies are frequently prefaced with
remarks to the effect that Louis' reign saw the real
beginnings of the so-called Carolingian Renaissance and
that most of the chief figures in this movement were in
contact, if not close contact, with Louis. Then Ganshof
argues that Louis sought to give a more positive and
clearer content to the imperial title. New succession
laws were passed and an attempt was made to depersonalize,
or objectivize, the imperial office. The public assembly
was reformed, separated from the gatherings of the army
and made into a regular institution. Reforms were made
in the issuance, circulation and preservation of the
capitularies and there were corresponding improvements
in the style, form and preservation of imperial diplomas.

The royal palace was streamlined and its officials were

 

421 cite it according to the reimpression in
CaFM, pp. 261-72.

43"Les réformes judiciares de Louis le Pieux,"
Comptes rendues de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres, (1966), pp. 418-27;;“Een kijk opihet regeringsbe-
Ieia van Lodewijk de Vrome tijdens de jaren 814 tot 830,"
Mededelingen van de koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor
wettensChappen, letterenen en Sohone kunsten van Belgié,
KIasse’der'Ietteren, XXIX, (1967), no. 2;—‘Apropos de la
politique de Louis 1e Pieux avant le crise de 830,"
Révue Belge d'archaeolggie et d'histoire de l'art,
XXXII, (1968), pp.’37-48.

27

assigned more specific tasks. The judicial institutions
of the empire were reformed and so were the mobilization
practices of the Frankish army. All of these reforms
were undertaken prior to 829 when the outbreak of civil
strife that was to last more than a decade precluded
paying attention to anything else. Still, there is no
reason to believe that Louis did not, to the extent
possible, keep these reforms "on the books."

Recent years have brought forth a number of other
studies which emphasize various positive features of
Louis' reign. In territorial policy Louis had some
success in Brittany, along the Danish frontier and, par—
ticularly, along the Slavic frontier.44 Moreover, Louis
accelerated the incorporation of Italy into the Frankish
empire, however ephemeral the final result may have
been.45

In the realm of institutions, a number of impor-
tant reforms took place. The imperial Chancery, if I

may be pardoned the use of a term which is anachronistic

 

4Lucien Musset, Les invasions: 1e second assaut
contre l'europe chrétienne, (Paris, 1971), pp. 99, 174

andpassim.

45On this subject the key studies build one upon
the other. Tellenbach, "Grossfrénkische Adel und die
Regierung Italiens," pp. 40-70; Edouard Hlawitschka,
Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien
774-962, Forschungen zur oberrheinischen LandeSgeschichte,
VIII, (1960); Joachim Fischer, Kahigtum, Adeliund’Kirche
im.K5nigreich Italien 774-875, (Tfibingen, Phil. Diss.,
I965).

 

 

 

28

but harmless if kept within its proper limits, appears
to have undergone some major revisions during Louis'
reign.46 Also, the processes by which the imperial
estates were accounted for and administered seem to
have taken some steps ahead under Louis.47 The reform
of ecclesiastical institutions received attention
throughout Louis' reign. The greatest number of these
measures, and the most important ones, were undertaken
in the early years of the reign. Almost immediately
after his accession Louis set about reforming monastic
life and institutions. Rules were drawn up for canons
and canonesses and for regular monasteries. In these
activities the role of Benedict of Aniane was of para-

. 48 O I
mount Importance. Monasteries were also an Integral

 

46Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, pp. 54ff.

 

47WOlfgang Metz, Das karolingische Reichsgut,
(Berlin, 1960), p. 16 and passim.

 

480 On Benedict see Suzanne Dulcy, Le regle de
Saint Benoit d' Aniane a 1' épgque carolingienne, (Nimes,
I935); Schmitz, L fiinfluence de Saint Benoit d' Aniane
dans l' histoire de 1' ordre de Saint Benoit," Il monache-
simo nell' alto medioevo e la formazione delle civilté
occidentale, (Settimane di studio del centro’italiano
sull'alto medioevo, IV, 1957), pp. 401-15. On these
reforms as a whole: Emile Lesne, “Les ordonnances monas-
tiques de Louis 1e Pieux," RHEF, II, (1920), pp. 161-75,
321- -38, 449- 88; idem, "Evechg et abbaye: les origines
du benefice ecc1§SIa astique," ibid., pp. 15-50; Carlo
DeClercq, La legislation réligieuse franque de Louis 1e
Pieux a la fin du IX siecle, (Anvers, 1958), pp. 6ff and
the bfilliant study by Semmler, "Die Beschlusse des
aachener Konzils im Jahre 816," SSS, LXXIV, (1963),
pp. 15-82, with rich bibliography. The tangled

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

part of the institutional pattern of the empire and some
noteworthy reforms were undertaken to deal with this
side of monastic life.

Monasteries were a key source of revenue for the
Carolingians and monastic lands were often used to reward
royal followers. Sometimes abbacies were conferred upon
individuals who had performed loyal service or whose
loyalty it was necessary to insure.49 Louis recognized

that secular dues, military service, dona annualia, etc.,

 

were unequally distributed and that some houses were
suffering in consequence. All monasteries, except those
in Italy and some in Aquitaine, were ranked in order of
wealth with the wealthiest houses performing military
service and rendering dues in kind, while poorer houses
rendered one or the other of these or, perhaps, just
prayers.SO This was only a partial solution to the
problem, and other steps had to be taken. Louis appears

to have drawn a distinction between regular and canonical

 

chronology of the reforms, the manuscript traditions and
virtually all source problems are the subjects of Sem-
mler's "Zur Uberlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung
Ludwigs des Frommen," SA, XVI, (1960), pp. 309-88.

49Karl Voigt, Die karolingische Klosterpolitik,
(Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, XC-XCI, Stuttgart,
1917), pp. 10, 26-47}

 

50Notitia de Servitio Monasteriorum, ed. E.
Lesne, RHEF, II, (1920), pp. 489-93.

30

51

houses. To the former he granted free abbatial

elections and he withdrew from them the possibility of
being given a lay abbot.52 There were still a consid-
erable number of canonical houses which Louis could and'
did use to reward his followers.

But abbatial offices were not all that his fol-
lowers wanted; they also coveted monastic lands. Mon-
asteries derived their income principally from their
estates and this income had to serve several purposes:
maintenance of the congregation and the property, costs
of divine service, charitable services, royal and other
dues. Louis observed that some monasteries, owing to
centuries of generosity on the part of the royal family
and various magnates, had come to possess more than they
required. He also knew that the Church stood violently
opposed to putting ecclesiastical prOperty to secular
use.53 At the same time he was aware that the laymen

of the empire would have been furious if he withdrew

from them all hope of obtaining church properties. So

 

51voigt, Klosterpolitik, pp. 63-67.

 

SZMGH, Ca ., I, no. 138, c. 5, p. 276. Henri
Levy-Bruh17_fes éctions abbatiales en France, (Paris,
1913), pp. 35-38 shows that Louis didfnot give up his
rights in abbatial elections. Voigt, Klostegpolitii,
ppn 71-76 can find only one regular house to whiCh Louis
gave a lay abbot. I suspect that the number is higher.

53How violently can be seen in Agobard, SE!
no. 5, MGH, Spp., V, pp. 166-79.

31

a compromise was struck. Regular houses were to have

their possessions intact. Canonical houses, on the

other hand, could still be handed over to laymen. These
lay abbots could use the properties as they saw fit EEEEE
they had set aside an inviolate portion of the property
devoted solely to the support of the religious community.54
It can be argued that this was only a subtle change from

the earlier practice of dividing church lands and creating

precaria and it is certain that churchmen like Agobard

 

did not like this practice any better than the old one.
There is also evidence that some laymen, viewing this

as a diminution of the spoils available to them, auctioned
off their loyalty during the civil wars after 829. All
that can safely be said in conclusion is that Louis tried
to make the best of a nearly impossible situation.

In the realm of institutions one final point must
be made. From very early times there were a large number
of monasteries which we call "royal monasteries." They
may have been built on royal estates by members of the
royal family, bequeathed to kings or confiscated by them.
Perhaps some of them obtained "royal" status by request-

ing it. All of these monasteries had two things in

 

54The basic tenets of this thesis are set forth
in Lesne, L'origine des menses, (Paris, 1910). For
details seeihis Histoire delEpropriété ecclésiastique
en France, (Lille, 1926), II, pp. 140ff. Roughly similar
conclusions are reached for lands east of the Rhine by
.Au Paschl, Bischofsgut und Mensa Episc0palis, 3 vols.,
(Bonn, 1908:11), I, passim.

 

32

common: they were regarded as royal property and they
enjoyed a special royal protection. They stood under

the king's mundeburdis and enjoyed the protection of
55

 

the royal bannum.

From the mid-sixth century, at least, certain
episcopal churches had gained from Merovingian kings
diplomas of immunity. Under the Carolingians this prac-
tice became more widespread. The importance of immunities
can be grasped easily when it is noted that immune lands,
their “immunity" notwithstanding, were tied more closely
to the king than any other lands except his own. The
immunist himself was bound very closely to the king and
could be called before the royal court at any time.

While it is true that the formulae of immunity forbade

 

royal officials to enter the immunity there is no evi-
dence that a king himself could not enter an immunity.
Furthermore, it is quite likely that a king could desig-
nate an official 29.222 to enter immune lands under

compelling circumstances.56

 

55Voigt, Klosterpolitik, pp. 33ff. Very useful
is the brief study by Semmler, "Apropos des abbayes
royales," Bulletin de la société nationale des anti-
quaires de_France, (1968), pp.i160-6I.

 

 

 

56On immunities I rely on Heinrich Brunner,
Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 2 vols., 2d ed. by C. von
Schwerih, (Leipzig, 1906, 1928), II, pp. 382-415; Maurice
Kroell, L'immunité franque, (Paris, 1910); Ganshof,
”L'immunité dans la monarchie franque," (Recueil de la
société Jean Bodin, I, 2d ed., Brussels, 1958), pp. 171-
216; idem, Fiafikish Institutions under Charlemagne,
trans. Bryce Lyon, (New York, 1970), pp. 45-50.

 

 

 

 

33

Shortly after coming to the throne, Louis called
in all privileges granted by his predecessors in order to

57 The new diplomas which were

examine and confirm them.
then issued bore some striking changes. Now immunity
and royal protection were bound together and issued at
one and the same time.58 It is only slightly hyperbolic
to say that the conscious and consistent application of
this policy would have had the result of turning the

whole Carolingian Church into one enormous Eigenkirche.

 

It is hardly Louis' fault that his successors did not
continue this policy and it ought to be emphasized that
it was none other than Louis who laid the foundations

for the Reichskirche of the German Middle Ages.

 

Although my subject is actually Louis and the
papacy, the remarks thus far presented are by no means
irrelevant. Louis' relations with the papacy have often

been characterized by the same malaise and Nachgebigkeit

 

that have served to indict the rest of his reign. I hope

to have shown--and my debt to the researches of others

 

57Thegan, Vita Hlud., 10, MGH, 55, II, p. 593:
'Iussit supradictus princeps renovaie'omfiia praecepta,
quae sub temporibus patrum suorum gesta erant ecclesiis
Dei, et ipse manu propria ea cum subscriptione roboravit.

 

58Semmler, "Traditio und K6nigsschutz," ZRG,
LXXVI, ka, XLV, (1959), pp. 1-33. Walter GoffarETE'cri-
tique of Semmler presented in The LeMans Forgeries,
(Cambridge, Mass., 1966), is unconvincing mainly because
it is not based upon the most current thinking on immuni-
ties. Goffart still regards them as essentially detri-
mental to royal authority.

 

34

ought to be as abundantly clear as my disagreements with
them--that Louis was capable of prompt, energetic, able
and well-conceived action. I also hOpe to have demon-
strated that Louis' piety has been misinterpreted and
overemphasized at the expense of other factors. In fair-
ness to the historical tradition concerning Louis I am
bound to say that Louis failed to provide the kind of
decisive leadership that might have allayed the problems
with which his empire was beset. He also showed a certain
unwillingness to compromise that bordered on sheer obsti-
nacy, and this certainly contributed to the difficulties
implicit in an ever-changing period. Nonetheless, in
studying Louis' papal relations or, for that matter, any
other topic touching on his reign, it must be said that
no useful purpose is served by entering upon the work
with the notion that Louis was an incompetent, monkish,
weakling.

In deference to the whole of what follows only a
few remarks will be addressed to the subject of Louis
and the papacy at this time. First, it must be noted
that we are not so richly endowed with source materials

as we would desire. True, we have the Ludovicianum and

 

the Constitutio Romana which are unprecedented in

 

Frankish history. But the very fact that they are
unprecedented, at least with documents, makes them

difficult to interpret. Then, too, we know more about

35

the imperial coronations during Louis' reign than we do
about the more famous one in 800 but we are still left
with a great many tantalizing loose ends. To name but

one: was the Ordo Secundum Occidentales used in 816 and,

 

if so, do we have it in the form which it then possessed?
To be sure, the Frankish sources take stock of Roman
affairs from time to time, but Rome is never their primary
concern. In consequence we are left with a number of
annoyingly cryptic and potentially misleading remarks.
Finally, and most lamentably, we have only in the neigh-
borhood of a dozen genuine letters from the papal-
imperial correspondence 814-840. Would that we had a

Codex Carolinus! Or, in other words, imagine trying to

 

write the history of Charles' relations with the papacy
without the EEQEE'

If we are not in an altogether happy position to
assess Louis' relations with the Roman See, we may well
ask ourselves how much our protagonists knew, or could
have known, about one another. As we shall see, a great
deal turns on the quantity and quality of information
available to Louis about conditions in Rome and the
area we call the Papal States. Similarly, we shall have
to address ourselves to the matter of how well several
consecutive popes knew and, how well they were able to

interpret, Frankish thinking on certain key subjects.

36

It has been observed that the liveliest diplo-
matic activity of the Franks was with the papacy. During
certain periods it was virtually unbroken.59 We may
well assume, however, that this diplomatic activity con-
cerned itself mainly with what may be called great affairs
of state: coronations, papal privileges, etc. There
were two other means available to the Franks to keep
informed on Roman affairs. First, there is abundant evi-
dence that Frankish clerics journeyed frequently to Rome
and its environs in search of relics for use in Frankish

60

churches. Certainly these pilgrims and travelers could

have been commissioned to look into various affairs and,

 

59Ganshof, "The Frankish Monarchy and Its Exter-
nal Relations from Pippin to Louis the Pious," CaFM,
p. 164; idem, "The Treaties of the Carolingians,
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, VII, (1968), pp. 23-52;
W. Sickel, Die Vertffige der PEESte mit den Karolingern,"
Deutsche Zeitschrift ffir Geschichtswissenschaft, XI, XII,
(1894): 301-51, 1-43.

 

60Historia Translationis S. Viti, MGH, SS, II,
pp. 576- 85; Odilo, Ex Trans. S. Sebastiani, MGH, .SS,
XV. 1, pp. 377- -91; Trans. SS. Tiburtii, MarceIIini_ et
Petri ad St. Medardm MGH, SS, XV.1, p. 393: "Dominus
et augustus noster . . . Cludavicus . . . multa quoque
corpora sanctorum de pluribus partibus Italiae in regnum
Franciae detulit"; Rudolfus, Miracula Sanctorum in Ful-
genses Ecclesias Translatorum, Mgg, SS, XV.I) p. 329;
I'Temporibus igitur Hludowici imperatoris . . . multorum
reliquiae sanctorum ab urbe Roma in Franciam delatae
sunt, quarum aliae quIdem ab* eIs adductae sunt, qui iussu
dominorum suorum, ut id efficerent, Romam profecti sunt,
aliae vero per clericos sanctae sedis apostolicae et
cives Romanae allatae . . . " Numerous Translationes
have survived. I cite here only those to which I shall
have occasion to refer later. Likewise, I quote only
passages which are exemplary, not unique.

 

 

 

 

37

in any case, they could have been interrogated upon their
return. This traffic, it may be noted further, appears
to have been two way. Second, after 824, the emperor

61 Doubtless this official

had a permanent missus in Rome.
served as imperial "eyes and ears" in Rome and, of course,
the pope could have availed himself of the missus to
learn of Frankish affairs.

This evidence, however, is rather more suggestive
than conclusive. We must admit that we do not know how
much each party knew about the other's affairs. The
problem of the availability of copious and current infor-
mation to Louis and the popes will engage us many times
in what follows. Candor demands that the relative uncer-
tainty of the situation be pointed out now.

Only two more prefatory remarks are called for.
Recently, Walter Ullmann wrote that "in its dealings
with the Franks the papacy followed what might be termed

62 This statement is char-

an ideological blue-print."
acteristic of the view held by too many scholars that the
papacy was an institution prOpelled inexorably along its
historical course by some mysterious force. Pushed to

its logical conclusion, this view would assert that the

papacy was the principal motive force of the medieval

 

61142.11: 9.3.2” I: no. 161. c. 4, p. 323.

62The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of
Kingship, (London, 1969), p. l.

38

West and that the history of the age ought always to be
viewed through the eyes of him who sat upon the throne
of Peter. Moreover, it suggests that the papacy always
maintained a slavish fidelity to a recognized, clearly
articulated and unchanging set of principles.

This approach is unfortunate. In the first place
it is illogical, for it denies to the papacy that sup-
pleness, flexibility, adaptability--call it what you
will--that allowed it to hold such an important place in
medieval life during so many centuries. In the second
place, it lacks a sense of proportion in so far as it
obfuscates the many other institutions that were equally
important as, if not, ultimately, more important than
the papacy. Finally, it is unhistorical. In what fol-
lows I shall again and again note changes, now subtle,
now radical, in both papal and imperial policy. Indeed,
those scholars who have investigated the problem of tra-
dition have pronounced most assuredly that the ninth
century was an age when definitions were far more sought

after than applied.63

 

63A. J. MacDonald, Authority and Reason in the
Early Middle Ages, (Oxford, 1933), pp. lff; Marcel
Pacaut, La théocratie: 1'église et le pouvoir au moyen
a e, (Paris, 1957), p. 41; Karl F. Morrison,iTradition
an Authority in the Western Church, (Princeton, 1969),
pp. 213ff. articulafly apposite is the remark by Yves
Congar: "Il n'existe guere de formulation théorique ou
doctrinale d'ensemble sur la nature et l'objet de la
primauté." Elecclésiologie du haut moyen age, (Paris,
1968), p. 158.

 

 

39

Finally, the study which follows is episodic.
This is not due to caprice, nor is it due to a desire
to bring certain key events clearly into focus. Quite
simply, papal-imperial relations during Louis' reign have
an inherently episodic character, at least in so far as
the sources describe those relations. Actually, because
each episode, or event, provides a significant insight
into the development of both papal and imperial policy,
and their mutual interactions, neither balance nor per-
spective is lost by an episodic treatment. Moreover,
in each of the succeeding chapters, the emphasis is
always placed on the milestones such as the coronation

of 816, the Ludovicianum or the Roman synod of 826 but

 

minor events which were contributory to or results of
these milestones are described in some detail. In other
words, even if the sources for Louis' reign were increased
ten-fold by some miraculous discovery, it does not seem
likely that the great events around which this study is

built would lose their pre-eminent importance.

CHAPTER II

IMPERIAL CORONATIONS: 813,

816, 817, 823

This chapter focuses on Louis' coronation at
Reims in 816. This coronation was the first significant
interaction between Louis and a pope and so an analysis
of it stands at the beginning of this study of Louis'
papal relations. As its title suggests, however, this
chapter also has something to say about several other
coronations. These are analyzed only in so far as they
provide some insights into the coronation of 816 for
this was clearly the most important coronation in which
Louis was involved. Louis used the occasion of his coro-
nation at Reims to pronounce upon his idea of empire and
to demonstrate what he considered to be the proper
relation of empire and papacy. Consequently, it is
towards an understanding of these two themes that this
chapter is principally directed. Appropriate attention
is also placed upon the goals and aspirations of the

papacy, in so far as these are discernible in 816.

40

 

‘0

‘v

n‘-

 

 

41

Many other subjects are also touched upon in the
following pages. Something is said about Frankish coro-
nation practices and, hopefully, a little new light will
be shed on this interesting and important, but difficult,
subject. The old, but still very much open, question of

whether or not the Ordo Secundum Occidentales was used

 

at Reims is studied and affirmative answer is given.
Finally, the precise factual and chronological details
of the meeting between Stephen IV and Louis are set down
more fully than ever before.

Louis' first meeting with a pOpe which took place
some thirty-five years before his coronation in 816, was
auspicious. In April of 7811 his father took him to
Rome and there Hadrian I anointed him king of Aqui-

taine.2 Apparently, Hadrian also crowned Louis.3 Since

Louis was not yet three years old4 it may well be doubted

 

lSigurd Abel and Bernhard Simson, Jahrbficher des
frfinkischen Reichs unter Karl dem Grossen, 2 vols.,
(Leipzig, 1883-88), I, p. 376.

 

2Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 781, p. 56: Ann.
Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 781, p. 10.

 

3Astron., Vita Hlud., 4, gagg, gs, II, p. 608:
"regali insignatus est diademate per manus Adriani."
Abel-Simson, JB Karl, I, p. 379 n. 6, casts some doubt
on this. G. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte,
Vol. III, 2d ed., (Berlin, 1883), pp. 249-50, sees no
reason to doubt the text.

 

4Abel-Simson, JB Karl, I, p. 311 n. 3. Louis
was born between June and August 778.

 

- I
at.‘
o

5 u
u l

 

l
a.

.q_

u...

 

.1.

42

that this event left any lasting impression on him. But,
in view of future developments, it is important to note
here and now that Hadrian's act was in no way decisive.
It was Charles who decided that Louis would be king of
Aquitaine; Charles who T292 him king.5 This point must
be stressed most emphatically because of two theses
which raise their heads frequently in scholarly literature.
According to one, papal, or even episc0pal, anointings
of kings had great constitutive force. According to

the other, the magnates' role was crucial in the king-
making process among the Franks.

The former assertion will be dealt with repeatedly
in the balance of this chapter. The latter may con-
veniently be refuted at this time. Except for the pas-
sage in Ermoldus "procerum consiliante choro" there is
not one single line in the sources that suggests, let
alone proves, that Louis was elected king or that his
father genuinely associated the magnates in the process
which resulted in Louis' elevation.

Truly elective monarchy had long since ceased to

exist among the Franks.6 In 751, however, a unique

 

5Astron., Vita Hlud., 3, MGH, SS, II, p. 608:
"eique regnum quod sibi nascendo diEaverat contradidit."
In c. 4, p. 608, he adds that Hadrian applied his blessing
to a king "regnaturo." Ermoldus Nigellus, ed. Faral,
vs. 70-71, 75: "Tum Carolus sapiens sceptorum insignia
proli/Divisit, procerum consiliante choro/At, Hludowice,
tibi regna Aquitana dedit."

6Fustel des Coulanges, La monarchie franque,
Histoire des institutions politigues de lTancienne France,

 

43

situation emerged. The Merovingian dynasty was dis-
placed in favor of the Carolingian in the person of

Pepin III.7

Three years later Pepin was anointed by
Stephen II, confirming his hold upon the royal office.8
The sources lay considerable emphasis on both events.
Pepin was raised upon a shield by the Franks in
751. Was this a real election? Probably not, but it
approximated an election more than anything which had
happened in a long time and more than anything which
would happen for a long time thereafter.9 Moreover,

the course of royal elevations would show, for more

than a century, a continually decreasing role alloted

 

Vol. III, (Paris, 1888), pp. 34ff, argues that the final
break with a truly elective principle dates from the time
of Dagobert. P. Grierson, "Election and Inheritance in
Early Germanic Kingship," Camb. Hist. Jour., VII, (1941),
pp. 1-22, finds very little evidence for election among

any of the West-Germanic peoples. Fritz Kern, Kin shi

and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S. B. Chrimes, iNew
York, 1970), p. 13, lays considerable stress on the heredi-
tary rights of Frankish kingship.

 

 

7Sources in SS, no. 64a.

8Ibid., no. 76a.

9Jean Dhondt, "Eléction et hérédité sous les Caro-
lingiens et les premiers Capétiens," RB, XVIII, (1939),
pp. 916-17, drastically minimizes the—Tole of the nobility
in 751. Walter Schlesinger, "Karlingische Kanigswahlen,"
in his Beitrage zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte des
MittelaIters, 2*vols., (G6ttingen, 1963), I, pp. 89-90
and Erich Caspar, "Das Papsttum unter frankischer Herr-
schaft,“ ZKG, LIV, (1935), p. 136, assign a considerable
role to tHE_nobility, but make allowances for the extra-
ordinary situation.

44

to the nobility, whatever its role may have been in 751.10

In raising Pepin on a shield the nobility was, if not
really electing Pepin, then exercising its right of
acclamation.ll This public acclamation remained an
integral part of royal elevations but neither it, nor
the taking of counsel by the reigning monarch, were
decisive or, to use the appropriate juridical term, con-
stitutive.

Was the role of Stephen constitutive? Hardly,
but it gave rise to a complex of ideologies which, how-
ever weak their foundations, continually grew in sig-
nificance. But, in practical terms, those who over-
emphasize the ideological significance of the papacy's
action miss two key points. First, whatever the papacy
may have been aiming at in 754, it can hardly be denied
that in anointing Pepin the papacy strengthened him
against the very group, the nobility, which could have
been, at any given time, a source of real trouble to him.12

Second, the change of dynasties, the breaking of the

Geblutsrecht of the Merovingians, may have provided

 

 

10This is the thesis of the article by Schlesinger
cited in n. 9.

11Fustel des Coulanges, Monarchie franque, pp. 50-
54; Kern, Kingship, p. 9. It may have’been a symbolic
vestige of ancient Germanic rights.

 

 

12Caspar, "Papsttum," p. 138; Schlesinger,
"K6nigswahlen," p. 91.

45

thinkers with a powerful impetus to ponder questions of

13 One scholar has

royal idoneity and related themes.
gone so far as to assert that the events of 751 stand at
the beginning of Western political thought, in so far

as it concerns monarchy.l4 There was an implicit danger
to the secular monarchical principle in this line of
ecclesiastical thought concerning idoneity, for, if the
Church gained the right to decide who was suited to rule,
it would not be long before the Church could decide that
a man was unsuited to take up rule, or more dangerous,
still, that a reigning king had become unsuitable. All
of these tendencies, and others, are visible in the
Carolingian age but it can hardly be argued that
Stephen's actions in 754 contributed anything meaning—
ful to them. Quite the contrary; he severely prejudiced
ecclesiastical or papal rights by creating a new Geblfits-
EEEEE' He forbade the Franks ever to choose a king who

15

was not of the house of Pepin. We may thus proceed

 

13For an excellent summary of these theories see
Eugen Ewig, "Zum christlichen Kanigsgedanken.im Frfih-
mittelalter," in Das KBnigtum, ed. Theodor Mayer, (Darm-

 

14Heinrich Bfittner, "Aus den Anfangen des abend-
landischen Staatsgedankens," Das Kanigtum, pp. 155-67.

 

15BM, no. 76a: "interdictu et excommunicationis
lege constfihxit, ut numquam de alterius lumbis regem in
aevo praesumant eligere."

46

to the events which are the proper subject of this chap-
ter with full confidence that Frankish royal rights were
operating under neither aristocratic nor ecclesiastical
sanctions. The aristocracy had not gained the power of
ielecting kings and the Church had not won the right to
pronounce on the fitness of an individual to rule.
Designation by the reigning monarch remained for several
generations after 751 the key factor in succession to
the Frankish throne.

When the Franks recrossed the Alps in 781, Louis
was sent to Aquitaine. Due to his tender age, he was
accompanied by a regency government of Franks who were
trusted paladins of his father. He was a sub-king in
every conceivable sense of the word and even when he
reached his majority he remained completely subject to
his father. His prospects for the future were not very
promising in that he had not been assigned the choicest
portion of the Frankish kingdom and he had two older
brothers who were certain to be preferred to him in any
future actions Charles might have taken in disposing

of the Frankish state.16

 

16The best account of the political and consti-
tutional position of Louis in Aquitaine is Gustav Eiten,
Das Unterkanigtum im Reiche der Merowigger und Karolinger,
(Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren
Geschichte, XVIII, 1907)} pp. 35-46.

 

 

47

In 806 Louis' future position was clarified upon

his father's issuance of the Divisio Imperii.17 Louis

 

was to have Aquitaine as an independent kingdom after

his father's death. His brother Pepin was to have Italy
and his other brother, Charles, obtained the rest of the
empire except Italy and Aquitaine. In short, on the
death of his father, Louis was to become a real king
with none of the fetters that had previously bound him.
But his future still held little promise. Although the
settlement of 806 envisioned three equal kingdoms, instead
of three sub-kingdoms, Louis' position was certainly
inferior to that of his brother Charles who had been
assigned the Frankish homelands. These carried with them
the richest and most numerous Frankish estates as well

as the allegiance of the greater portion of the Frankish
nobility.

It has been a matter of puzzlement to generations
of scholars that Charles did not deal with his imperial
title in the Divisio. Walter Schlesinger has recently
demonstrated that it is possible, within very precise
limits, to use the text of the Divisio as a source for

18

Charles' idea of empire. Whatever we know, or think

 

17Text, MGH, Cap., I, no. 45, pp. 126-30.

 

18"Kaisertum und Reichsteilung: zur Divisio
Regnorum von 806," in Beitrage, I, pp. 193-232.

 

48

we know, however, about Charles' idea of empire, we must
admit that, in making what he must have considered as
his definitive territorial and royal settlements among
his sons, he reverted to traditional Frankish practices.
Did he intend, at some later date, to hand the imperial
office to one of his sons? Did he consider the title a
personal honor and nonheritable? Did he dislike the
whole business of being an emperor? We do not know and
ought to admit it.

The hand of fate then intervened and upset Charles'
succession scheme. His two eldest sons predeceased him,
leaving only Louis.l9 For some time Charles did nothing.
He was old, lame, world-weary, and no doubt deeply
aggrieved not only at the loss of his sons but also at
the death of his beloved daughter Rotrud, who died in
811. However, immediate action was not imperative because
the Divisio had set up machinery for disposing of the
kingdoms if one or more of the brothers died without an
heir. Louis was left, of course, and Pepin had left a
son, Bernard. Finally, however, "fearing that, after he
had been withdrawn from worldly affairs, he should leave

20

an unsettled kingdom" Charles laid the matter before

 

19Pepin died July 8, 810 and Charles December 4,
811: Simson, SS Ludwig, I, p. 2.

20Astron., Vita Hlud., 20, MGH, gg, II, p. 617.

 

49

21 By the end of 813 Louis

an assembly in early 813.
had been crowned emperor and sole successor to his
father.

One source, Ermoldus, says that Einhard was the
person responsible for getting Charles to convey the
whole of his empire and his imperial title to Louis.22
Whether Charles had already resolved to do this or
whether Einhard, and possibly some other influential
ecclesiastics, convinced him that the title ought to be
handed on cannot be established with certainty. I see
no reason to doubt that Einhard was the key figure but
I do not think it necessary to argue that he acted alone.

Louis, during the early months of 813, seems to
have been biding his time. We are informed that he had
begun to have visions of grandeur23 but the same source
that provides this insight also relates that some men,

particularly one Gerricus, had urged in vain that Louis

go to his father and lay his case before him. Louis

 

21The date cannot be established. It was at this
assembly that Charles decreed the holding of provincial
reform synods: A22, Egg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 813, p. 138;
Chron. Moiss., MGH, SS, I, p. 310. BM, no. 479b states
that the synods_3f.AFIes and Mainz m5? May 10 and June 9
respectively, so the assembly may roughly be placed in
March or early April.

22VS. 682-97.

23Astron., Vita Hlud., 20, MGH, SS, II, p. 617:
"spes universitatis potiundiae in eum adsurgebat."

 

50

did not do this and it is quite impossible to say what
his actions and objectives were in early 813.

In September of 813 another assembly was held at
Aachen and Louis was summoned.24 Momentous steps were
taken. Charles first asked all of those there assembled
whether it was pleasing to them that he hand his title

25

to his son Louis. The assembly consented unanimously26

and on the following Sunday Charles, dressed in full
royal garb, entered church with Louis.27 Charles and
Louis prayed for a long time before the altar and then

Charles addressed Louis, admonishing him to love and fear

 

24Ermoldus, vs. 702ff indicates that Louis
appeared immediately after the first assembly. All
other sources say that he went north expressly for the
second: Einhard, Vita Karoli, 30, ed. Halphen, p. 84;
Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 813, p. 138; Thegan, Vita
Tau—"6', LT,_ 55, II, p. 591.

 

25Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, SS, II, p. 591:
"Interrogans omnes a maximo usque-_d minimum, si eis
placuisset, ut nomen suum, id est imperatoris, filio suo
Hludowico tradidisset." Cf. Poeta Saxo, MGH, SS, 1,

p. 265, vs. 9-12; Chron. Moiss., MGH, SS, I, p. —310; Ann.
Lobienses, MGH, SS, XIII, p. 231: fivoto et electione—
omnium fideIiEm §Eum.“ Examples could be multiplied.

 

 

 

 

26Many sources lay particular emphasis on this:
Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, SS, II, p. 591: "Omnes
exultando"; Poeta Saxo, MGH, SS, I, p. 265, vs. 17: "Quod
cum magnifico satis accepere favore"; Chron. Moiss., MGH,
SS, I, p. 310: "omnes pariter consenserunt dicentes ESE
Ignum esse"; Einhard, Vita Karoli, 30, ed. Halphen,
p. 84: "ab omnibus qui aderant magna cum favore."

 

 

 

27Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, SS, II, p. 591:
”In proxima die dominica ornavit se —cuI_u regio . . .
perrexit ad ecclesiam." SE, no. 479b dates this September
11.

51

God, to obey the divine laws, to govern and defend the
Church well, to be kind to his brothers (bastards),
sisters and all of his relatives, to honor priests, to
love his people, to cast down proud and evil men, to
watch over monasteries, to take thought for the poor,

to lead his people on the path of salvation and, finally,
to see to the justice and rights of all. Charles then

asked Louis if he wished to obey all of these instructions.

Louis responded affirmatively.28 Charles then crowned
him.29 After the people had acclaimed Louis,30 they heard
mass.

Thirteen years before, Pope Leo III had crowned

Charles emperor and the Romans assembled in St. Peter's

 

28Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, _s_§_, II, pp. 591-92.

 

29Thegan alone says "Tunc iussit eum pater, ut
propriis manibus elevasset coronam, quae erat super altare,
et capiti suo imponeret." Ermoldus says, vs. 722, "Ac-
cipe, nate, meam, Christo tribuente, coronam." He alone
says that Charles gave up his own crown but agrees with
the other sources that Charles did the crowning. Cf.
Ann. Egg. Franc., SSrG, s. a. 813, p. 138; Ann. Fuld.,
SSrG, s. a. 813, p. Ig; Ann. Iuv. Max., ed. Bress Ia au, MGH,
SS, XXX. 2, p. 738; Ann. Xant., —SSrG, s. a. 813, p. 4, Ann.
Hildes., SSrG, p. l§—_’Edouard EIchann, Die Kaiser-
Eronung im ABendland, 2 vols., (Wurzburg, 1942), I, pp. 35-
36*and33Imson, JB Ludwi I, p. 5 accept Thegan. Waitz,
Verfassungsgeschichte, III, p. 222 n. 3 and Eugen Ewig,
in HandbuCh der KIrchengeschichte, ed. H. Jedin, (Freiburg,
1966’, III. 1, p. 117 say Charles did the crowning.

 

 

30Chron. Moiss., MGH, SS, I, p. 310: "pOpulus
acclamantibus et dicentibus 'VIvat Imperator Ludovicus.‘

52

had acclaimed him. This time Charles designated his son
co-regent and the Franks acclaimed him. Several
questions arise: Was the pope deliberately excluded?
What role did the Franks play? What was the nature of
the office conferred upon Louis? Were the proceedings
devoid of religious significance? Did this coronation
alone suffice to make Louis emperor?

It seems that Charles did deliberately exclude
the papacy from any participation in the elevation of
Louis to the imperial dignity. Not one text makes any
reference to the pope. More conclusive than this argu-

ment 2 silentio, however, is the fact that Charles

 

apparently used the Byzantine ceremony for raising his

son to empire, a ceremony which completely excluded any

ecclesiastical participation.31 It is dangerous to push

the Byzantine model too far, though, because ancient Rome

32

could just as easily have been the model. In either

case the Church was excluded.

 

31See, in particular, Werner Ohnsorge, "Das Mit-
kaisertum in der abendlandische Geschichte des frfiheren
Mittelalters," in his Abendland und Byzanz, (Darmstadt,
1958), pp. 262- -65; Ewig, Handbuch, p. 117? Eichmann,
Kaiserkronu_g, I, p. 22, who aIso points out that in
Byzantium the ceremony was performed in the palace, not
in church.

 

 

32The text upon which this interpretation can be
based is Ann. Laur. Min., MGH, SS, I, p. 121: "Carlus
magnus imperator nomen —imperator1s imposuit filio suo
Hludowico . . . coronamque imperialem et sceptrum, sicut
mos est imperatoribus dare." J. Haller, Das Papsttum,
5 vols., (Basel, 1951), II, p. 23 notes that succession

53

There are some scholars who regard the coronation
of 813 as a correction of the ceremony of 800. Accord-
ing to this interpretation, Charles was displeased by the
role played by the pope and by the Romans. In addition,
the ceremony of 813 provides an example of the way in
which Charles had wanted to be crowned.33 What particu-
larly annoyed Charles in 800 was the fact that, legally
at least, the acclamations by the Romans made him
emperor.34 I have already called attention to the
Frankish acclamation of Louis in 813. I shall return
to this in a moment but the whole problem goes much

deeper than this. Charles' empire was based on the gens

Francorum and on the Christian religion which was to be

 

 

to empire was a matter of public law at Rome so the
adOption of co-regency by the Franks is not necessarily
the adoption of a specifically Byzantine practice." H.
Fichtenau, "Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum," MIOG, LXI,
(1953), p. 330, observes that the practice applied in

813 could easily have been culled from the numerous Roman
sources available at Lorsch and Fulda.

33See, among others, Ganshof, Institutions, p. 17
and n. 96; Helmut Beumann, "Romkaiser und frankisches
Reichsvolk," Festschrift E. E. Stengel, (Munster-Koln,
1952), pp. 157-80; Schlesinger, 1'Kaiisertum und Reichs-
teilung," p. 230.

 

 

34This was first conclusively demonstrated by
Karl Heldmann, Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen, (Weimar,
1928), pp. 258-39} see also Caspar, “Papsttum," p. 255
and Peter Classen, "Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und
Byzanz," in Karl der Grosse, 4 vols., ed. WOlfgang Braun-
fels, (Dusseldorf, 1965), I, p. 581; Ernst Kantorowicz,
Laudes Reqiae, (University of California Publications in
History, XXXIII, 1946). pp. 76-77.

 

 

 

54

35 Peter Classen

universally professed by his subjects.
has shown, by means of the most meticulous research,

that the curious phrase Romanum gubernans imperium in

 

Charles' imperial title was, in the first place, Roman
and not an invention calculated to assuage Byzantine
sensitivities. He has further proved that Charles' whole
title was an attempt to do two things: include the
Romans without centering his empire on them, and give
clear expression to the royal and Frankish bases of his
power.36 So the pope, the principal agent in 800, and

the Romans, the constitutive force in 800, were con-

sciously excluded in 813.

 

35Beumann, "Nomen Imperatoris: Studien zur
Kaiseridee Karls des Grossen," HZ, CLXXXV, (1958), p. 548.
Heinz Lowe, Die karolingische Reichsgrundung und die
Sfidosten, (Stuttgart, 1937), p. 169, goes much too far
in His theory of Germanic self-consciousness. Ohnsorge,
l'Renovatio Regni Francorum," Abendland und Byzanz, pp. 127-
30 and Robert Folz, The Concept of Empire’in Western
Europe, trans. S. A. Ogilvie, (New York, 1969), pp. 24-26,
correctly assess the Christian content in Charles' empire
but argues, wrongly I believe, that the Frankish con-
tent was largely an attempt to express the non-Byzantine
and nonpapal aspects of the empire. I think it was a
positive attempt to express the Frankish basis of the
empire. Remember, we are dealing here with the peOple
described in such grandiose terms in the so-called
second prologue to the Salic Law.

36Charles' full title was "Carolus, serenissimus
augustus, a Deo coronatus magnus et pacificus imperator,
Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam Dei
rex Francorum et Langobardorum," Egg, gig. Kar., I,
Inc. 197. Classen, "Romanum gubernans 1mperiufi} zur
‘Vorgeschichte der Kaisertitular Karls des Grossen," 25,
,Ix, (1951), pp. 107f, 113-16, 120f.

55

What role was accorded to the Franks? Reference
has already been made to Charles' asking the Franks
"from the greatest to the smallest" whether or not he
should transmit his office to his son. There are several
possible explanations for this: the extraordinary naming
of a co-regent; the lack of a firm definition of the
imperial office; the question of whether or not the
empire ought to be perpetuated. There is nothing sur-
prising in the fact that Charles sought the advice of
his great men on such a grave issue. In the end, how-
ever, the decision was his: his will alone was consti-

37

tutive. The acclamation by the Franks may have been

 

37All sources emphasize Charles' role. Some do
not mention the nobility at all, and, where they are men-
tioned, they take a subordinate role. Einhard, Vita
Karoli, 30, ed. Halphen, p. 84: "imperatorem et augustum
iuss1t appellari." Einhard seems only to emphasize the
presence of the nobility. Chron. Moiss., MGH, SS, 1,
p. 310 and Poeta Saxo, MGH, SS, I, vs. 9-19_3re-§imilar
to Einhard. The annalistic sources all lay sole emphasis
on Charles, e.g., Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 813, p. 138:
'evocatum ad se apud—Aqfiisgrani filium suum Hludowicum
Aquitaniae regem, coronam illi inposuit et imperialis
nominis consortem fecit." Cf. Dhondt, "Eléction et
hérédité," pp. 919-20; Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, p. 34;
Schlesinger, "Konigswahlen," p. 96, all ofiwhom agree
that Charles' role was decisive. One source, Ann.
Lobienses, MGH, SS, XIII, p. 231, reads "voto EE—elec-
tione omnium fidEIium suum" and in other places "con-
sensu" or something similar can be found, e.g., Chron.
Moiss., as above. The problem of consent to royaI or
1mperial acts in the earlier Carolingian age has been
conclusively solved by Ganshof, "Récherches sur les
capitulaires," Révue historique du droit francais et
etranger, (1957), part I, p. 66} with sources and further
literature. In short, it was a rubber stamp affixed to
the will of the reigning monarch. Whether expressed or
not, it was expected.

 

 

 

 

 

56

an attempt, in respect to an imperial office which had
not heretofore existed among the Franks, to c0py the

role of the Romans in 800.38

More likely it was a
translation into imperial successions of the acclamation
which customarily accompanied royal successions. Con-
sequently, the role of the Franks was no more decisive
than that of the pope or the Romans. In handing his
empire to his son, Charles acted as he had thirty-two
years before when he had assigned Aquitaine to him,
albeit with a bit more pomp and circumstance.

Granted, then, that Charles alone handed his
empire on to his son Louis. What manner of empire was
it? Of what did the imperial office itself consist?

Scholars have long been evoking images of an imperium

christianum and of an orthodoxus imperator as its rector.

 

 

It cannot be denied that these and similar expressions
appear in the sources. But, at least during Charles'
reign, these concepts cannot be directly connected with
Charles himself in such a way as to provide a clear

picture of his idea of empire. In the Divisio Imperii

 

of 806 Charles actually provided us with some evidence
that he did not conceive of the empire in abstract terms.
The protocol of the document is addressed "to all my

faithful men . . . present and future . . . who are

 

38The possibility is noted by Ganshof, "The
Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne: Theories and Facts,"
CaFM, p. 53 n. 51.

A”.
5'“

‘0'.
by".

.
‘ha .

In...

 

5"
I . 1
v.'.
n.‘ .
5‘. I
" n
‘2' n
-“n:

 

-
.. .‘.
.

\. ".

I u
x‘ -_
_ .
u
v.
C
u
. .
.I .‘
\ I
V
U
Q
a
1‘ n.
._‘
O
.
<‘-
R‘ 5
U
l V
.
_.
1‘.»
i

57

constituted under the empire and its government" and
continues with the following words:
We hope to have our sons as consorts in the king-
dom granted to us by God so long as we live and
we hope to leave them as heirs in the kingdom
watched over and protected by God after we have
passed from this 1ife.39
Those who have written most prudently on this subject
agree that there was nothing universal in the Divisio
and so Charles probably did not think he was conferring
anything universal upon his son in the coronation of

813.40 It was not the abstract Imperium Christianum

 

but the very concrete "abendlandisches Gesamtreich
Karls" which Louis was given.41
So, too, the imperial office cannot yet be viewed

in abstract terms.42 Long ago Brunner asserted that it

was viewed "As an annex, as an intensification of

 

39MGH, Cap., 1, no. 45, p. 126.

40
p. 205.

Schlesinger, "Kaisertum und Reichsteilung,"

41Caspar, "Papsttum," p. 255.

42Beumann, "Nomen Imperatoris," passim, goes
further than I would but he does attempt to assess the
significance of the emergence of nomen as a designation
for the office. Cf. Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, SS, II,
p. 591: "ut nomen suum, id est imperatoris,-filio suo
Hludowico tradidisset"; Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG, s.a. 813,
p. 138: "imperialis nominis 51 i consortem fecit.“ It
is no longer possible to translate nomen neutrally as
name but it is not yet (in 813) possible to ascribe any
clear substantive content to it.

 

58

43 More recently Ganshof has

Frankish kingship."
described it this way:

The imperial office permitted the king to exercise

certain of his prerogatives with a greater force

and in a broader manner, at the same time creating

for him the task of giving a special orientation

to these prerogatives; but that is all.44
In another place Ganshof observed that this "special
orientation" stemmed from the deep anxiety felt by Charles
on account of his heightened responsibilities before God
and man after 800.45 In all of this there is neither a
fully articulated abstraction nor a clearly defined legal
entity. As we shall see, it was left to Louis to procure
definitions.

It appears that the act by which Louis was raised

to the imperial office was a purely secular one. Was

the ceremony devoid of religious significance? Not at

all. First, the coronation took place in a church, whereas

 

43Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 121.

44Institutions, p. 10.

45"Charlemagne's Programme of Imperial Govern-
lnent," CaFM, pp. 55-85. The article is basically a com-
lnentary on the "programmatic (so named by Ganshof himself)
<3apitu1ary” of 802: MGH, Cap., I, no. 34, pp. 91-99.
{Phat these ideas were important to Charles and closely
:related to the imperial office ought already to be clear
:Erom his exhortations to Louis in 813. The last years of
Charles' reign provide additional evidence of this. See,
nflaa, $32., I, nos., 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, pp. 238-40,
III-4 , 244-46, 246-47, 249.

 

......

.A
‘5!
a»

 

bu...

bQ-4

g-

'u ‘.

 

-.
-‘
Ibvh.

avg.
v. .I

I
a...
he“

5.
a
i

D-
n-

A.‘.

59

similar rites in Byzantium occurred in the palace.46

Second, Charles seems to have felt that he was acting
in God's place in associating his son in the imperial

47

title. Third, Charles swore his son to care for the

Church and assigned him a number of moral responsibili-

48 Finally, the unanimity amidst which Louis was

ties.
crowned was interpreted as evidence of divine inspiration
and approval, just as it was in the case of episcopal or

49 Be this as it may, the ceremony

abbatial elections.
was not a religious one 225 ES! and it did nothing,
really, to provide a clear definition of the imperial
office. Moral and religious responsibilities were
undoubtedly major components of the imperial office as
Charles understood it, and Charles required his son to
take thought for those same responsibilities. Beyond
this, however, it is not possible to provide a clear and
comprehensive definition of the theoretical or conceptual

content of the office which Charles possessed and which

he transmitted to his son in 813.

 

46Supra, n. 31.

47Ermoldus, vs. 722.

48Thegan, Vita Hlud., 6, MGH, SS, II, pp. 591-92.

 

49Cf. Walter Mohr, Die karolingische Reichsidee,
(Mfinster, 1962), pp. 74ff.

60

One question remains: Did this ceremony make
Louis emperor? The answer must be affirmative. When
Louis was informed of his father's death he began imme-
diately his journey to Aachen. He stopped in Orleans and
was hailed as emperor by no less a man than Theodulf.50
A number of sources indicate that Louis then proceeded
to Aachen without opposition and that the Franks swore

51 Upon reaching Aachen Louis quickly

52

homage immediately.
set about the business of governing the realm. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to find any evidence that
suggests Louis was unsure of himself or that his commands
were not considered authoritative.

Louis was regarded as emperor in all parts of the

empire, even in Italy where his nephew Bernard was

 

50Theodulf, Carmina, MGH, Poet. Lat., I, no. 70,
Cf. Siemes, Beitrage, p. I72.

 

 

51Odilo, Trans. S. Sebastiani, 1, SSS, SS, xv.1,
p. 380: ”nullo adversum se opposito"; Ann. Reg. Franc.,
SSrG, s.a. 814, p. 140: "summoque omnium Francorum con-
sensu”; Thegan, Vita Hlud., 8, MGH, SS, II, p. 592: "sine
ulla contradictionéT1F In view Sf—NiEHard, I.4, ed. Rau,
p. 388, it is perhaps necessary to admit that there was
some opposition, but whatever it was it disappeared in a
hurry.

 

 

 

 

52Ermoldus, vs. 741-45, 808-35, 847: "commissum
imperium ordinat, armit, alit"; Astron., Vita Hlud., 22,
23, 24, MGH, SS, II, pp. 618-19; Thegan, Vita Hlud., 8,
9, 10, ME S's: II, pp. 592-93; Afl. Lg. Franc., SSrG,
s.a. 813—,_pp. 140-41. ‘— _

 

 

\Io.

 

 

61

reigning as sub-king.53 The literary evidence regularly

refers to Louis as emperor.54 Louis' first diploma bears
the title which he always used, except for a few documents
in 834: "Hludowicus divina ordinante providentia Imperator
Augustus." This, and all of his diplomas, are dated from

814.55

Since Louis was again crowned emperor by Pope
Stephen IV in October of 816 it is worthwhile to ask
whether the papacy considered him emperor immediately
upon his accession. In 815 Leo III submitted a dispute
between himself and Martin of Ravenna to Emperor Louis for

56

arbitration. This must be regarded as a recognition of

 

53Epistolae Variorum, no. 2, MGH, Spp., V, pp. 300-
01, a letter from a Saxon to Emperor Louis requesting that
some familial patrimonies be restored. For Italy, I Pla-
citi del Regnum Italiae, ed. Manaresi, FSI, no. 29 (Lucca,

: egnante domno nostro H1udoicus‘3—Deo coronatus

magnus et pacificus imperatore anno secundo et domno nos-
tro Bernardus rege Langobardorum, anno regni eius, post-
quam in Dei nomine in Italia reversus est, quarto . . .
It is significant that Bernard is mentioned second. See,
E. Mfihlbacher, "Zur Geschichte Konig Bernhards von
Italien," MIOG, II, (1881), p. 298.

 

S4For brevity's sake I cite only Paschasius Rad-
bertus, whose testimony is meaningful because he was so
hostile to Louis. Vita Adalhardi, 30, 32, 36, PL, CXX,
1523c, 1526A, 1528C. "'

SSESESESEJ VI: DO- 1: P. 455. Nos. 53-58 from
the months 1mme 1ate1y preceding the papal coronation are
the same.

56Agnellus, Lib. Pont. Raven., 169, MGH, SSrL,
p. 387: "Leo papa . . . misit legatum suum Franc1am _ad
Ludovicum imperatorem." Louis sent Bishop John of Arles
to get Martin and take him to Rome so the matter could be
settled there.

 

q
\r

 

 

 

.-

‘A

.A

”A

‘a

U"
D

 

62

overlordship. Moreover, Louis is addressed as emperor.
The papacy never dated letters and documents from 816,
when a pope crowned Louis, but always from 814, when
Louis succeeded his father.57 Finally, it may be noted
that in the life of Stephen IV in the Liber Pontificalis
Louis is throughout referred to as emperor.58

The background to the papal coronation of 816
may be stated very briefly. When Stephen journeyed to
Reims he met a man who was incontestably emperor and
who was not, to all appearances, in need of a second
coronation. In addition, the man Stephen met bore a
not yet defined title and presided over a conceptually
ill-defined empire.

The fact that Louis requested, or allowed, Stephen
to crown him has given rise to a great deal of contro-
versy. Some regard it as a "correction" of the worldly
coronation of 813 and the impetus is variously assigned
to Louis or to Stephen. Put a bit more precisely, these
theories hold that, on the one hand, Louis sought an

59

elevation of his imperial dignity while, on the other,

 

57E.g., MGH, £32., I, no. 180, "Synodus Romanus
826," p. 370: "imperantibus dominis nostris piissimis
augustis Hludowico a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno
XIII . . . " The plural is used because Lothar also
f1gures in the protocol.

58ed. Duchesne, II, p. 49.

59Lot, Pfister and Ganshof, L'empire en occident,
p. 496: Fichtenau, Karol. Imperium, p. 225; Gerdi

63

the pope sought to put a Roman stamp on the process

whereby emperors were made and to bring the whole affair

60

within the realm of church law. A few scholars believe

that both of these tendencies are evident and that neither

61

one nor the other took precedence. One scholar has

looked at what might be called the social implications

62

of unction as it was performed in 816. According to

 

Tellenbach, Church, State and Christian Society at the
Time of the InvestiturgContest, trans. R. S. Bennet,
(New York, 1970), p. 57 n. 2; Kern, Kingship, p. 51.
These scholars all point out that the ceremony never
implied the exaltation of the anointer over the anointed,
but served to emphasize the direct relation of the
anointed to God. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae, p. 78,
notes that the Christianization of rulership made ecclesi-
astical participation inevitable but that the ceremony
served to make visible the workings of the divine king-
maker. Eichmann, Kaiserkranung, I, pp. 18-21, observes
that the model may be Byzantine since there the patriarch
always did the crowning, though the emperor was always
understood to have been crowned by God. The anointing
must be Frankish, however, for this was not done in the
East. Frequent references to emperors as xptoeeis
Bactleds or xptoeeis napd Kupfou are purely symbolic.

 

 

 

6OAmann, L'époque carolingienne, pp. 204-05;
Ewig, Handbuch, p.'124; Heldmann, Kaisertum, pp. 428-30;
Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 123; Ohnsorge,
”Mitkaisertum," p. 263; Folz, Concept of Empire, p. 27;
Karl Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des
Frfihmittelalters, (Berlin, 1951), p. 28;’L. Duchesne,

Les remiers temps de l'étatpontifical, 3d ed., (Paris,
1911;, p. 188.

 

 

 

 

 

61Ganshof, "Over het idee van het keizerschap,"
pp. 5-6; Ludo Moritz Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im
Mittelalter, 3 vols. in 5, (Gotha, 1897-1911), III.1,
p. 198.

 

62Fichtenau, Karol. Imperium, p. 305 citing MGH,
£22., II, p. 493: "Qu1 1nfideliter et contumaciter IK—
unctum qualemcumque Domini manuum mittit, dominium
christorum Christum contemnit." Ullmann, The Growth of

 

64

him, anointing created a situation in which it would
have been a moral outrage for the secular nobility to
rise against an anointed king. Some historians, realiz-
ing that the coronation of 813 made Louis emperor, have
tried to explain the coronation of 816 as a "Festive

Coronation" (in German: Festkanung), which was a public

 

re-coronation of a reigning person designed to give a

63 This theory,

however, will not stand up under examination64 so other

symbolic demonstration of his power.

scholars have seen 816 as a strengthening (Befestigung)

65

of Louis' office. This view has been countered by

Brfihl, who took a penetrating look into the whole legal

66

side of coronations. It may be argued, however, that

Brfihl's reasoning is too juristic and that Louis sought,

 

Pa a1 Government, 3d ed., (London, 1970), pp. 153-54,
15% n. I conSiders, but dismisses, this possibility.

63Mohr, Reichsidee, p. 76.

64Hans-Walter Klewitz, "Die Festkr6nung der
deutschen Kanige," 559, LIX, ka, XXVIII, (1939), pp. 67ff,
who demonstrates that the practice first emerged in the
tenth century.

65Ewig, Handbuch, p. 124 and, to some extent,
Haller, Papsttum, II, p. 23.

 

66Carlrichard Brfihl, "Frankischer Kranungsge-
brauch und das Problem der 'Festkranung,'" HZ, CXCIV,
(1962), pp. 283-311 where proofs are also offered against
the idea that 816 saw a Festkranung.

In.
Qh§

 

65

or obtained, a Befestigupg of something other than his

 

legal position. Finally, historians have analyzed the
coronation with this question in mind: were these acts
of coronation and anointing, or either one of them, con-
stitutive? This question has been answered both nega-
tively and positively from both the juridical and spiri-
tual points of view.67
There is only one way to rise above all of this
confusion. The evidence, which is rather plentiful,
must be submitted to a new and direct analysis. It is
necessary to determine, first, what happened in 816 and
why these events proceeded exactly as they did. In order
to make these determinations, the coronation of 816 will
be analyzed in great detail but insights will be drawn
from the coronations of 817 and 823 whenever it seems
useful to do so. Second, it is necessary to discover
what the coronation of 816 meant to each of the partici-
pants. Finally, some attention must be directed to the

imperial office as it appears in the sources for the

early years of Louis' reign. Specifically, an attempt

 

67On anointing, from the juridical point of
view, the most affirmative treatment is Ullmann, Papal
Government, pp. 143-53. Contra, Eichmann, "KBnigs- und
B1schofsweihe," (Sitzungsher1chte der bayerischen Akade-
mie, Phi1.-Hist. KIasse, 1927-28, fasc. 6), p. 65. The
thious spiritual arguments concerning anointing will be
discussed in due course. For the legal and spiritual
arguments concerning the coronation--as distinct from
the anointing--see supra nn. 59-61.

 

66

will be made to demonstrate that a clear definition of
the imperial office emerged for the first time.

The logical and necessary point of departure for
a study of the coronation of 816 is the journey of
Stephen IV to Reims. Why did he undertake it? No
single answer can be given for there were a variety of
circumstances which might have caused him to seek a
meeting with the emperor. In the final years of the
pontificate of Leo III there was considerable civil
strife in Rome which centered on the papacy. Apparently,
this was both politically and economically motivated.
Also, the election of Stephen IV in 816 marked the first
change in the See of Peter since the imperial coronations
of 800 and 813. A very legitimate, perhaps urgent,
question arose concerning the rights which the Caro-
lingians would claim in papal elections. Finally, since
Ponthion and Quierzy, the pOpes and the Franks had con-
cluded numerous alliances, signed a number of 22223 and
repeatedly renewed their mutual friendship. The politi-
cal, legal and religious dimensions of all of these
problems will be discussed in great detail in later
chapters. For the moment they may be taken for granted
as background to the situation in which Stephen found

himself on his election.

67

Stephen's first act after his election was to
have the Romans swear an oath of fidelity to Louis.68
It is difficult to say what this meant. It had not been
done before and Stephen's successors did not do it in
precisely the same fashion. That is, the oath was later
required by the emperor which was not the case in 816.
Perhaps it was an attempt by Stephen to win Louis' good
will. Another possibility is that the pOpe was trying
to create for himself a firm position in Rome between
the emperor and the Romans. It will be seen later that
this is very much like the position which the pope
actually held at that time and it is possible that
Stephen was trying to institutionalize it. These are
reasonable surmises, but nothing more. The oath remains
an anomaly.

Several embassies were then exchanged.69 The
sources say, among other things, that Stephen desired to
make satisfaction to Louis concerning his election. Since

we hear of no irregularities this can only mean that he

desired clarification of whatever rights Louis might

 

68Thegan, Vita Hlud., l6, MGH, SS, II, p. 594.

 

69Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 144:
”nfissis . T_T duo is 1egatis"; Ermoldus, vs. 854-55:
”Concurrunt varii redeuntque sub ordine missi,/Caesaris
atque sacri vota benigna ferunt."

_A_

 

1‘

R5

I\§

 

68

claim.70 Apparently he was already en route when his

first legates reached Louis.71 Moreover, the sources

indicate that Stephen left Rome in great haste72 and
he seems, almost like a suppliant, to have been willing

73 This suggests that he was

to meet Louis anywhere.
fleeing from the political strife which had been disturb-
ing Rome for several years. Perhaps the pope wished to
inform Louis of this trouble and to enlist his aid in

suppressing it. In any event, Louis was overjoyed that

the pope was coming to meet him and decreed that the

 

0Ann. __%. Franc., SSrG, s. a. 816, p. 144;
Astron., Vlta H1 ., 26 ,MGH, 55, II, p. 620: "1ega-
tionem, quae super ordinat1one— eius imperatori satis-
faceret." The Annales use almost exactly the same words.

7152g. 523. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 144: "ad
imperatorem ven1re contendit, m1ssis interim duobis
1egatis"; Astron., Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, SS, II, p. 620:
Stephen hastened north "praemisit tamen 1_gationem."
Ermoldus' statement that Louis ordered Stephen to come,
vs. 848, must be dismissed unless what he is referring
to is Louis' demand that the pope meet him at Reims.

72Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s. a. 816, p. 144: "non-

dumque duoth post consecratIOnem suam exactis mensibus
quam maximis poterat itineribus ad imperatorem venire
contendit"; Ann. Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 20 errs in
saying "pauci§_post . . . diebus"; Astron., Vita Hlud.,
26, MGH, SS, II, p. 620: "Vix enim duobis exactis men-
sibus, summa cum festinatione ei occurrere festinavit";
cf. Ermoldus, vs. 851.

73Thegan, Vita Hlud., l6, MGH, 53, II, p. 594.
"dirigens legatos . . . nuncians e1, Fut_11benter eum
videre voluisset in loco ubicumque ei placuisset. "

69

meeting should take place at Reims.74 It should be

noted that the sources do not say why Louis was over-
joyed.
These facts all derive from the Frankish sources.
A few more can be obtained from a papal source, the Liber
Pontificalis. It says that Stephen's trip was undertaken,
first, ”for confirming the peace and unity of the holy
Church of God," and, second, "concerning the captivity
of all the exiles who were being held in Francia on
account of the crimes . . . which they had perpetrated
on the Lord Pope Leo."75 In addition, several sources
indicate that Stephen obtained everything which he
sought.76
Was the coronation among the things which the
pope sought and obtained? We shall see in a moment that
Stephen gained release of the exiles, confirmation of
papal-Frankish friendship and a document defining papal

and imperial rights in Rome and its environs. These are

 

74Ibid.: "Quod audiens, magno tripudio repletus
coepit gaudere"; Ann. Egg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 144:
"Remis ei statuit-SEcurrere"; Astron., Vita Hlud., 26,
MGH, SS, II, p. 620: "Ipse autem eius adventum Remis
EEEtiHEre statuit."

 

75

1

76Ibid.: "omnia quecumque ab eo peposcisse
dinoscitur, 1n omnibus impetravit"; Astron., Vita Hlud.,
26, MGH, SS, II, p. 621: "cunctis quae poposcerat imper-
tati§'?’A§fiellus, Lib. Pont. Raven., 17o, MGH, SSrL,
pp. 387-88: "quidquid postulavit ab eo, optinuit."

Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, II, p. 49.

 

 

 

70

the only things which the sources mention as having been
specifically requested by Stephen. Therefore, after
obtaining these things, Stephen might well have returned
to Rome "having obtained everything which he had sought."
Not one source says that Stephen went north specifically
to crown Louis.77 To be sure, many sources mention only
Stephen's journey, or his presence in Reims, or the coro-
nation.78 This suggests not so much that the coronation
was the reason for Stephen's presence in Reims as the
fact that, in the eyes of the authors of the sources in
question, the coronation was the most important thing

that happened there. In analyzing the coronation, then,

it is well to remember that it took place in the "holy

 

77It is to be noted that modern scholarship holds
that Roman troubles and the like were the reason for
Stephen's journey. Cf. Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte
der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, 8 vols., 7th ed., (Berlin,
1952}, III, p. 33; Hauck, K1rchengeschichte, II, pp. 491-
92, Simson, JB Ludwi I, pp. 73- 74; Fichtenau, Karol.
Im erium, p.-72§; Mogr, "Reichspolitik und Kaiserkronung
in den 3ahren 813 und 816," WaG, XX, (1960), pp. 169-70;
Ullmann, Papal Government, pT‘I45. It is worth remember-
ing this When studying a coronation that has been called

”une mainmise séconde de la papauté sur l'institution
imperiale" by Duchesne, L'étatpontifical, p. 188.

 

 

 

 

 

78Ann. Laur. Min., MGH, SS, I, p. 122; Chron.
Moiss., MGH, SS, I, p-_§lz; Ann. §. Emmerammi Rat1s. Mai.,
MGH, SS, I, p. _93; Ann. Iuv. Max., ed’. Bresslau, s. a. 816,
MGH, ss, xxx. 2, p. 73?”; Ann. Xant., SSrG, s. a. 815 (sic),
p. —5; Ann. Hi1des., SSrG, p. 16 Ann. S1thienses, MGH,

ss, x111, p.

 

 

71

city" of the Franks and that it was performed by a pope
who was very likely there on other business.79

When Louis heard that the pope was coming to meet
him he ordered his nephew, King Bernard of Italy, to

80 He himself went to Reims to wait.81

accompany him.
When Stephen drew close to Reims Louis sent three of his
most important bishops ahead to receive him: Hildebald
of Cologne, Theodulf of Orléans and John of Arles.82
Finally, Louis himself met Stephen one mile from the

83 Louis may have been according

monastery of St. Remi.
to the pope the honors appropriate to the highest eccle-
siastical dignitary or, and subsequent events make this
more likely, he may have been beginning already to set
the stage for his own coronation.

The next scene was so beautifully orchestrated

that it must have been arranged in advance, probably

by Louis. The emperor and the pope both descended

 

79The Liber Pontificalis does not even mention
the coronation.

 

80Astron., Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, §§, II, p. 620.

 

81It may be noted that in 804 when Leo III
requested a meeting with Charles, he also was received
at Reims. Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 804, p. 119;

Ann. Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 853, p. I5.
82

Astron., Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, SS, II, p. 620.

 

83Ibid.

72

from their horses84 and then Louis, clad in garments
bedecked with gold and gems and surrounded by his clergy

on the right and his nobility on the left and his peOple

behind, approached Stephen.85 The two met and embraced

and Louis prostrated himself three times before the pope.86

87 and Louis

Stephen then raised Louis from the ground,
addressed him with "Blessed is he who comes in the name
of the Lord." Stephen responded with "Blessed be the

Lord our God who gives it to our eyes to see the second

88

King David." The two then embraced one another, kissed,

perhaps several times, and proceeded to the monastic

 

84Thegan, Vita Hlud., l6, MGH, gs, II, p. 594.

 

85Ermoldus, vs. 858-67.

86Thegan is most explicit on this order of events,
Su ra, n. 84. Ermoldus, vs. 872-73, adds that prostration
was in honor of God and St. Peter. The proskynesis was
typical in such ceremonies at Byzantium. Pepin had done
it at Ponthion and Charles at Paderborn: Eichmann,
Kaiserkronung, I, p. 41. In 800 Leo prostrated himself
béfore Charles. From 816 on this became the sole pre-
rogative of the pope. Note, however, that Louis did not
perform the officium stratoris.

 

87Only Ermoldus adds this detail, vs. 874-76.

88Thegan, Vita Hlud., 16, MGH, SS, II, p. 594.
In my opinion these statements are—fiEre-diplomatic
niceties, and no programmatic meaning ought to be attri-
buted to them as Mohr, Reichsidee, pp. 76ff, does. Ewig,
"Das Bild Constantins des Grossen in den ersten Jahrhunder-
ten des abendlandischen Mittelalters," Egg, LXXV, (1956),
pp. 7-8 noted that Byzantine emperors were often addressed
as hAAos AanG.

 

 

73

church at Reims with Louis taking Stephen on his arm.89

Their entry into the church was accompanied by the sing-

ing of a "Te Deum" by the Frankish clergy.90

At this point the sources become a little more
difficult to follow. In order to establish the order
of events inside the church it is necessary to cite the
three principal surviving accounts. Thegan (c. 16)
speaks in these terms:

They arrived at the church; when they had prayed
for a long time the pope rose up and in a high
voice, along with his clergy, he sung him the
royal lauds.

The Astronomer (c. 26) gives this account:

The Roman clergy sung the lauds which were due

to the emperor and the lord pope completed them
with a prayer. This done, they retired deep into
the house and the pope laid out the reasons for

his arrival and then, after they had partaken of a
benediction of bread and wine, the emperor returned
to the city and the lord pope remained there.

Finally, Ermoldus (vs. 880-89) writes:

First they visited the church and addressed God
with prayers. They sung graces and vows that
were to be given. Soon they went back to the
palace for a great banquet. They sat down and
servants presented water for washing their hands.
Then they enjoyed a worthy banquet, having first
partaken of wine. They engaged in conversation
and finally Louis spoke thus: "0 blessed vicar,

 

89Thegan, Vita Hlud., 16, MGH, SS, II, p. 594;
Astron., Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, SS, II, p. 620, adds the
detail about Louis lending Stephen a hand. Ermoldus,

V8. 877-80.

 

 

90Thegan, Vita Hlud., l6, MGH, _s_s_, II, p. 594;
Ermoldus, vs. 877-80.

 

\Intu ‘

74

pastor of the Roman flock, you who hold the place

of the apostolic Peter as shepherd of his flock,

what has brought you to the land of the Franks?

Tell me!"
Now, with these texts before us, it is possible to deter-
mine what happened in the church that day.

First, it is known that the initial meeting of
pope and emperor, the day in question here, took place
Thursday, October 2, 816.91 The coronation took place
on Sunday, October S92 and two days of banqueting and
gift exchanging intervened.93 Therefore, it is possible
to dismiss Ermoldus' statement that they left the church
and went to the palace. The Astronomer states clearly
that Louis returned to the city-~to the palace--and
that Stephen remained at St. Remi. Since the Astronomer
goes on to say ”on the next day the lord emperor summoned
the lord pOpe to himself“ it is clear that Ermoldus has
compressed the events of Thursday and Friday into one day.
It may be noted, further, that Ermoldus compacts the whole
four days into two. Now, Thegan says that they prayed

for a long time in the church and that during the prayers

the royal lauds were sung. The Astronomer notes a

 

glgfl, no. 633a; Simson, fig Ludwig, I, p. 68 n. 1,

92Thegan, Vita Hlud., 17, MGH, gs, II, p. 594:
"proxima die dominica."

 

93Ibid.; Ann. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 144;
R§I5IP

Ann. Fuld., SSrG, s. a.

 

75

benediction of bread and wine as well as recording that
the lauds were sung and completed with a prayer. Ermoldus
describes a banquet, though he mistakenly puts it in the
palace, a hand washing, and wine drinking. It takes

very little imagination to see that he is describing, not
a banquet, but a mass, replete with communion. Either

his memory was bad or he followed a corrupt source. In
addition to the praying and benediction mentioned by
Thegan and the Astronomer, the singing of the lauds con-
firms that a mass took place. The lauds were sung between
the first collect and the epistle of the mass on most
occasions.94 Doubtless, the pope was the celebrant.

A moment's reflection on the lauds is in order
since their appearance is one of the most important sym-
bolic facts to emerge up to this point. The sources
leave no doubt that it was the Frankish royal lauds that
were sung. These were no Byzantine type lauds such as
were used to acclaim Charles emperor in 800 but rather a
solemn and jubilant proclamation of the dignity of the

95

reigning king. Let it be remembered that it was the

pope and the Roman clergy who sung the lauds on October 2,

 

94Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae, p. 87 and nn. 69-70.

 

95Ibid., pp. 13-14. He states that the lauds
arose from Iitanies which accompanied penitential pro-
cessions. But, the royal lauds are exceptional ”since
neither the suffrages nor the responses are born from
fears and tears. Instead of humble petitions demanding
deliverance from evil, we find jubilant acclamations."

5

!\~

76

816. By the mid-ninth century the papacy had created a
Roman form of the lauds and turned them to its own
advantage, but this had not yet happened in 816.96
Finally, the form of the lauds is revealing. The pOpe

is mentioned first but the king is associated with the
greater saints. This apparently chiasmic order is merely
a polite gesture.97 Certainly these lauds were an
attempt to provide a very visible demonstration of the
cosmic order as it is reflected in the earthly. Their
overall symbolic effect was to place the king on the
highest possible plane.

The passage from the Astronomer quoted above
indicates that after mass Stephen and Louis retired to
some other portion of the monastery and that the pOpe
explained the reasons for his coming. Bearing in mind
that Ermoldus has corrupted the chronology of events,
it can still be said that his vs. 886-89, in which he has
Louis asking Stephen why he came, agree with the Astro-

98

nomer's account. This is confirmed by the Annales

 

96Ibid., pp. 64, 104-05, 109. In 816 the pope
was addressed in the lauds as "N. summo pontifice et
universalis pape, vita!" By the time of Nicholas I this
had changed to "Domino nostro N. a Deo decreto summo
pontifice et universalis pape, vita!"

97Ibid., pp. 49-50. For his edition of the lauds,
see, pp. lgff.

98On the matter of whether Louis summoned Stephen,
it is sometimes held that Ermoldus' statement, vs. 848,
claiming that Louis did summon Stephen, is to be

77

Regni Francorum and the Annales Fuldenses which use almost

 

 

the same language. Neither of the annals provide any
details on the reception ceremony or the mass but both
state unmistakably that the pope informed Louis of the
reasons for his visit "immediately" after his arrival.99
This can only make sense in relation to the Astronomer's
remarks about what happened after Louis and Stephen
retreated into the depths of the monastery.

The events of the following day, Friday, October 3,
make it easy to see at least some of what was discussed.
Above it was observed that the Liber Pontificalis put
down confirmation of friendship, disposal of matters

pertaining to the Church and return of exiles as reasons

for Stephen's journey. The royal annals say much the

 

discounted because he twice later reverses himself. I
agree, but disagree with this reasoning. In my view,
vs. 848 is a mistake by Ermoldus due either to willful
invention or to a bad source. Then, vs. 886-89 are purely
and simply a reference to the discussions after mass on
Thursday. Finally vs. 1054, in which Ermoldus again
indicates that Louis summoned the pOpe, is a reference
to the Friday meeting in the town. This is easily cor-
roborated by the Astronomer's remark, "ad se evocavit."
Hence, Ermoldus makes one simple mistake in vs. 848 and
the other verses are, taken by themselves, accurate and,
in.any case, irrelevant to the question of whether Louis
summoned Stephen from Rome.

99Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 144: "Qui
statim imperatori adventus sui causam insuans"; Ana.
Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 816, p. 20: "Qui statim adventus sui
sausus principi insuans."

78

100 Ermoldus has preserved an account of

same thing.
final disposition of just these kinds of affairs.

The protocols for the meeting on Friday were
such that only Louis could have been responsible for
them. We have already seen that Louis summoned Stephen
on Friday. Since it is reasonable that Louis was more
likely to have made the arrangements on this day than
on the next, when he banqueted at St. Remi as the guest
of the pope, it can be further assumed that Ermoldus has
handed down a clear and valuable account of Friday's
proceedings. This line of reasoning actually accords
well with Ermoldus' bad chronology. It means that he
conflated Thursday and Friday rather than Thursday and
Saturday. Sunday does not come into consideration since
we hear only of the coronation on that day.

Ermoldus' account of Friday's proceedings is as
follows: Louis summoned Stephen and the magnates (vs.
934-35) who found him garbed in splendid clothes and
sitting on a throne. Louis seated the pope next to
himself and arranged the nobility before them in order
of rank (vs. 936-40). Louis had a good deal on his
lnind ("multa tenens animo") and began to speak. Louis'
address, which is probably free composition by Ermoldus

.butzstill very close to what might have been said, is

 

100As in n. 99: "amicitia vicissim firmissimo
robore constituta aliisque utilitatibus sanctae Dei
eccflesiae pro temporibus opportunitate diSpositis."

79

of great significance in understanding Louis' views on
government as well as papal-imperial relations and I
have reproduced Faral's edition of it as Appendix A.

I shall have something further to say about it later.
For now, suffice it to say that it consists of three
parts. The first is a massive pronouncement on Louis'
moral responsibilities as a Christian ruler. The second
is a sketch of the history of Israel showing how pros-
perous Israel was so long as it held to God's teaching.
The third part is addressed particularly to the pope

and tells him that he and Louis share responsibility for
the Christian people committed to them.

At this point the assembled persons appear to
have gotten down to business. The next few lines in
Ermoldus' account are important enough that they deserve
to be quoted in full (vs. 1034-39):

If your rights remain, you who govern the kingdom
of Peter and if you can fulfill the care of your
flock, tell me: if otherwise, I strongly warn
you to tell me everything: I shall immediately
come to your aid. As my ancestors have served
the honor of Peter, so I shall serve, O prelate,
for the love of God.
Several points must be made in connection with Louis'
speech. First, Louis asked Stephen if he could maintain
himself in Rome. This no doubt resulted from the pre-
vious day's negotiations and perhaps from his own

knowledge of the troubled situation there. Then he

exhorted the pope to tell him when trouble arose so that

80

he could serve the cause of Peter. Here is to be found
the confirmation of papal-Frankish friendship which has
been met several times already as a reason for Stephen's
journey. The legal content and political implications
of this will be analyzed in considerable detail in the
next two chapters. Finally, let us note that Louis
undertook to serve the honor of God and St. Peter.
Stephen, qu§_Stephen, appears nowhere.

Then Louis called forth Helisichar, his cancel-
larius, and instructed him to draw up a document defining
the property of the Church and See of Peter in order
that it might remain intact and unharmed (vs. 1040-47).
We no longer have this document though it was still in
existence as late as 1105. Since it bears a close

relationship to the Pactum Ludovicianum it will be dis-

 

cussed further in the next chapter. Certainly, the pro-
duction of this document fits the reasons for Stephen's
journey.

Next Louis said that he desired that the foremost
church ("prius ecclesiae") should be so honored in his
times as it had been in the times of his ancestors, in
order that it might retain its preeminence: "It has
held the highest summit and we wish that it shall con-
tinue" (vs. 1048-51). Finally, he reminded Stephen

that he who sits upon the throne of Peter must be just

81

and that Louis desired Stephen to be a powerful helper
to him (vs. 1052-55).

At this point, Ermoldus commits his second chrono-
logical error. He goes directly into the coronation,
which actually took place two days later. We know that
Friday also witnessed a banquet and exchanges of gifts.
Saturday Stephen summoned Louis to him and again there

101 Although

was banqueting and showering of presents.
the sources, doubtless engaging in a bit of harmless
hyperbole, say that Louis gave away more than he received,
only one gift on the part of either man can be named.
Louis gave the pope a small estate near what is now
Vendeuvre-Sur-Barse.102

Certainly the most important business transacted
during this four-day meeting was the imperial coronation.
Yet, except for the fact that it took place, our sources
make no other mention of it. As we shall see presently,

it involved an elaborate ceremonial which simply cannot

have been spontaneous. This is no place to enter into

 

101Astron, Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, ss, 11, p. 621,
sets down the chronoIogy and basic EEEivIEies of the
four days more clearly than any other source. "In cras-
tinum domnus imperator domnum apostolicum ad se evocavit,
convivio peropulentissimo curavit, donisque maximis
honoravit.” This was Friday. "Similiter die tertio a
domno apostolico dominus invitatur imperator et multis
variisque est donatus muneribus (Saturday), et in cras-
tinum quae fuit dies dominica (Sunday) . . . "

 

 

lozgg, no. 633a.

82

a discussion of the tortured question of whether or not
Leo III surprised Charles in 800 but, bearing that prob-
lem in mind, it can be stated most emphatically that
there were no surprises or tricks in 816. When was the
elaborate ceremonial worked out? We simply do not know.
Thegan says that so long as the pope was in Reims daily
meetings were held on matters of importance to the

Church.103

The coronation was certainly of some impor-
tance to the Church and it must have been discussed in
some detail. We have seen that Thursday and Friday were,
in all probability, taken up with discussion of other
affairs. It is possible that the coronation was planned
on Saturday or perhaps, since Thegan says there were
meetings every day, on Sunday morning. But this is
guess work.

Set against this background, the coronation con-
veys the very sharp impression that Louis was in control
of things. He was met by Stephen before the city of
Reims and his praises were sung as emperor. He seems
to have arranged the meetings. His splendid dress can
have been of no little symbolic value. The evidence
builds, crescendo like, to the coronation itself. It

is only by a careful analysis of it that the whole

affair can be interpreted.

 

103Vita Hlud., 17, MGH, gs, II, p. 594.

 

83

On Sunday October 5, 816 at Reims Louis was
crowned and anointed emperor before a solemn mass.104
The sources are conflicting on whether the ceremony pre-
ceded or accompanied the mass but the coronation.9£gg
places the ceremony before mass. Of course, there is
also some controversy over whether or not an.9£§g was
used. Below I shall attempt to prove this point so, for
the present, I shall take its evidence as corroborating
that of Thegan and state that the coronation preceded
the mass. Ermoldus and Thegan, who provide the most
detailed accounts of the coronation, agree on this order
of events: consecration, anointing, coronation of Louis,
coronation of Empress Irmingard.105
Apart from the fact that the ceremony was per-
formed by the pope there is one specific fact which can
give rise to the interpretation that the whole affair
was a papal ESEB.§E.EE£E of the imperial office: the

106 Since

crown which was used was brought from Rome.
this is attested to by usually reliable sources it is not

to be doubted, but Ermoldus' statement (vs. 1076-77) that

 

104Ibid.; Astron., Vita Hlud., 26, MGH, SS, II,
p. 621 says during mass, as doeslthe royal annaligt.

 

105Ermoldus, vs. 1058-1107; Thegan, Vita Hlud.,
l7, MGH, SS, II, p. 594.

106Chron. Moiss., MGH, SS, I, p. 312; Thegan,
Vita Hlud., I7,"MGH—, ss, 11", p.194.

 

84

it was the crown of Constantine is of very doubtful

107 Ermoldus' two preceding lines are also

veracity.
interesting (vs. 1074-75):

Rome transmits to you, Caesar, the gifts of Peter,
worthy enough indeed, and a fitting mark.

Scholars have variously seen this as an emphasis on the
Roman and Petrine origins of the crown, a clear manifes-
tation of the program of the Constitutum Constantini,
a suggestion that Louis was made a Roman Emperor and an
assertion that the imperial office was at the disposal
of the papacy.108
These interpretations call for some comment.
First, it is very dangerous to assign much significance
to the possibility of the coronation having any relation-
ship to the Constitutum Constantini. Although some
doubts are possible, it seems that the forgery was pro-
duced in the decade after 754 and perhaps in close con-

nection with Stephen II's journey into Francia.109

 

l0780, Simson, EB Ludwi , I, p. 72 n. 7; Ewig,
"Das Bild Constantins," p. 144 Eelieves that Ermoldus may
have fallen victim to the Constantine legends that were
gaining increasing currency after about 822. Max Manitius,
Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters,
5 vols., (MuniCh, 1911), I, p. 553, notes that Ermoldus
began writing about 826.

108Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, p. 43; Ullmann,
Papal Government, p. 143; Brunner, Deutsche Rechts-
geschichte, II, p. 123, among others.

 

 

 

109Leon Levillain, ”L'avenement de la dynastie
carolingienne et les origines de l'état pontifical,"

.s. \..x.\. ..

85

Many later references to it, however, can be viewed as
allusions to the Constantine-Sylvester legends which
were so well known in the West. Moreover, the docu-
ment played very little role in the ninth century.110
The lines from Ermoldus (vs. 1074-75) quoted above must
be read very carefully. From at least the time of
Gregory the Great (590-604) popes frequently sent keys,
banners and the like to all manner of persons, not just

kings.lll

The key word here is "gifts," "munera," which
is plural. Perhaps Stephen proffered other items, in
addition to a crown, about which we have no knowledge.
The lines doubtless have some symbolic value but I think
that it would be dangerous to assign any precise signifi-
cance to them. I think it possible to dismiss out of
hand the idea that Louis became a Roman Emperor. He
never called himself one and not one single source so
names him. However, the idea that the imperial office
was in the hands of the pope deserves more serious
treatment. To this I shall return.

Before looking at the ordo, which I believe to

have been used, the following points can be established.

 

110Congar, Ecclésiologie, pp. 198-201 and 199-
200 n. 15 with rich literature.

 

111Fustel des Coulanges, Les transformations de
la royauté pendant l'époque carolingienne, Histoire des
‘Ifistitutions politiques de l‘ancienne France, v01. VI,
793115, 1892), p. 298.

 

 

 

86

A crown was brought from Rome, suggesting that the
coronation was always in Stephen's mind. This is
curious since no papal or Frankish source cites this
as a reason for the journey. Nevertheless, if Stephen
did bring along a crown, and there is no reason to doubt
this, then the implication is obvious. All of this
emphasis on the crown implies, externally at least,
that the ceremony served Stephen's interests as much,
if not more than, Louis', particularly if Ermoldus'
vs. 1074-75 are understood in a programmatic sense.
These lines seem to present a rather different picture
than the background to the coronation as I described it.
Let us turn to the 2592 and see what light it
sheds on the matter. The g£d9}12 begins with a prayer
on behalf of the emperor and empire. Then follows a
consecration prayer, which, incidentally is very similar
to some lines in Ermoldus: vs. 1058-69, 1080-89, 1092-
97. This prayer asks God to give the king long life,
health, peace, good harvests and the like. It also
asks God to make him a strong protector of the Church
and his country and a fearsome foe to his enemies.
As I shall prove below it was during this prayer that

Louis was anointed.

 

112Text: Ordines Coronatignis Imperialis, ed.
R. Elze, MGH, FIGA, IX, pp. 446. This text is reproduced
as Appendix B.

 

87

Up to this point the ordo and the literary evi-
dence agree on the order of events and even on the
prayers that were used. Then, for a moment, they part
company. The ordo places the coronation next but
Ermoldus indicates that the pope blessed the crown first
(vs. 1078ff). Blessing of the crown was an Eastern
custom, otherwise unattested in Frankish history, and
doubtless introduced here by the pope himself.113 Although
only Ermoldus mentions this fact, there is no reason to
doubt him since he is usually well informed on the whole
of the coronation ceremony.

The ordo then continues with a prayer that might
be regarded as a very compressed summary of the previous
one. Once again, God is asked to shed his blessings
upon the king. The ordo then concludes with an imperial
mass.

The ordo can be said to supply a different
picture of the ceremony than the literary sources. Its
testimony accords nicely with the background information
presented above but not at all well with the role and
significance of the pope in the coronation ceremony
itself as it is described by the literary sources.

Before this dilemma can be resolved it is necessary to

establish that the ordo was used.

 

113Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, p. 43; Ullmann,
Papal Government, p. 145.

 

 

88

Two scholars believed beyond any doubt that the
ggdg was used: Edouard Eichmann and Percy Ernst Schramm.114
Other historians of considerable repute are either skepti-
cal or nonbelieving.115 Ordinarily, there would be little
apparent justification for rehearsing an old scholarly
debate. In the present case, however, nothing could be
further from the truth, because by proving that the ordo
was used a great deal of light can be shed on the whole
ceremony.

The text of the ordo, as we have it, which has
long been called Ordo A by scholars, derives from a
Mainz Pontifical written about 960. This was the
greatest liturgical book of the German Middle Ages and
survives in dozens of manuscripts.116 But, even as the
Mainz Pontifical was being written, a new imperial ordo,
designated Cencius I, was replacing our ordo. The fact
that Ordo A was included in the book indicates that it

was still held to be authoritative.117 Ordo A also

 

114Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, pp. 64ff; Schramm,
"Die Ordines der mittelalterliEhen Kaiserkronung," AHF,
XI, (1930), pp. 354ff; von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmit-
telalter, p. 396 n. l, blindly follows Eichmann.

 

 

115Erdmann, Forschungen, pp. 72ff, believes it
was not used; Elze in the introduction to his edition is
skeptical, pp. xff, as is C. A. Boumann, Sacring and
Crowning, (Groningen, 1957), pp. 39ff.

 

 

116Erdmann, Forschungen, p. 52.

 

117Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, p. 64.

 

\w.

.0 a: \.L.

\U4

89

exists in a Milan codex of the mid-tenth century.118

Since this information is not very helpful it is neces-
sary to look into the ordo itself.

All of the prayers in Q£d2_A are Frankish and pre-
date 816. The prayer "Exaudi" is parallel in content
to the prayer "Propitiare" in episcopal consecrations,119
but its immediate model appears to be the prayer "Oratio
ad ordinandum diaconum" of the Sacramentary of Gellone.120
The Sacramentary of Gellone is a "Frankish-Gelasian"
Sacrementary and the closest thing we possess to the

121 The

archetype of the Gelasian executed under Pepin.
whole book is decidedly Frankish, with only a thin veneer
of Romanism, and is a living witness to the tenacity of

native Gallo-Frankish liturgical practice in the face of

the Benifatian—Carolingian attempts to bring the Regnum

 

118Schramm, "Ordines," p. 358 held the Milan text
to be from ca. 850 but he later changed his mind and saw
it as mid-tenth century. See his "Die Kronung in
Deutschland bis zum Beginn des Salischen Hauses," ZRG,
LV, k3, XXIV, (1935), p. 185 n. l. Henceforth, I 33511
refer to our ordo as Ordo A since most of the literature
does. In Elze's edition it is designated Ordo II.

119Eichmann, "Konigs- und Bischofsweihe," p. 49.

120Schramm, "Ordines," p. 355.

121Cyrille Vogel, "Les échanges liturgiques entre
Rome et les pays francs jusqu'a l'epoque de Charlemagne,"
(Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano, VII.l, 1959),
pp. 243-44.

90

Francorum into line with Roman usages.122 The Gellone

123

 

book, as we have it, was written between 770 and 780.
The second prayer, "Prospice," appears in manu-
scripts of the eighth century Gelasian referred to above,
in the Sacramentary of Angouléme and in the Benedictional
of Freising (=Cod. Munchen Stadtsbibl. 6430).124 The
Sacramentary of Angouléme is the next best text of the
eighth century Gelasian after the Sacrementary of Gellone
and dates from about 800.125 The Freising benedictional
is another Gallo-Frankish liturgical book, with a very
thin Roman veneer, containing blessings and prayers going
back at least to the seventh century.126
The third prayer "Accipe Coronam" has no known

models. However, Schramm has made the astute observation

that its language, particularly the use of "habeas,

 

122Gerd Tellenbach, Romischer und christlicher
Reichsgedanke in der Liturgie des frfihen Mittelalters,
(Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie, Phil.-Hist.
Klasse, XXV, 1934435), p. 20.

 

 

 

123Andre Wilmart, "Le copiste du sacrementaire de
Gellone au service du chapitre de Cambrai," Révue Béné-
dictine, VIIIL, (1930), pp. 220ff.

 

124Schramm, "Ordines," p. 356.

125Vogel, "Echanges liturgiques," pp. 243-44.

126D. G. Morin, "Un recueil gallican inédit de
'Benedictiones Episcopales" en usage a Freising aux VIIe-
IXe siecles," Révue Bénédictine, XXIX, (1912), p. 177.

 

91

teneas atque possideas“ is very close to that of the

127 This points to a Frankish origin

imperial documents.
for the prayer.

The final prayer "Deus Pater Aeternae Gloriae"
appears in a St. Emmeram codex (=Cod. Munchen Stadts-

28 Eichmann also discovered

bibl. 14510, gggg. IX).l
that the prayer appears in the Benedictional of Freising
along with five others of a similar nature, two of which
also appear in the Sacramentary of Angouléme.129
What points can be established? First, these
prayers are very much like those described by Ermoldus.130
Second, three of the four prayers appear in the Sacramen-
taries of Gellone and Angouléme which had a wide currency

131 It is well known

in Aquitaine in the ninth century.
that when Louis went to Aachen in 814 he took a number
of prominent Aquitanian churchmen with him. Chief among

them was Benedict of Aniane who was once at Gellone.

It is certainly not stretching probability too far to

 

127Schramm, "Ordines," p. 356.

lzaIbid., p. 357.

129"KBnigs- und Bischofsweihe," p. 49.

130Supra, p. 86. Also note that Ermoldus says
the pope "hymnis ex ordine dictis" vs. 1098; cf. Eich-
mann, Kaiserkronung, I, pp. 63ff.

 

131Wilamrt, "Copiste," p. 222.

92

suggest that these men might have brought these prayers
to court, or that they might have selected them espe-
cially for the coronation. Finally, it is not surprising
that one prayer "nahert sich . . . der Urkundensprache"
when one remembers that Hildebald, the honorary head of

the palace, and Helisichar, the cancellaruis, figure so

 

prominently in the sources for the coronation.

This evidence is certainly what lawyers would
call circumstantial, and scholars have not failed to
point this out. It establishes probability, perhaps,
possibility, certainly, but no more. Schramm's

methodology, which is basically that of Diplomforschung,

 

is the reason why only probability or possibility can
be achieved.

Several reasons have been advanced why this is
not a safe method in studying ordines. For a long
time, no one ordo was borrowed wholly from another
because none had become authoritative.132 Moreover,
all of the early ordines which we have were probably
memorials rather than binding models. After all, all
of them stem from a fairly small circle of liturgical

133

books of the eighth to tenth centuries. Finally,

 

132Boumann, Sacring and Crowning, pp. 2ff, 89ff.

 

133Elze, "Introduction," pp. xxiv-xxviii. Schramm
describes several other ordines which survive from before
the compilation of the Mainz Pontifical in "Die Kronung
bei den Westfranken und Anglesachsen von 878 bis 1000,"
‘EBE, LIV, k2, XXIII, (1932), pp. 117-242.

93

Erdmann observed that the Ottonian Pontifical is Roman,
German and Frankish in content and that it is very hard
to say what role the redacter played.134 So, the fact
that the players pre-date 816 and are Frankish means only
that they gguld have been used. In short, Schramm's
critics would argue that he has neither proved, nor
disproved, anything.

Eichmann built up his arguments in favor of the
use of the ordo mainly on the basis of a comparison of
the g£dg_with the literary evidence. It is especially
against this type of reasoning that Erdmann has objected.
He argues that although there is some similarity between
the prayers in the ordo and those described by Ermoldus,
the Aquitanian author was freely composing on the basis
of models that would have been easily accessible to

135 I do not think that this is a valid criticism.

him.
If an Aquitanian, who was a cleric and thus easily able
to lay his hands on many blessing prayers--indeed
prayers which derive from his homeland, Aquitaine, which
is the homeland of many prayers in the ordgf-wrote a
history of the coronation in language quite like that

of the ordo, are we not to assume that his choices were

dictated to him? And what of his statement "hymnis ex

 

134Forschungen, p. 52.

 

l3SIbid., p. 77.

94

ordine dictis"? This may not refer directly to our ordo,
admittedly, but it certainly suggests that some order
was followed in the prayers and this is almost the same
thing as saying that §n_g£gg_was used. This must be,
if nothing else, explained away, and Erdmann does not
do this.

In addition to his study of the texts themselves,
Schramm also argued that the title of the g£d2_(see
Appendix B) could only have made sense at a time when
feelings against Byzantium were still strong.136 It
must be conceded that this is based on the assumption
that an appreciation of Byzantine sensitivities played
some role in 816. This seems doubtful and, leaving
doubts aside, Erdmann has brought forth evidence that
the title is not original and that it connotes Western
and non-Roman, not Western and non-Byzantine. He notes
that in the Mainz Pontifical several Roman liturgies
were set off against others in a very specific way.
For example:

Qualiter episcopus in Romana ecclesia ordinatur
followed by:

Incipit examinativ in ordinatione episcopi
secundum Gallos.

Now, in the Ottonian, Ordo A is preceded by:

 

l36"0rdines," p. 360.

95

Incipit Ordo Romanus ad benedictionem imperatorem,

quando coronam accipit.137
So, he argues, the title was not original and was
supplied by the redactor to set it off from a Roman
QEQQ. I have some reservations about the former
assumption though I think the latter to be virtually
certain. He goes on to say that it is hard to believe
that a non-Roman ordo was ever used in Rome and that,
since the redactor included Q£§2.A it must have been
used somewhere in the West. The logical place to look,
he says, is Reims in 816. Then, he dismisses this idea
because he does not believe that a Frankish imperial
ordo existed.

His reasoning is that the ordo says "ill. imper-
ium." In his view, this means that the question of what
empire was left open. In the end, however, he decided
that it must have been Spain or England. This appears
to be a legitimate point but it gives rise to some very
serious questions. Why would an English or Spanish ordo
be made up of Frankish prayers? How would an English or
Spanish ordo have passed into a German liturgical book?
This is not impossible, but it would have to be explained.
Finally it is known that there was a certain amount of
imperial theorizing in eighth and ninth century England,

and in Spain under Alphonso the Wise, but we also know

 

137
examples.

Forschungen, pp. 72-74. He provides more

 

96

that this thought had practically no impact on the

Franks or Germans. In fact it may have arisen in
response to them.138 This is a powerful argument against
the reception of so foreign a liturgy in a German book.

It seems that Erdmann has made the case against
himself. He argues that Q£d2_A must have been used some-
time, or else the Mainz redactor would not have included
it, and that if it were used, only Reims fits. His only
means of countering this is inefficaciously to conjure up
England and Spain.

Schramm saw "ill." as an attempt to avoid Rome.139
This is part and parcel of his attempt to show that the
whole ordo was an attempt to soothe the Byzantines. Per-
haps Schramm is right, though one may doubt it. In any
case, other hypotheses can be advanced. Let us remember
that we are dealing with prayers from Frankish liturgies
which are so designated because, after originating in
Rome or the East, they became indelibly changed, "Gal-
licanized," or "Frankized," during centuries of use in
Gaul. Gerd Tellenbach has observed that in many of these
Frankish liturgies most references to Rome, the Romans,

the Roman Empire and Roman emperors have been effaced

and, sometimes, replaced with populus Christianus,

 

 

138Lowe, "Von den Grenzen des Kaisergedankens in
der Karolingerzeit," EA, XIV, (1958), pp. 345-74.

139"Ordines," p. 360.

97

Imperium Christianum, Imperium Francorum, and the like.140

 

Possibly our text had one of these replacements. Who
replaced it with "ill.?" Why? The answer can only be
the redactor of the Ottonian. Now, there is no guarantee
that the text is handed down in exactly its original
form. Above were noted the views of critics who say

it is impossible to state what the original form was.

Some manuscripts, however, have not ill., but Francorum.141

 

Possibly our text had Francorum or, possibly, as Tellen-

 

bach found in many manuscripts, it had Christianum. In

 

either case, this would have made no sense to a mid-tenth
century, post-Carolingian or Frankish, German. Why might
the redactor not have effaced an anachronism without
himself inventing a new name for the empire?

Erdmann also felt that it is damaging evidence
that the ordo is imprecise, referring now to empire,
now to kingdom. We have already seen that the prayers
used derive from Frankish liturgies written before 800.
It is perhaps surprising that they contain any references
to empire since they are blessing texts for Frankish

kings and bishops. In all probability the imperial

 

140Liturgie, pp. 19-25.

 

141Erdmann, Forschungen, pp. 70ff; Schramm,

Kaiser, Koni e und P3 ste, 4 vols. in 5, (Stuttgart,
1938-71), II, p. 330, figure a, shows Louis' imperial

seal bearing the inscription "Renovatio Regni Francorum."

98

references are insertions, or vestiges that were not at

142 Consequently, the textual incon-

some time removed.
sistencies prove nothing.

Then Erdmann argues that the literary evidence
puts emphasis on the Roman and Petrine origin of the

143 As already noted,

crown while the ordo does not.
I plan to return to this dilemma. For now let it be
said only that the pope had nothing whatsoever to do
with the coronation liturgy and that there is no reason
why we should see in it a reflection of papal strivings.
In later centuries these liturgies would be received in
Rome and modified there to suit the papal ideology.144
This had not yet happened.

Finally, Erdmann holds that the rubrics in the

ordo do not correspond to those suggested by the literary

 

evidence. He fixes on two lacunae: first, there is no
mention in the ordo of blessing of the crown and, second,

there is no mention in the ordo of anointing.

 

142Eichmann, "Konigs- und Bischofsweihe," pp. 34-
35 and Gerald Ellard, Ordination Anointings in the Western
Church, (Mediaeval AcademyiofiAmerica Publications, XVI,
1933), p. 30.

143Forschungen, pp. 76ff.

144Ellard, Anointings, pp. 17, 48ff; M. Andrieu,
"L'onction des mains dans le sacre episcopal," RHE, XXVI,
(1030), pp. 343-47.

 

99

Again, these objections can be countered. First,
the text is virtually impoverished of rubrics, so it is
not possible to assert much about them. Second, I have
already noted that the crown blessing was probably a
papal insertion. Stephen could not control the liturgy,
as we have seen, but this did not prevent him from
improvising at some point. In other words, even if we
had the full rubrics, there is no reason why this ought
to have been mentioned in them.

The lack of reference to anointing is potentially
more serious. The prayer "Prospice" is related to
anointing prayers in the Benedictional of Freising and

145 We have already

in the Sacramentary of Angeuléme.
seen that the Benedictional of Freising contains five
anointing prayers and that two of these appear in the
Sacramentary of Angeuléme, which, along with the text
upon which it is based, the Sacramentary of Gellone,
served as the model for the prayers in the ggdg. Ellard
has shown that some of the prayers in the Sacramentary
of Angouléme have a break and then a rubric "hic accipis
crisma" or "hic fundis super caput eius" while other

146

anointing prayers have no such break. There is,

 

thus, no reason to assume that the ordo is wrong on

 

145Boumann, Sacring and Crowning, p. 75.

 

146Anointings, pp. 31-32.

 

100

anointing, only that the rubric has disappeared, if it
ever existed. If the place in the ordo of the prayer
”Prospice" is noted, then it will be seen that the ordo
agrees with the order of events in the literary evidence--
consecration, anointing, coronation--perfectly.

On the positive side of the ledger, a few remarks
by Boumann may be noted. He believes that the references
to emperor and empire make it unlikely that this is a
royal ordo, even if it has royal ordines at its base.

Pontifex therefore must mean pOpe since it was not until

 

somewhat later that bishOps crowned kings and they never
authoritatively crowned emperors. Since the 9£§2_was
certainly never used in Rome only Reims in 816 fits.147
What can be said in conclusion? If we dismiss
the possibility that it is either a private or a royal
ggdg due to its prominence in the Mainz Pontifical, then
we may conclude that it is imperial and that it was used.
We may further conclude that it was never used in Rome.
This points solely and directly to Reims. The prayers all
fit 816 chronologically and geographically. An indepen-
dent source comes close to proving that exactly these

prayers were used. The ordo agrees almost perfectly

with the order of events in the other sources. Unless

 

147Sacring and Crowning, p. 80.

101

we dismiss the ordo as an invention of the redactor of
the Ottonian, it had to have been used on Sunday October 5,
816.

In proving that 9£d2_A was used, and in the
course of proving it, the dilemma posed earlier has
been, at least in part, resolved. The background to the
coronation as described in the sources does not contradict
the events of the coronation itself. The evidence for
the coronation emphasizes the role of the pope quite
naturally and understandably: he was the celebrant.

When the evidence from the ordo is taken into consid-
eration, however, the whole affair falls into place.

At Stephen's hands, Louis was elevated to a higher, to

a more sublime, dignity. This breathes from almost

every line of the ordo and it certainly fits with the
confident and calculating Louis who artfully orchestrated
Stephen's visit.

Stephen did bring a crown from Rome and perhaps
he intended from the first to crown Louis. If so, Louis
must have met the news with sheer joy. It is easy to
imagine a scenario in which Stephen appeared and told
Louis that he wanted to crown him, to which Louis
responded that that was fine, and that he had one or two
ideas on how it ought to be done. It cannot be denied
that Stephen sought to give a papal stamp to Louis'

imperial dignity. The facts that he brought a crown

102

from Rome and that he adjusted the ceremony at one point
are proof enough of this. Neither can it be denied that
in associating the papacy with the conferral of the
imperial dignity Louis set a dangerous precedent for

the future. A day would come, and come quickly, when
the papacy would freely dispose of the imperial office.
Still, at Reims, Louis had things his own way. The
sources prove that Louis was exalted and that the pOpe
was too, at least to some extent. The primary focus,
however, is on Louis, not Stephen. Those scholars who
see 816 as a papal victory are guilty of historical
"tunnel vision." The events of 816 cannot be viewed

as one equal link in the chain extending from Leo I
through Gelasius, Gregory I, Nicholas I, Gregory VII

and on to Innocent III. Perhaps, they are also guilty
of believing that history can, or should, be seen from
only one perspective. To say that the papacy "wins" or
the empire "wins" is too simple. Even if, as the sources
clearly show, the empire "won" in 816, its Opponent was
far from vanquished.

Happily, there are two almost identical texts,
heretofore unexploited so far as I know, in which Louis
himself tells us what happened in 816, and what role
the pope played. I will cite, and then analyze, the
more revealing of the two. It is a diploma for Reims,

issued between 816 and 825:

103

In qua (scil. sede Remensis), auctore Deo et
cooperatore S. Remigio, gens nostra Francorum,

cum aequivoco nostro rege ejusdem gentis, sacre
fontis baptismate ablui, as septiformi spiritus
sancti grata illustrari promeutit. Sed et ipse
rex nobilissimus ad regiam potestatem periungi

Dei clementia dignus inventus fuit. Ubi etiam

et nos divina dignatione per manus Stephani Romani
Summi Pontificis ad nomen et potestatem imperialem
coronari meruimus.148

After praising his ancestors, that is, emphasizing their
worthiness, and asserting that all power comes from God,
Louis claims that he received, in the church of Reims,

the nomen imperatoris, which we have already met and a

 

more detailed analysis of which will follow shortly.

Second, this came at the hands of the Summus Pontifex.

 

We have seen before that in 816 Louis undertook to uphold
the rights of the "prius ecclesia" and its bishOp, in
order that it might remain "summum apicem." Louis only
emphasized the elevation which he and his office exper-
ienced in 816. He certainly did not describe his coro-
nation in terms which glorified the papacy at the expense
of the imperial office.

There is other evidence which adds clarity here.

In his Life of Charlemagne, Einhard describes Charlemagne's

 

 

148Bou uet, VI, no. 75, p. 510. The document is
genuine, thougfi ltS arenga was apparently tampered with
by Hincmar. T. Sickel, Acta Karolinorum Digesta et Enna-
rata, 2 vols., (Vienna, 1867), II, no.7222, p. 150 and7
BM, no. 801. The other document, Bou uet, VI, no. 131,
pp. 543-44, which says about the same thing though it
is shorter, is also genuine. Sickel, Acta, II, no. 276,
p. 168 and BM, no. 836. This is of some importance since
the texts ofiTy come down to us via Flodoard, Hist. Rem.

ECC. IIolgp MGH, .S_S-’ XIII, pp. 469-70.

 

 

104

bequests to the twenty-one metropolitan cities of his
empire. Rome is named first, but other than this it is
not set off in any way, and it should be noted that the
cities are listed in geographical groupings beginning

with Italy.149

Louis conceded a certain prestige of
rank to the papacy and he makes it clear that the dig-
nity, the nomen, which he received in 816, could only
come from the greatest churchman of his empire, the

Summus Pontifex.150 It may be ironic, but it is none-

 

theless a fact, that Louis himself exalted the pope.
However, he did so only to exalt what the pope did:
crown him.

Two more important coronations must be studied
before a complete image can be formed of what these
ceremonies meant to Louis. In 817 Louis crowned his

son Lothar emperor, gave him the nomen imperatoris and
151

 

made him sole successor to the imperial dignity.

 

149Vita Karoli, 33, ed. Halphen, p. 96. Caspar,
"Papsttum," pp.7253-54 calls the papacy "the first
metropolitan of the empire."

 

150Paul Hinschius, System des katholischen Kir-
chenrechts, 7 vols., (Berlin,'1869-97), I, p. 207, notes
that this was an honorific title due only to the pope
and designed to set him apart from other bishops. It
is significant that at the other end of the ninth century
Louis II, in his famous letter to Basil, asserted that
the western emperors were superior to the Eastern because
of their coronation by the "Summus Pontifex": MGH, £22.,
VII, p. 387.

 

151Thegan, Vita Hlud., 21, MGH, SS, II, p. 596;
Astron., Eta Hlud., 29, MGH, s_s_, I_I, p.722; Ann. Reg.
Franc., SSrG, s.a. 817, p. 146; Ann. Xant., SSrG, s.a.

 

 

105

Moreover, Louis made certain arrangements concerning the
empire in the event of his death. The empire was to
remain whole, a single unit, and Lothar's brothers

were to remain sub-kings under him.152 There are several
points of enormous significance in all of this.

First, it shows that Louis was not displeased
with his own coronation in 813, for he repeated it.
However, in 817 he first ordered three days of solemn
fasting and then cast the whole affair as a divine
inspiration. So it was not Louis, but God himself, who
decreed that Lothar should be his successor and partici-
pant in his nomen, In addition, Louis set aside a
fundamental principle of Frankish law in denying to all
of his sons an equal share in the kingdom upon his

death.153

As in 813 and, for that matter, 781, the
constitutive will was that of the reigning sovereign.

Neither the magnates nor the Frankish clergy played a

 

817, p. 5; Nithard, 1.2, ed. Rau, p. 388; Pauli Contin-
uatio Romana, MGH, SSrL, p. 203; Trans. S. Calixti
Cisonum, 3, MGH, SS, xv.1, p. 419, where successor is
used, the 1m562£afiae of which can be seen in the fact
that, up until then, haeredes had been customary: cf.
MGH, Cap., I, no. 45, p. 126.

 

 

 

 

 

152MGH, Cap., 1. no. 136, "Ordinatio Imperii'"
pp. 270-73.
153

Cf. Eiten, Unterkonigtum, pp. 65ff; The best

overall study of the ordinatio is Ganshof, "Some Obser-

vations on the Ordinatio Imperii of 817," CaFM, pp. 273-
88.

 

106

part.154 It would be a great mistake, however, to look

at the Ordinatio from the legal point of view. What we

 

really see in 817 is the definitive emergence of the

ecclesiastical reformers of the unitary party.155

According to these men, the Empire was one body, a

corpus, and a reflection of the heavenly kingdom.156

Empire and church were coming to be identified with one

another and so it was held to be equally scandalous and

157

sinful to divide either one. It was imperial dignity

 

154Fustel des Coulanges, Transformations, p. 283;
Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, pp. 38-39; Schlesinger,
"Kanigswahlen," pp. 97-99.

 

 

155Walter Mohr, "Die kirchliche Einheitspartei
und die Durchffihrung der Reichsordnung von 817," ZKG,
LXXII, (1961), pp. 1-45 is very good on the conceptg
involved but too hard and fast on the party lines.

156See the classic study by Arquilliere, L'augus-
tinisme_politique, 2d ed., (Paris, 1955).

 

157"Ordinatio Imperii," MGH, 932,, I, no. 136,
"Proemium," p. 270: "nequaquam fiSEis nec his qui sanum
sapiunt visum fuit, ut amore filiorum aut gratia unitas
imperii a Deo nobis conservati divisione humana scindere-
tur, ne forte hac occasione scandalum in sancta ecclesia
oriretur et offensam illius in cuius patestate omnium
iura regnorum consistunt incurremus." For the opinion
of a member of the unitary group see Agobard, 22, no. 3,
c. 4, MGH, E22,, V, p. 159: "Omnia autem membra corporis,
cum sint multa, unum corpus sint, ita et Christus," and
ep. no. 15, c. 4, pp. 224-25: "dixistis vos velle prop-
ter fragilitatem vitae . . . ut dum valvetis, nomen
imperatoris, uni ex tribus filiis vestris imponeritis,
in quo voluntatem Dei quoquomodo cognoscere potuissetis
. . . Ceteris filiis vestris designastis partes regni
vestri, sed ut unum regnum esset, non tria, pretulistis
eum illis, quem participem nominis vestri fecistis."

 

107

embodied in the nomen imperatoris, which presided over

 

this empire and whose responsibility it was to see to
its well being. That Louis possessed and conferred the

nomen imperatoris upon one alone among his sons, begins
158

 

to appear everywhere in the sources.
Six years later, Louis sent Lothar to Rome for
a second coronation that he must have viewed in exactly
the same way as he viewed his own second coronation.
This interpretation emerges from a source to be quoted
momentarily. First, it must be noted that Lothar, who
had been sent to Italy by his father in 822, was pre-
paring to return over the Alps when Paschal I invited
him to Rome at Easter time in 823.159 So important a
step as the coronation of his son cannot have been
undertaken without Louis' approval, and perhaps not
without his foreknowledge.160 Nevertheless, most
scholars assume that the initiative was papal and that

the ceremony marks an attempt by the papacy to "correct"

what it disliked about the coronations of 816 and

 

1585 Supra, nn. 151 and 156. Also, Einhard, 32,
no. 11, MGH, Epp., V, p. 114.

59Ann. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 161;
Astron., Vita _Hlu Rd., 36, MGH, SS, II, p. 627; MGH, Dip.
Kar., III, no. 51, p. 148—

 

160
a détente.

Duchesne, L'état pontifical, p. 191, assumes

 

108

161

817. There is one source, which might be called

the Roman conception of what took place in 823, that

162

lends some support to this thesis. This source

says that Paschal conceded to Lothar power over the
Roman peOple. On the whole, however, the following
words addressed by Lothar to his father in 833 must
be taken as the definitive Frankish interpretation
of what took place:

May your highness consider and deign to recall
that your preeminent foresight made me equally
take up in Christ the defense of this (i.e. Roman)
church especially, and the defense of other churches,
when Your highness, together with the will of your
people, made me consort of the whole empire in all
power and honor, on every document and coin, in
every diSposition, save your honor and wisdom.
Indeed your imperial highness sent me kindly to
the same see to confirm in me whatever your pious
honor had decided, that I might be consort no

less in holiness than in power and name. So
indeed, before the sacred altar and before the
sacred remains of blessed Peter prince of the
apostles I received from the supreme pontiff,

with your consent and will, the blessing, the
honor and the dignity (nomen) of the imperial
office and also a crown and a sword for the
defense of that church and of your empire.163

 

161Eichmann, Kaiserkronung, I, p. 47; Erdmann,
Forschungen, p. 28; Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmit-
telalter, p. 398; Hauck, Kirchengeschidhte, II, p. 494;
Ullmann, Papal Government, p. 157.

 

 

 

 

 

162Pauli Continuatio Romana, MGH, SSrL, p. 203;
"Lotharius imperator primo ad Italiam venit et diem sanc-
tum pascae Romae fecit. Paschalis quoque apostolicus
potestatem, quam priscis imperatores habuerunt, ei
super populum Romanun concessit."

 

 

163Paschasius Radbertus, Vita Walae, II.l7; EL,
CXX, 1637B. This is corroborated by Agobard, ep. no.
15, MGH, Epp.,'V, p. 225.

 

109

So, Lothar believed that he went to Rome with his

father's consent to receive the nomen imperialis of-

 

fiigii. In inviting Lothar to Rome, Paschal was probably
trying to take some step which made him look less like

a tool in the coronation process. Furthermore, it is
possible that Paschal, who was a headstrong man, as we
shall see later, viewed the coronation rather differently
than the Franks. But it is the Frankish view which is
of greater practical significance at this time. In the
years after the Treaty of Verdun, the papacy would be
able to use the imperial office as an enticement to get
someone to do its bidding. After 843, or perhaps after
Lothar's death in 855, only the possession of the title
set one king above another in any way. The papacy could
bargain from no such strong position in 816 and 823.

The case could be closed right here were it not
for the fact that Lothar received a sword. This later
became a regular part of the coronation ceremony but
the ceremony of 823 marks its first occurrence. The
problem posed by the sword given to Lothar can be dis-
pensed with by two remarks. First, there can be no
thought of investiture in 823 since defense--"gladium
ad defensionem"-—was an obligation freely undertaken

164

by the Carolingian family. Second, Louis, when he

 

164Lowe, Karolingische Reichsgrundung, p. 137.
See further the lines from Ermoldus cited supra p. 79.
On sword symbolism see Eichmann, Kaiserkrénung, II,

110

crowned his son, Charles the Bald, in 838 girded him

165 I think it not unlikely that this

with a sword.
was a response to Paschal's action in 823. If so, it
indicates unmistakably what Louis thought about it.
Quite simply, he wished for all to know that it was
he, the emperor, who made and invested kings.

Lothar's coronation in 823 no more made him
emperor than his father's coronation in 816 had made him
emperor.166 It marked a sanctification of his dignity,

his nomen, by the world's highest ecclesiastical authority:

the Summus Portifex.

 

We are now in a position to describe Louis' idea
of empire, at least in so far as it emerges from his
coronations and from certain related documents from the
early years of his reign. First, the deeply religious
tendencies of the period, and of Louis himself, are

167

everywhere evident. Louis felt that he held his

 

p. 103 and C. von Schwerin, "Zur Herkunft des Schwert-
symbols," Festschrift Paul Koschaker, (Weimar, 1939),
III and Morrison, Two Kingdoms,7"Appendix B."

 

 

165Nithard, I.6, ed. Rau, p. 398; Astron., Vita
Hlud., 59, MGH, SS, II, p. 643; Ann. Bert., SSrG, s.a.
838, p. 15.

 

1661n several hundred pages of diplomas, I can
find only one in which Lothar dated from 823, MGH, Dip.
Kar., III, no. 23, p. 95.

167One of Louis' coins bears the inscription
"Christiana Religio," Fichtenau, Karol. Imperium, p. 217;
Some gold solidi bear the inscription "munus divinum,"
Ewig, Handbuch, p. 124; in the arenga of some documents

111

office from God alone and none of the thinkers of his

168

age disputed this. This, of course, is the familiar

Pauline thesis that there is no power unless it comes

169

from God. The power which Louis held was now thought

170

to be held over the church which was, as we have seen,

increasingly identified with the empire itself.171

 

Louis described his office as a "munus divinum,” Anton,
Ffirstenspiegel, p. 413; Louis' imperial title also bore
deep religious significance, Sigurd Graf von Pfeil, "Die
Augustus-Titel der Karolinger," WaG, XX, (1960), pp. 194-
210. The religiosity of the perigd is well characterized
by Ganshof, "Over het idee van het keizerschap," p. 16.

 

168Jonas of Orléans, Trans. S. Hucbert, 1, MGH,
SS, XV.l, p. 235; Ardo, Vita Ben., 29, MGH, SS, XV.IT—
p. 211; Smaragdus, Via Regia, ES, CII, 933B;-3onas of
Orléans, De Inst. Regia, 7, ed. Reviron, p. 155; Hrabanus
Maurus, Si: no. 15, MES, Spp,, V, p. 414.

 

 

169This actually appears many times. E.g.
Thegan, Vita Hlud., 44, MGH, SS, II, p. 599: "Non est
enim potestas nisi a Deo.

 

170Jonas of Orléans, De Inst. Regia, 4, ed.
Reviron, p. 145: "Regale minigterium spedialiter est
populum Dei gubernare et regere cum equitate et iustitia
. . . Ipse enim debet primo defensor esse ecclesiarum et
servorum Dei."

 

171MSS, gpp., II, "Episcoporum Relatio," c. 3,
p. 29 and Jonas 0 Orléans, De Inst. Regia, 1, ed.
Reviron, p. 134: “ecclesiam-dispositam esse, ut pontif-
icale auctoritate et regali potestate gubernetur." Here
the old Gelasian thesis is being twisted and both powers
are placed inside the Church. See Lotte Knabe, Die
gelasianische Zweigewaltenlehre bis zum Ende des-Tfivesti-
turstreits, (HSt, CCXCII, 1936), p. 47; Faulhaber,
Reichseinheit§§5danke, pp. 20ff; Congar, Ecclésiologie,
p. 257.

 

 

 

 

112

We must now ask what the nature of that power was.
The first thing we note is that just as the nomen
imperatoris was beginning to take on a clear definition

a new term, ministerium, begins to replace it.172 Jonas

 

 

of Orléans provides, in one place, a splendid definition
of the essence of the nomen:

The king must zealously fulfill and live up to the
royal dignity (nomen regis) not only in himself

but also in those subject to him in order that the
peOple subject to him might abound in piety, peace,
love, justice, mercy, concord, unanimity and in
other good works in order that, having these things,
they might merit having God with them.173

 

So, it is a massive moral responsibility which falls upon
the ruler to provide an ambiance in which his people can
find salvation. Nonetheless, in another passage of the
same work, Jonas can be seen shifting to a ministerial
concept:
It belongs to the sin of a king when he commits his
ministry (ministerium) to wicked judges and min-
isters. 74

This agrees closely with what Smaragdus has to say on

the subject:

 

172Arno Borst, "Kaisertum und Namentheorie im
Jahre 800," Festschrift P. E. Schramm, 2 vols., (Weis-
baden, 1964), I, pp. 50-51,_takes this as an indication
that Louis' deeper understanding of the imperial dignity
caused him to shift it to a more essentially religious
plane.

 

17322 Inst. Regia, 3, ed. Reviron, p. 138.

174Ibid., 5, p. 148.

113

Do whatsoever you are able for the role which you
are playing, for the royal ministry which you bear,
for the Christian name which you possess, for the
place of Christ which you fill . 175

Taken by themselves, these texts can only be seen
as showing a way for Louis. The following text shows
clearly that he took up the path that had been pointed
out to him:

Since each person will render account for his deeds
and we especially, who stand equal to others in our
mortal condition but who surpass them greatly in
the dignity of rule, are going to render account
not only for our graver commission but also for our
offensive deeds and words and even for our thoughts,
since sacred scripture says our works will be
examined and our thoughts scrutinized on the last

A few years later, Louis extended his ministerium to

 

everyone in the empire, cleric and laymen alike. They
were exhorted to share in his profound moral reSponsi-
bilities and to take upon themselves some of the burden
of providing peace, justice and so forth. He asked them

to be his "adiutores."177

 

175Via Regia, 18, pp, CII, 958B.

176MGH, Ca ., I, "Prooemium Generale," p. 274.
On this text see aEso Semmler, "Gesetzgebung und Reichs-
idee," p. 57.

177MGH, Ca ., I, no. 150, "Admonitio," pp. 303ff;
no. 151, ppT—310 . Cf. R. Bonnaud-Delamare, L'idée de
paix a l'epoque carolingienne, (Paris, 1934); Anton,
Ffirstenspiegel, pp. 198-202; Theodor Mayer, "Staats-
aufassung in der Karolingerzeit," Das Konigtum, p. 174.

 

 

 

114

This provides a fairly clear description of
Louis' idea of the imperial office. We have already
seen that he regarded his, and his sons', papal coro-
nations as an ecclesiastical consecration and sanctifi-
cation of the imperial office. Before his papal coro-
nation, Louis was emperor in the secular sense of the
word: ruler. After it, he became the principal guardian
of the souls of all his subjects. He even went so far as
to say that he would have to render account for them.
This weighty responsibility, the heaviest of all respon-
sibilities, could only be conferred by the highest direct
representative of the spiritual authority. To be sure,

Louis' nomen, or his ministerium, came, in his view, from

 

God. But only a coronation ceremony could provide a
clear public demonstration of this. After all, a bishop,
for example, was raised to the episc0pal office by God
through a solemn ceremony.

Finally, Louis' imperial ideology can be tied
even closer to the ceremony of 816. The capitulary text
cited just above stems from 818-19 and the documents

in which Louis extended his ministerium "ad omnes regni

 

ordines” from 822/23. Before this, there is only one
such programmatic statement from Louis himself. On
Friday, October 3, 816 Louis said to Stephen:

Therefore, holy one, it is for us to care for the
people which the Lord has given us to provide for;
you are the holy priest, I am the king of Christians,
let us serve the people in doctrine, in law and

in faith.

115

Then, a little later, he said:

Be a powerful assistant to me, blessed one.178

Two days later, Louis' adiutor crowned and anointed him
and Louis began to act upon the mandate mysteriously

and symbolically concealed in the ceremony.

 

178Ermoldus, vs. 1028-31, 1055. Cf. Appendix A.

CHAPTER III

THE PACTUM LUDOVICIANUM

 

The next major step in the evolution of papal-

Frankish relations is the Ludovicianum, which takes us

 

from the realm of symbols and theories to the cold, hard

world of legal and political realities. Ludovicianuml

 

is the name applied by modern scholarship to the document
granted to Paschal I by Louis in the early weeks of 817
and, ordinarily, Louis' privilege is regarded as the
first in the long series of imperial privileges for the
Roman Church. It has already been noted, however, that
on Friday October 3, 816 Louis directed Helisichar to
prepare a document for presentation to Stephen IV.2 This
document no longer survives, though it was still in

3

existence as late as 1105. For at least two reasons,

 

1Throughout this chapter I refer to Appendix C,
which is my reproduction of the Ludovicianum from MGH,
Cap., I, no. 172, pp. 353-55.

 

2Supra, p. 62.

3Chron. Farf., ed. Balzini, FSI, II, p. 255:
"Interea pars Oddonis legit quoddam preceptum domni
Hludovici imperatoris Stephano papae quarto concessum

ll

 

116

117

therefore, it is useful to determine whether the two
documents bear any relationship to one another. More
specifically, it is necessary to determine whether the
two documents are identical, or virtually identical.

If this can be established, then the events responsible

for the issuance of the Ludovicianum can be placed in a

 

clearer context, and the date of the Ludovicianum can

 

be pushed back from 817 to 816.

There is strong presumptive evidence that the
two documents are similar, if not identical. Modern
scholars have not failed to note this,4 and one historian
observes that it would be most surprising if there had
been any considerable changes.5 Indeed, one has only

to read the Ludovicianum, the document of 817, to see

 

that its provisions accord closely with the kinds of
subjects discussed by Louis and Stephen in October of
816.

As stated in the preceding chapter, the document
prepared by Helisichar concerned, according to the
sources, the 523! the prOperty, of the Roman Church.

It is also reasonable to assume that it concerned the

 

4Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 397;
Ullmann, "The Origins of the Ottonianum,‘ Camb. Hist.
Jour., XI, (1953), p. 117.

 

 

SHildegard Thomas, "Die rechtliche Festsetzungen
des Pactum Ludovicianum von 817: Ein Beitrag zur Echt—
heitsfrage," ZRG, XLII, k3, XXI, (1921), p. 131.

118

"utilitates sanctae Dei ecclesiae" which were the subject
of negotiations at that time. The major portion of the
surviving document of 817 forms an inventory of the
prOperty of the Roman Church and its remaining chapters
pertain to matters of great utility and concern to the
Church.

In addition, it has been observed that the lan-

guage of the section of the Ludovicianum dealing with

 

fugitives reflects negotiation.6 Hostages and fugitives
were, as we have seen, one of the reasons for Stephen's
journey to Reims and, on the day when Helisichar drew
up his document, negotiations on juSt such matters took
place.

This evidence is presumptive. There is another
piece of evidence, however, which is a good deal more
conclusive. Stephen died shortly after returning to
Rome and Paschal I was elected to succeed him. Paschal
immediately sent a letter to Louis to inform him of his
election, and he sent another legation to confirm the

pact concluded with his predecessors.7 The manner in

 

6Ibid., p. 145.

7Astron., Vita Hlud., 27, MGH, SS, II, p. 621;
Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 817, pp? 145-46: "Stephanus
T_T . postquam Romam venerat . . . circiter VIII Kal.
Febr. obiit. Cui Paschalis successor electus post com-
pletam sollemniter ordinationem suam et munera et
excusatoriam imperatori epistolam, in qua sibi non solum
nolenti, sed etiam plurimum renitenti pontificatus
honorem velut inpactum adseverat. Missa tamen alia

 

 

119

which Paschal informed Louis of his election conforms

precisely to the provisions of the Ludovicianum8 which

 

he only received some weeks after his own election. This
suggests strongly that Paschal was following the pre-

scriptions of the Ludovicianum as it had been put in

 

writing during the preceding October. There is no evi-
dence that Pepin or Charles ever formally required the
papacy to notify the reigning Frank of a change in the
See of Peter, nor was there ever a specific requirement
to renew the papal-Frankish bond. True, Paschal claimed
he was confirming the pact concluded with his predeces-
sorSJ but he may have been referring broadly to the long-
standing association of the papacy and the Carolingians
on the one hand, and, narrowly, to the pact of 816 on

the other. After all, the Ludovicianum had the result

 

of putting into writing and institutionalizing, albeit
with crucial changes, an old, but amorphous, relationship.

In summation, then, the Ludovicianum, the pact

 

of 817, is the oldest, surviving written statement
defining papal-imperial relations, but it was first set
down in 816 and its provisions grew out of the meeting

of Stephen and Louis at Reims. This is precisely the

 

legatione pactum, quod cum praecessoribus suis factum
erat, etiam secum fieri et firmari rogavit. Hanc
legationem Theodorus nomenclator et detulit et ea quae
petierat impetravit."

8Appendix C, c. 10.

120

conclusion of the most recent scholar to look at the
problem and, although his arguments do not take quite
the same form as my own, I agree fully with his con-
clusions.9

Two further problems must be addressed before a

detailed analysis of the Ludovicianum can be provided.

 

The authenticity of the document must be established,
as well as its provenance. In respect to the first
problem, it need only be said that, for the most part,
I agree with the results of modern scholarship. In what
concerns the second, I am, again, in general agreement
with recent work though in a few cases I am dubious about
arguments with whose conclusions I agree.

Although modern scholars still, occasionally,
call into question the authenticity of individual lines

10

or passages of the Ludovicianum, there is today broad

 

agreement that the document is genuine. The best means

of demonstrating the authenticity of the Ludovicianum is

 

to describe the arguments of a series of industrious

 

9Wolfgang Fritze, Papst und Frankenkonig: Studien
zu den papstlich-frankischen Rechtsbeziehungen von7754
bis 824, (Vortrage und Forschungen, Sonderband X, 1973),

P. Igo

 

 

 

10Some examples are Simson, SS_Ludwi , I, p. 80
n. 7; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, p. 493; Von Schubert,
Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, pp. 396-97; Brunner, Deutsche
Réchtsgeschichte, II, pp. 118, 127 n. 57; Gregorovius,
Geschichte der Stadt Rom, III, pp. 36-38; Heldmann,
Kaisertum Karls, pp. 399ff. It is not necessary to
detail their objections here, as they will be discussed
later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

historians who labored in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century and the early decades of the twentieth.
Until well into the nineteenth century, authori-

tative Opinion regarded the Ludovicianum as a forgery.ll

 

This opinion was canonized, so to speak, by Sickel, who
presented strong arguments on diplomatic grounds for

12 A few years later, one of

suspecting the document.
the giants of nineteenth century scholarship, Julius
Picker, raised serious doubts about the prevailing
opinions.l3 So far as I know, he was the first to

assert the authenticity of the document. His arguments

are today of less significance than the fact that they
caused Sickel to re-examine the problem. The result of

his re-examination was the book which must remain the
starting point for any serious study of the Ludovicianum.l4

Sickel's first service was to demonstrate that

our text of the Ludovicianum is handed down only via

 

manuscripts of the eleventh century canonists Anselm of

Lucca and Desiderius of Milan. The problem is further

 

11For a good summary of the old literature see
Thomas, "Pactum Ludov.," pp. 125-26.

lecta Karolinorum, II, pp. 381ff.

 

13Forschungen zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte
Italiens, 2 vols., (Innsbruck, 1869), II, pp. 299ff, 332ff,

14Das Privilegium Otto I ffir die romische Kirche,
(Innsbruck, 1883).

122

compounded because the works of these authors are not
handed down in a coherent manuscript tradition and
because the oldest surviving manuscripts of their works

15 Sickel

date from the middle of the twelfth century.
noted that although this manuscript tradition does little
to inspire confidence in a single document that forms
a part of it, it does tend to vitiate his own earlier

arguments which were based on a diplomatic investigation.

Sickel studied the Ludovicianum in close juxta-

 

position with the Ottonianum, the document issued to the

 

Roman Church by Otto I in 962. The importance of this
will become apparent momentarily. For the present, it
should be noted that the latter document is much better
preserved than the former. Thus, Sickel's re-examination
of the documents led him to the conclusion that the

faulty protocol and eschatochol of the Ludovicianum

 

are not sufficient grounds on which to suspect its

authenticity. The Ottonianum possesses prOper diplomatic

 

devices, but it is handed down independently of the
canonical collections and its authenticity can be ver-
ified differently from that of the Ludovicianum. The

latter has some diplomatically suspect portions but this

 

15Ibid., pp. 55-69. The principal MSS of Deusdedit
are Cod. Vat. 1984 and 3833 and Ottobonianus 3057. The
principal MSS of Anselm are Cod. Vat. 1363 and 1364.
Boretius' text in MGH is essentially a reproduction of
Sickel's edition whiEh is printed at the back of his book.

123

is due, in Sickel's view, to its having been taken up
in a cartulary. The editor of a cartulary was usually
far more interested in the contents of a document than
in its diplomatic appurtenances. So, for example, the
fact that the document gives Louis' title as simply

Imperator Aggustus instead of the correct divina ordi-

 

 

nante providentia Imperator Augustus is no cause for

16
concern.

 

Having established this point, Sickel went
further. In his earlier work he had been suspicious of
the fact that the document was, in its language, very
dissimilar from Louis' other diplomas. In his new study
he confronted this suspicion in two ways. First, he

observed that the Ludovicianum is quite close to the

 

customary language of the capitularies. This, obviously,
inspires some confidence in its genuineness. Second,
he noted that there can have been very few, if any,

models for the Ludovicianum. At most there would have

 

been the documents from Quierzy, the one taken to Rome
in 756 by Fulrad, the ones drawn up in 774 and, possibly,
documents from 781 and/or 787. Now, the Ludovicianum
goes further in its provisions than any of these docu-
ments are presumed to have gone and, in any case, none

of them survive for study by scholars. Ordinarily, a

 

16Ibid., pp. 70ff. Thomas, "Pactum Ludov.,"
pp. 126ff, I31ff agrees completely with all of this.

124

diplomatist must work from one or more good models, so

the Ludovicianum presents real difficulties since no

 

models survive and since the form in which it is cast
may not have reached any definitive point. That is,

it is easy to say what an immunity diploma, for example,
ought to look like but there is no way of knowing if a
formula existed for a papal privilege. Perhaps, Sickel

reasoned, the Ludovicianum stands at the beginning of a

 

line of development. Its closeness to the Ottonianum in

 

respect to the lands of the Roman Church points to the
possibility of its having been a genuine beginning of

17 All of these

the series of imperial privileges.
points, plus the document's evident relation to the
historical situation of the years 816 and 817 led

Sickel to conclude, or reconclude as it were, that the

Ludovicianum is genuine for the most part.

 

Sickel stopped with this rather hesitant assertion
of authenticity. He did not fail to note, however, that

the Ludovicianum differed from the Ottonianum, and that

 

 

the differences could be due to interpolations. He
realized that the only way to resolve the problem of
interpolations, which is of great importance in deter-

mining whether individual passages of the Ludovicianum

 

are genuine, would be to submit the whole series of

 

17Sickel, Das Privilegium, pp. 84ff, 120.

 

125

imperial privileges to a diplomatic study. But he left
the whole matter up in the air by holding such a study
to be impossible.

A few years later Kehr added some precision to
the series of imperial privileges. According to him,
the chronological order of the series is 817-824-850-
875-898-915-962-1020. Of course, for the years between
824 and 962 no privileges are preserved in a complete
state, but Kehr made it imperative to look at more than
the privileges of 817 and 962. He held a diplomatic
study to be possible, though he did not undertake to
achieve it. He did offer the tentative, but very impor-
tant, observation that it is wrong to impute massive

interpolations to the Ludovicianum simply because it

 

differs from the more evidently genuine Ottonianum. In

 

the first place, differences between the two may be due
to perfectly genuine changes introduced over the years
in any of the later issuances of imperial privileges.
In the second, interpolations, if there were any, may
be connected with one of the later pacts and not at all

with the Ludovicianum.18

 

The hoped for diplomatic study was finally pro-
vided by Stengel in 1926. He established beyond all

doubt that the first portion of the Ludovicianum, the

 

 

18GESttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, CLVIII, (1896),
pp. 128-39.

 

126

inventory of papal lands, served as the direct model for

the corresponding section of the Ottonianum. He proved,

 

further, that the second part of the Ottonianum, dealing

 

with papal and imperial rights, had as its model the Con-

19

stitutio Romana of 824. It may be added, parentheti-

 

cally, that the next chapter of this study will seek to
show the connection between Louis' pacts of 817 and 824.

So, it may be concluded that the Ludovicianum is

 

genuine. A brief description of the work that yielded
the verdict of genuine has been provided only because,
as already noted, there are still those who express

doubts about individual parts of the Ludovicianum. Their

 

specific doubts will be confronted below in the context
of a detailed analysis of each section of the Ludovici-
gppg. For now, it need only be emphasized that the
greater part of the document is definitely authentic

and that the means employed to establish its authenticity
militate against arguments that specific parts of the
document are forged or interpolated. In other words,
modern diplomatics has established the authenticity of

the Ludovicianum while showing that, in a comparison

 

of the Ottonianum and the Ludovicianum, the apparently

 

 

suspect portions of the latter may be due to genuine or

 

19"Die Entwicklung des Kaiserprivilegs ffir die
r6mische Kirche, 817-962," in his Abhandlungen und
Untersuchun en zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte, (Cologne,
1960), pp. 18-48.

 

127

spurious changes introduced after 817 but before 962.
When historical proofs focusing solely on the Ludovici-
Sppp_and its age are presented below it will be seen that
the Sickel-Kehr-Thomas-Stengel position is unquestionably
the correct one.

Having established the authenticity of the

Ludovicianum, it is now crucial to determine its pro-

 

venance. It is obviously of great importance in inter-

preting the Ludovicianum to know whether it was Frankish

 

or papal in origin. Three basic arguments in favor of a
papal-Roman origin have been advanced. A considerable

number of scholars regard the Ludovicianum as marking

 

a decided change in Carolingian policy in favor of the
papacy.20 These scholars reason that the change was
great enough, and favorable enough to Rome, to justify

an assertion that the Ludovicianum must be, in essence,

 

a papal document. The very nature of this argument is
such that it demonstrates the importance of establishing
the provenance of Louis' privilege. The other two argu-
ments for a papal origin come from Sickel. He says that
the language of the document is very much like that of

papal and Italian documents and that this points to its

 

0Representative views are those of Hauck, Kirchen-
geschichte, II, pp. 493ff; von Schubert, Kirche im FruH-
mittelalter, pp. 396-97; Halphen, L'empire carolingienne,
p. 205; Ullmann, "Origins of the Ottonianum,FAp. ll7.

 

 

128

having been composed in Rome. Then, he continues, the
remarkably precise and orderly inventory of papal proper-
ties in chapters 2 to 8 of the document suggests a Roman
model.21
The first of these arguments for a papal pro-

venance comes in the form of an assumption. This assumption
will be tested, confronted with the sources and found want-
ing throughout the balance of this chapter. Sickel's two

arguments, however, appear to be rooted in the sources.

To establish a Frankish provenance for the Ludovicianum,

 

even tentatively, Sickel's ideas must be refuted. This
can be done.
Sickel's statement that the language of the Ludo-

vicianum is not too unlike that of papal and Italian

 

documents is curiously inconsistent with his remark,

noted above,22 that the Ludovicianum is very similar

 

in its language to the capitularies. In any case, as
Sickel himself would have to agree, any precise inter-
pretations based on the exact language of a document
which is so badly transmitted are, at best, hazardous.
More to the point, objections can be raised to
Sickel's idea about the Roman origin of the inventory

of papal properties. It is known that in 774, not to

 

21Das Privilegium, pp. 86-87, 120.

 

22Supra, n. 17.

129

mention any other cases, several, probably three, copies
of Charles' agreement to honor the promises of Quierzy

were produced.23

One of those copies was kept by Charles
himself, so there is no reason to assume that the Franks
did not possess accurate records of other donations made

by Charles and Pepin. In fact, there is evidence in the

Ludovicianum that Louis did have knowledge of these

 

donations. He said that he was confirming the donations
of his father and grandfather.24 Perhaps, therefore,
Stephen brought a detailed accounting of his properties
to Reims in 816 and Louis, using his own counter docu-
ments, verified it. Or, perhaps Louis caused to be

produced the inventory we read in the Ludovicianum.25

 

Ultimately, however, the issue is an empty one because

Louis directed Helisichar to draw up the document which

26

was handed to Stephen. Whatever the source of its

 

23Vita Hadriani, Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, I,
p. 498: The wordsiwaliam donaEiOnis promissionem ad
instar anterioris ipse . . . Carulus Francorum rex
adscribi iussit" suggest a copy of the promises of Quierzy
according to the c0py of them taken to Rome by Fulrad in
756. On this see ibid., p. 453. On the identification
of the document to which the quote refers see Levillain,
”L'avenement de la dynastie carolingienne," p. 289.

 

 

24Appendix C, c. 8 29 init.

25Mention may again be made that on Friday
October 3, 816, Louis and Stephen discussed the res, the
property, of the Roman Church.

26Ermoldus, vs. 1040-47.

130

information--and the possibility that the Franks were
the source must not be discounted--the document which
Stephen took back to Rome was Frankish. Now, whether in
the following year Paschal sent this very document to
Louis for confirmation, or whether he asked Louis to
issue a new document is purely academic. The issue
concerns one and the same Frankish document describing
papal properties.

The results thus far obtained may be summarized

briefly. The Ludovicianum, as we have it, is the docu-

 

ment granted by Louis to Paschal in 817 but it is, in
all probability, identical in all significant respects
to the document granted to Stephen in 816. The whole

of the Ludovicianum may be genuine--this remains to be

 

proved in the balance of this chapter, but chapters 2
through 8, which contain an inventory of papal lands

and revenues are certainly genuine. These same chapters,
2 through 8, are of Frankish origin. This suggests at
least the possibility that the whole document is Frankish.
This possibility, however, still leaves open the question

of whether or not the Ludovicianum marks a change in

 

Carolingian policy in favor of the papacy. For it must
be admitted that the document could have been Frankish
and still pro-papal.
The following pages consist of a detailed analysis

of the Ludovicianum. In part, an attempt is made to

131

understand the document $2.§En In almost equal measure,
however, attention is directed to the authenticity of

the latter portions of the Ludovicianum and to the

 

question of whose interests the document principally
served.

As a final preliminary to an analysis in detail
it may be useful to have a general description of the

Ludovicianum. The document occupies slightly less than

 

three quarto pages and was divided by its editor,
apparently following the manuscripts, into paragraphs.

To facilitate reference, I have numbered these paragraphs
1 through 13. Paragraph 1 is merely an invocation of

the Trinity and paragraphs 2 through 7 form the inventory
of papal lands which has attracted our attention already.
At the beginning of paragraph 2 are found the words "Ego
Hludowico concedo . . . Paschali" etc., which supply the
names of the grantor and recipient. Paragraph 8 lists

a number of rents and revenues due to the papacy. Para-
graphs 9 and 10, which are in some respects the most
important in the document, enumerate a number of spe-
cific papal and imperial rights. Paragraph 11 indicates
that Louis had a number of individuals swear by oath to
uphold the document. Paragraph 12 is Louis' sub-
scription and paragraph 13 contains the subscriptions

of Louis' three sons, ten bishops, eight abbots, fifteen

counts and three papal officials. Lamentably, only the

132

names of Louis' three sons can be filled in: the other
signatories remain unknown. Throughout the rest of this
study I refer to these paragraphs as chapters (i.e.

capitula) since this is customary practice in dealing

 

with a document of this nature.

Chapter 1 requires no analysis and so we may begin
with chapters 2 through 8 which, for purposes of analysis,
may be treated as a single unit. Chapters 2 through 7
are simply confirmations by Louis of the lands in the
possession of the papacy. What is striking about these
chapters is that they are not a general and imprecise
confirmation but, rather, a confirmation applied
explicitly to a remarkably detailed listing of exactly
those lands which the papacy did, in fact, possess. In
chapter 8 Louis confirmed to the papacy several rents
and revenues which his father had assigned to the papacy
from certain Lombard estates. These revenues had once
been paid to the palace of the Lombard kings in Pavia.

Louis, expressis verbis, retained sovereignty over these

 

estates and agreed only to the freeing of the stated
revenues. Chapter 8 also contains confirmation by Louis
of the donations of his father and grandfather.

In all of these chapters there is only one set
of confirmed donations which gives rise to suspicion.
Chapter 5 says that Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily were

ceded to the papacy. Sickel held this passage to be

133

27

an interpolation and many scholars have followed him

28

in this view. Sicily, of course, remained for some

29 It is certainly interpolated. Not

time Byzantine.
one source can be cited in favor of the granting of Sar-
dinia to Rome at any time. It, too, must be considered

interpolated. There is evidence, however, that Corsica

was granted and that its appearance in the Ludovicianum

 

should not be regarded as an interpolation. Two usually
reliable sources say that Corsica was granted to Hadrian
by Charles.30 The authenticity of the rest of the
territories named in chapters 2 to 7 has been established
by Duchesne and there is no reason to reproduce his
evidence.31

Three conclusions may be drawn from these chap-

ters. The first is of broad historical significance”

 

27Das Privilegium, p. 132.

 

28Some of this literature is collected in Ull-
mann, Papal Government, p. 91 n. 2.

 

29Classen, "Karl der Grosse, Papsttum und
Byzanz,” p. 541.

30Vita Hadriani, Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, I,
p. 498 and Codex Carolinus, no. 60, MGH, Spp., III,
p. 587. The reliability of these sources was upheld by
two nineteenth century scholars. Cf. Hinschius, Kirchen-
recht, I, p. 213 and n. 2; A. Lapétre, L'Euro e et Ie
—'W_ o o o
saint-Siege a l'epoque carolingienne, (Paris, 1895),
p. 2077n. 1. _

 

 

31L'état pontifical, pp. l46ff, 189ff.

 

134

The Ludovicianum contains the first, full surviving
inventory of the so-called Papal States. Several docu-
ments were issued in the times of Pepin and Charles but
there is no evidence that any one of them contained a
full listing of the papacy's properties. The first full
listing was drawn up in 816 and its 817 copy survives
for posterity. The broad interest and significance of
this lies in the fact that the Papal States remained
until 1870 much the same as they had come to be consti-
tuted during Hadrian's pontificate, and defined during
Louis' reign.32 As a further point of interest, it
should be emphasized that Louis, who is ordinarily seen
as excessively amenable to clerical demands, defined
the Papal States in such a way that men for a thousand
years agreed in essentials with his settlement.

Two other conclusions are of more immediate
concern and interest to Louis' reign. Since Louis did
not make any new concessions in 816 or 817, the £2997
vicianum marks a definite end to the lofty aspirations
for territorial expansion once held by Hadrian. Prior
to 816 the precise shape of the Papal States was in a

state of flux. The truth of this is readily to be found

 

32Haller, Papsttum, I, pp. 459-63; P. Partner,
The Lands of Saint Peter, (London, 1972), p. 47; Duchesne
L'état pontifical, p. 161: "Le pape Hadrien parvint a
donner au duché de Rome, 3 peu chose de pres, les limites
qu'il conserva pendant 1e moyen age et qu'il avait encore
en 1870."

 

 

135

in Hadrian's frequent pleadings to Charles concerning

this or that estate.33

Such entreaties could, and
certainly would, have gone on interminably had not Louis
demanded a reckoning of accounts. This must be seen as
a major gain for the empire, for it removed the possi-
bility that the reigning emperor would become involved
in Italian affairs as a result of papal demands for
imperial attention to essentially papal problems in Italy.
On more than one occasion Charles had been sidetracked
from more important business to go to Italy and do
Hadrian's bidding. Future emperors were spared that
annoyance by Louis' forthright action.

The third and final conclusion to be drawn from
chapters 2 to 8 is closely related to the second. It is
known that the Papal States did not form part of the

34

Italian kingdom under the Carolingians and that a

boundary was presumed to exist between the two areas.35
With its precise enumeration of just those territories

which were papal, the Ludovicianum had the concomitant

 

effect of defining those portions of Italy which belonged

 

33Codex Carolinus, nos. 49, 56, 58, 60, 68, 79,
etCof MGH, E pop III, Pp. 568-69, 580-81, 583-84, 586-
87, 597-98, 11.

 

34Eiten, Unterkonigtum, pp. 19-20.

35MGH, Cap., 1, no. 45, "Divisio Imperii," p. 126.

136

to the Italian kingdom. Of course, by process of elimi-
nation, the Greek south of Italy was also defined in 816,
but this area does not enter into account here. The
importance of the establishment of the regnal-papal
border lies in the fact that a huge gain was achieved

in clarifying administrative, judicial and, even, legal
competencies. In other words, officials of many kinds

were sent 39 Italiam, frequently 29 iustitias faciendas

 

and the like. After 816 it became clear to one and all
what Italia meant. This, certainly, must be interpreted
as a plus for the empire even if it does not bear directly
on the clarification of papal-imperial relations.

Before proceeding to a description and analysis
of chapter 9, let me focus again on two aspects of the
conclusions which have just been drawn. First, chapters
2 through 8 are genuine in all but two insignificant
respects. The existence of two interpolations in no way
impeaches authenticity of the rest of this material.
Second, it is difficult to find anything in these chap-
ters which is clearly pro-papal. Conceivably, the clar-
ification of its possessions and the acquisition of a
promise that those possessions would be defended was a
gain for the papacy. But, bearing Hadrian's schemes
in mind, it is not entirely clear that the papacy would
have seen the hard and fast inventory in the Ludovicianum

as a plus. The tangible, long and short term gains seem

137

to have been on the side of the empire. The truth of
this, it may be added, lends support to a Frankish

origin for the Ludovicianum.

 

In many ways chapter 9 is the most important

section of the Ludovicianum. It contains three basic

 

provisions: Louis promised to defend the lands, cities,
towns, castles and revenues named in chapters 2 through
8; Louis agreed not to intervene in the Papal States
unless expressly invited to do so; provisions were made
for dealing with fugitives from the Papal States. In
this chapter are contained the most important political

and constitutional measures of the Ludovicianum. The

 

greatest importance of chapter 9 is that it marks the
first attempt by the Carolingians to define their
sovereign rights in the lands of the Roman Church. It
is important therefore to give a brief resumé of the
position of the Carolingian kings and emperors in and
around Rome before 816. A brief survey of the past will
help to show the possible courses of action available to
Louis as well as the originality of the course that he
chose.

Much of the land that the papacy controlled had
belonged to it for centuries and full proprietary rights
were always exercised there by the popes. In addition,
the majority of the papal lands were initially coterminous

with the Duchy of Rome which was a regular Byzantine

138

political and military conscription. From the early
eighth century on, papal power and rights had been
expanding into the public domain in this area, partly
because of bad relations with Byzantium after the
accession of Emperor Leo III, and partly because of an
increasing inability of the Greeks to maintain an effec-
tive administration in Italy. In 751 the Exarchate of
Ravenna succumbed to the Lombards and, for all practical
purposes, Byzantine rule in northern and central Italy
ceased. The exarchate had been another of the regular
conscriptions of Italy and, after 751, the papacy became
actual master of it as well as of the Roman duchy. This,
basically, was the situation in Italy when the Franks
arrived on the scene.36
Pepin's interventions in the papal and Byzantine
parts of Italy were not decisive. He did little to
augment his own power or that of the papacy. Charles
conquered the Lombard kingdom but not the lands of
Rome. He seems to have admitted, legally at least, the
rule of the papacy in those parts of Italy which he did
not conquer, but he did little to define his own rights
or those of the papacy. Since he did intervene in and

around Rome from time to time, and since he sent his

 

36These points are conceded by nearly all scho-
lars. Cf. Halphen, Etude sur l'administration de Rom au
mo en age, BEHE, CLXVI, (1907), pp. xff; T. Hirschfeld,
Das Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom von 8 bis 12 Jahrhundert,"
ASS, IV, (1912), p. 419.

 

 

139

missi there on more than one occasion, it is clear that

Charles thought of himself as having some rights in the

37 All that can be said, however,

38

neighborhood of Rome.
is that a very unclear situation existed.
Upon his imperial coronation in 800 Charles pre-
sumably took up, in theory at least, full imperial rights
in Rome. But what were those rights? No imperial rights
had been exercised in Rome since at least 751 and no
Frank had ever exercised such rights. It may be
assumed that doing justice is one such right and there
is abundant proof that Charles did this. But, we hear
of no Romans who were called to serve in the Frankish
army. Romans did not pay, so far as we know, customary
Frankish dues. Frankish capitularies were not in effect
in Rome and Charles never actually legislated for Rome.
Obviously some special and, as far as can be determined,
undefined status was accorded to the papal lands. The
papacy after 800 did not deny Charles' sovereignty, but
it is extremely difficult to say what form that

sovereignty took. Some scholars argue, with considerable

 

37Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 114;
Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, III.1, p. 32; Wilhelm
Sickel, "Kirchenstaat und Karolinger," SS, LXXXIV, (1900),

p. 388 and passim.

 

 

38Duchesne, L'état pontifical, p. 165: "En somme
aucun pas ne fut fait sous Hadrien dans la voie consti-
tutionelle. On vécut sur des cotés mal taillées, sur
des arrangements provisoires et tacites."

 

140
justification, that sovereign rights were, for all
practical purposes, in the hands of the pope on a day-to-

day basis.39

Rome had never formed part of the Frankish
kingdom, and Charles did not conquer Rome as he did the
Lombard kingdom or, for that matter, Saxony. Conse-
quently no rights flowed to him in either of these cus-
tomary ways. We have already seen that Charles never
provided a clear definition of the imperial title or of
his imperial office, so it should not surprise us that
he did not, in so many words, define his rights in and
around Rome.

Seen against this background, it is obvious that
any attempt to clarify the rights of the emperor in Rome

would have been a real step forward for the Carolingians.

That chapter 9 of the Ludovicianum did clarify the situ-

 

ation, and that it did so in favor of Louis and the
empire is the interpretation which will now be advanced.
Considerable analysis is required to prove this con-
tention, however, because chapter 9 does not say, in

so many words, something like "I, Louis declare myself
to be sovereign in the following respects . . . " In
fact, if read superficially, the text almost seems to

say the opposite.

 

39See the literature in n. 37 and Lapétre, S3
saint-siegg, p. 205.

 

141

The first two provisions of chapter 9, Louis'
promise to protect the lands named in chapters 2 to 8,
and his agreement not to intervene in the papal states
must, in reality, be studied in close connection with
one another. At least, an attempt will be made to prove
this in just a moment. First, however, one aspect of
Louis' agreement to protect the lands of the Roman Church
may be studied by itself.

Protection, to a Frank, connoted a powerful
strengthening of the authority of the protector over
the protected. One scholar has aptly characterized the
Frankish attitude towards protection with the phrase
"protectio trahit subiectionem."40 Indeed, everywhere
in the sources, one finds that that which a Frank pro-
tected, he dominated. Consequently, Louis' broad agree-
ment to take the lands of the Roman Church under his
protection should be interpreted as a strengthening of
his influence over those lands. The papacy may have
thought otherwise, but what is of greater importance is
how the Franks understood protection.

The preceding point about protection is valid
and worth raising but, to gain a proper understanding of
this protection it is necessary to interpret it in con-
nection with the clause which follows it in chapter 9.

In this clause Louis agreed not to intervene uninvited

 

40Ullmann, Papal Government, p. 72 n. l.

 

142

in the Papal States. This sounds very much as though
Louis had granted an immunity to the Papal States which,
at the same time, made the pope something of an immunist.
Indeed, Brunner sees it this way, as when he writes "con-
stitutionally the papal region may be described as a
dominion equipped with comprehensive seigneurial and
immunity rights lying inside the Frankish empire."41
Immunity and protection bound together in suc-
cessive clauses of one chapter in a document: this cer-
tainly indicates the general system outlined above42
which Louis had begun applying to the churches of his

43

empire shortly after his accession. Both Semmler and

Ewig44 assert that the system of binding immunity and
protection was a "comprehensive program" in the time of

Louis, and the veracity of this assertion is borne out

by chapter 9 of the Ludovicianum. To outline the

 

importance of this practice, and its appearance in the

45

Ludovicianum, it is only necessary to state again that

 

 

41Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 120.

 

42Supra, p. 24.

43"Gesetzgebung und Reichsidee," p. 42.

44Handbuch, p. 123.

45The practice was known in Italy which lends
credence to its having been applied in Rome: Ann.
Lobienses, MGH, SS, XIII, p. 231.

 

143

the association of immunity and protection bound the
Frankish church to the emperor just about as closely as
Frankish institutions would allow. By extending this
practice to Rome and the pope in 816, and by renewing
it in the following year,46 Louis created, for the first
time, a clear and operational place for the papacy and
its lands inside the Frankish state. Moreover, and
this is of no less importance, Louis used regular
Frankish institutional practice to achieve this end.
The last clause of chapter 9 is a set of pro-
visions for dealing with fugitives. Louis agreed to
return to Rome fugitives from the pope who desired
either to withdraw themselves from papal allegiance,
or to escape punishment for a crime, or persons who
feared any sort of evil stroke ("aliam quamlibet machi-
nationem metuens"). Louis agreed not to receive such
individuals unless he planned to intercede for them.
He indicated that a precise investigation would be held
to determine the nature of the offenses of these persons.
If the crime were found to be minor, the fugitive would
not be returned; if major, he would be. Finally, and

with particular emphasis, Louis indicated that he would

 

46The renewal is no cause for surprise. Immuni-
ties were in theory granted in perpetuity but, in fact,
were regularly renewed on the death of either party.
Cf. Kroell, Immunité franque, pp. 74-75.

144

intercede for all fugitives who had been victims of
violence or oppression.

A proper interpretation of these provisions
consists of three parts. First, in agreeing to return
to Rome fugitives from papal allegiance and authority,
Louis was only living up to the terms of the immunity
which he had just granted to the Roman Church. Louis
obliged himself to do neither more nor less than he
would have done for any other immunist. Second, Louis
arrogated to himself the right of investigating the
cases of fugitives. He also claimed a general right
of intercession. This was no mere gesture, for it means
that Louis extended to the inhabitants of the Papal
States a fundamental right of any inhabitant of the
empire who had been, or who considered himself to have
been, denied justice. This was the right of appeal to

the emperor. To be sure, the Ludovicianum does not

 

say this in so many words, but the plight of an appellant
and that of a fugitive would have been much the same
in practice.

The third part of the interpretation of these
provisions is of a rather different nature. By agreeing,
at least in some cases, to receive fugitives, and by
adjudicating, whenever he saw fit, the case of any
fugitive, Louis provided himself with a means of politi-

cal intervention in Rome.

145

The papacy was often at the center of political
intrigues which not infrequently took violent turns.
The disorders of 767-768 and the attacks on Leo III in
799 are well enough known. For present purposes, it is
more important to note that a massive rebellion against
Leo III had broken out in 815 and that many of Leo's

enemies were killed.47

By agreeing to receive fugitives
from such disorders and, particularly when violence was
involved, by agreeing to intercede for them, Louis could
intervene in a not altogether subtle way in Rome.48 It
should be noted further that this type of intervention
could be carried out fully within the spirit of a promise
not to intervene £3 Rome. When Louis suspected, or knew
of, papal aggression, he could bring succor to the

oppressed, who would certainly have taken from the

Ludovicianum a powerful inducement to flee. Then, too,

 

when he suspected violence against the papacy, he could

aid the Roman bishop against his attackers by handing

them over if they fled outside the Roman region.49

 

47Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 142; SEE.
Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 20; Ann. Sithienses, MGH, SS,
x—III', p. 37. Benedict's Chronicle, 0. 74, MGH,-SS, III,
p. 711 says that 300 were’killed but this i§_pr053bly
an excessive figure.

 

 

 

 

48Cf. Thomas, "Pactum Ludov.," pp. 148, 152-54.

49Partner, Lands of St. Peter, p. 46, emphasizes

 

this.

146

A few preliminary conclusions may be drawn from
my observations on chapter 9. First, and foremost,
chapter 9 procured an enormous gain in clarity and pre-
cision on the subject of the place of the Papal States
within the empire. As we have seen, the papacy, after
800, never expressly denied Carolingian sovereignty in
Rome but, by the same token, the Carolingians had not
given a precise legal or institutional expression to
their sovereignty. This was done in 816. Second, by
applying to Rome and its environs a regular instrument
of Frankish public law, the protection-immunity diploma
or, in this case, its equivalent, Louis took a giant
stride towards integrating this area into the insti-
tutional life of his empire. Third, the provisions of
chapter 9 concerning fugitives provided the emperor
with an effective means of intervening, presumably in
a salutary way, in the turbulent political life of far-
away and independent-minded Rome.

It is not possible to draw a full and well-rounded
set of conclusions on chapter 9 until a few words are
addressed to several other subjects. My views on the
authenticity and provenance of chapter 9 must be stated.
Then a long tradition of scholarly opinion which dia-
metrically opposes the partial conclusions already pre-

sented must be met and refuted. There has even been a

147

tendency to impute substantial interpolations to chapter 9.
This notion must also be dispelled.

The authenticity of the first two clauses of
chapter 9 is proved by the remarkable parallel between
these clauses and the immunity-protection diploma issued
by Louis on so many other occasions. Given what is known
about the terms and use of this diploma, it is absolutely
inconceivable that the papacy, at some time subsequent
to 817, would have substituted the immunity-protection
formula for whatever the original may have contained.

A later imperial interpolater is, of course, completely
out of the question.

Thomas postulates the authenticity of the clause
dealing with fugitives by saying that the lines reflect
negotiation.50 I agree with her conclusion, but I dis-
agree with her reasoning. She argues that the language
of the lines in question reflect negotiation. On exami-
nation, however, it will be seen that the Latin is clear
and logically ordered; that is, it is not at all the
"give and take" type of language that is frequently
found in documents that result from lengthy discussion.

That the fugitive clause of chapter 9 reflects
negotiation, or discussion, may be proved by relating

it to the historical circumstances from which it arose.

 

50"Pactum Ludov.," p. 145.

148

We have seen several times already that one of the reasons
for Stephen's journey to Reims was to secure the release

51 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that

of exiles.

fugitives, exiles, hostages and the like were a topic of

considerable concern at the time. Both Louis and the

pope had legitimate interests in this tOpic and this

fact is reflected in the fugitive clause. Again, it

may be noted that after Louis and Stephen had negotiated

over a wide range of topics, Helisichar prepared the

very document with which we are concerned here.
Negotiations almost always end in some compro-

mise. In the main, the section on fugitives is pro-

imperial, but a certain degree of compromise may be seen

in it. By agreeing in principle to return most kinds

of fugitives, Louis went a long way towards recognizing

papal overlordship in Rome. At the same time, however,

papal overlordship was described as that of an immunist

and, what is more, Louis insisted on his right of examin—

ing the cases of fugitives. In practice, then, the

effective exercise of overlordship by the pope would

have been considerably mitigated. This compromise,

such as it was, also points to negotiation and, at the

same time, to the meeting in October, 816.

 

51
pp. 52-53.

Vita Paschalis I, Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, II,

 

149

Thus, there are simply no grounds on which to
suspect the authenticity of chapter 9.

The preliminary conclusions drawn above, and the
fact that chapter 9 is unquestionably authentic, ought
to obviate the need for a discussion of provenance.
Clearly, chapter 9 is Frankish. Recently, however, a
scholar of estimable talent, Wolfgang Fritze, has
advanced a learned argument in defense of a Roman pro-
venance for the protection clause. His theory must be
met, and refuted, or, obviously, the protection-immunity
theory upon which my interpretation is based will crumble.

Fritze believes that a provision of Lombard pri-
vate law dealing with protection of conveyed lands is

found in the Ludovicianum. This legal principle holds

 

that when some man conveyed a piece of land to another
he incurred the responsibility of defending it and of
defending the person to whom the land was given against
any third person.52 Presumably, when the Carolingians
made donations to the papacy they would have incurred
these responsibilities. The key point here is that a
legal provision, under which the papacy is presumed to
have been operating, obliged the Carolingians or, in
this case, Louis, to defend papal properties. This

theory raises quite a few questions.

 

52Papst und Frankenkfinig, pp. 41ff.

 

150

First, the lands which Louis undertook to defend
consisted of properties which had long belonged to the
papacy, properties which had been restored to the papacy
by Pepin and Charles, and properties freely given to
the papacy by the first two Carolingian sovereigns.
Therefore, if Fritze's theory is assumed to be valid,
then certainly it can be applied only to the prOperties
in the third category, which formed, incidentally, the
smallest body of lands in the possession of the papacy.
One would then have to ask what legal forms applied to
the remaining two categories of papal lands. Whatever
response might be made to this question, the inescapable
conclusion would be left that two or more sets of legal
provisions were simultaneously in operation over a body
of lands described basically as a single unit in one

document, the Ludovicianum. This seems improbable, if

 

not impossible.

Second, again assuming for a moment the validity
of Fritze's theory, one must ask how a measure of Lombard
private law intruded itself upon the legal system of Rome
and the Papal States, an area which was almost entirely
under Roman Law. Of course, it might be argued that the
papacy correctly perceived the utility of this Lombard
practice and took it over in order to use it in cases
where lands were given to the Roman Church. Now, if

one goes a bit further and accepts the truth of this

151

assumption, then one is drawn inescapably to the con-
clusion that the papacy tricked the Franks. It is dif-
ficult to imagine any of the Carolingians admitting that
they had obliged themselves to defend this or that piece
of land simply and solely because this was a consequence
of their having given it to some pope. To believe this,
it would be necessary to impute to the Carolingians an
astonishing juridical naiveté. The other side of this
coin calls for the assumption that the papacy understood
the theory but never bothered to inform the Franks of
the obligations under which they had fallen. This is
obvious nonsense.

Third, one may ask when the Carolingians are
supposed to have incurred this obligation. Fritze does
not offer a conclusive answer. The sources provide no
hint of it in 754, 756, 774, 781 or 787. Perhaps it is
a product of 816-817. Ermoldus Nigellus, immediately
before he describes the preparation by Helisichar of
the pact of 816, has Louis say that he intends to pro-
tect the Roman Church and its property just as his

53 In the Ludovicianum

54

ancestors had protected it.

 

itself Louis says much the same thing. Evidently,

 

53vs. 1034-39, 1040ff.

54Appendix C, c. 9.

152

he did not know of any such obligations, and he certainly
does not seem to have submitted himself to any.

Fourth, and last, one may address the heart of
’the matter. Did this protection arrangement in land
conveyances actually exist in Lombard law? No Lombard
legal text can be cited in support of it, but one should
not expect to find such a text because, according to
Fritze, the measure existed in private law. The crucial
sources are the Lombard diplomas. On examination, it
is discovered that they do from time to time contain a
clause reading "promitto defendere ab omnibus hominibus"
or the like where land conveyances are at issue. But
this clause does not always appear, and there does not
seem to be any geographical regularity in its appearance.55
My own study of these documents leads me to suggest that,
at least in a great many cases, the appearance of the
clause in a diploma is meant to guarantee the conveyed
lands against the heirs of the conveyor more than against

some vague third party. The implications of this are

certainly much less broad than those drawn by Fritze.

 

55To cite but a few examples: Codex Diplomaticus
Lan ob., ed. Schiaparelli, ESL, I, no. 18, p. 55, Pavia,
Has clause; no. 23, p. 89, Pisa, has clause; no. 26,
p. 97, Lucca, has clause; no. 28, p. 101, Lucca, has
clause; no. 30, p. 108, Lucca, no clause; no. 34, p. 122,
Lucca, no clause; no. 36, p. 126, Milan, has clause;
no. 37, p. 128, Treviso, no clause; no. 38, p. 130, Pistoia,
has clause. In addition, it is interesting that two forged
documents, nos. 39 and 41, pp. 134 and 140, Treviso and
Dronero, do not have the clause. If the practice were
regular and desirable would not a forger, even a rea-
sonably good one, have included it?

 

153

However, not being an expert in Lombard law, I
am willing, with some reservation, to subscribe to the
arguments of the great Italian scholar P. S. Leicht.

He believes that the practice was widespread during the
eighth century and that it spread to much of Italy,
including the Roman region.56 This is well and good,
but it does not explain the fact that the measure makes
virtually no appearance in Frankish documents before

57

900. This tends to prove that it did not appear in

the Ludovicianum. Similarly, it is difficult to explain

 

the passage of a piece of Lombard private law into
Frankish public law--which appearance in a capitulary
or similar document would have effected--on only one
occasion.

Of course these problems cannot be explained
because they do not eXist. In the first place, all of
the evidence thus far adduced, and all yet to be adduced,

points to the Frankish origin of the Ludovicianum. In

 

the second place, the Franks had a very clear concept

of protection, and of all that it implied. They needed
no help in seeking a definition, and would have had no
reason to accept anyone else's definition. As we have

seen, Louis applied the old concept of protection, or

 

56Storia del diritto italiano, Vol. III, El
diritto privato, (Milan, 1948), pp. llef.

 

 

57Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 677.

 

154

Mundherrschaft, and the new concept of immunity and pro-

 

tection, to the lands of the Roman Church.

In the end, then, Fritze's theory does not hold
up. The Frankish origin and inspiration of chapter 9
are beyond dispute.

As already intimated, there is a venerable tra-
dition in existence which interprets chapter 9 in a
fundamentally different way from the interpretation
presented here. Proceeding along three different paths,
scholars have argued that chapter 9 evidences an extreme
diminution of imperial rights. The language of the chap-
ter has been said to prove this in a general way, and
the immunity and fugitives clauses have been pointed to
as specific examples. Finally, scholars of such repute
as Hauck and Brunner believe that even Louis was in-
capable of such a remarkable piece of backsliding and,
as a result, they suspect the authenticity of the chap-
ter.58

Since my reasons for believing that chapter 9 is
genuine have already been stated, there is no point in
offering now a specific refutation of Hauck's and Brun-
ner's doubts. Attention should only be called to the
fact that their doubts arise from a belief that chapter

9 is derogatory to the empire. Their views will, however,

 

58Kirchengeschichte, II, p. 493 n. 2; Deutsche
Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 127 n. 57.

 

 

155

be refuted by implication as part of an attempt to show
that the arguments holding chapter 9 to be a reduction
of imperial rights are groundless.

Those scholars who argue that Louis gave up his
sovereign rights--and this is usually seen as an example
of his weakness before the Church--sometimes focus on
the language of chapter 9.59 First they point to the
place where Louis conceded to Paschal the use, enjoy-
ment and disposition of everything in his "ditio." In

the same connection, they note that the document speaks

of papal potestas, principatus and the like. The

 

 

appearance of these words, and their association with
the papacy, suggests to these scholars that Louis abdi-
cated his sovereignty. When viewed in their proper
context, however, these words can be explained easily.

Ditio and potestas can be found in imperial

 

diplomas from Louis' time in which prOperties were

granted to individuals.60

No one would care to argue
that when Louis gave away a piece of property, he also
gave away sovereignty over it. Furthermore, in a

letter of 818, Paschal wrote of Louis' "ditio" in the

 

59These views are discussed by Thomas, "Pactum
Ludov.," pp. 135ff.

60MGH, Form. Im ., no. 2, p. 289 (potestas),
no. 27, p. 305 (ditio . Cf. Thomas, "Pactum Ludov.,"
p. 136.

156

papal states.61 In my judgment, these cases prove only

that neither of these terms can be taken as decisive
in a quest for a definition of sovereignty.

What about principatus? This word appears from

 

time to time in the papal sources and it is found in the

Constitutum Constantini. In the famous forgery it occurs

 

at a point where the supremacy of the bishop of Rome

62

over all other bishops is being asserted. This

caused Thomas to argue that principatus has spiritual

 

or ecclesiastical connotations more than political ones.63

I am inclined to agree and, again, this word must be
ruled out of any technical, legal argument because of
its lack of clarity.

There are other words in the document which pro-
vide some help in this matter. In chapter 8 where
Louis agreed to cede certain revenues from Tuscany and
Spoleto, he indicated emphatically that these areas
would remain in his "dominatione" and "subiectione."
This is very much like the language used in the Divisio

Imperii of 806 and of the Ordinatio Imperii of 817.64

 

 

61Paschal I, pp, no. 10, MGH, Epp., V, p. 68.

62Constitutum Constantini, ed. Ffihrmann, MGH,
FIGA, X, p. 81.

 

63"Pactum Ludov.," p. 137: "Uberordnung mehr in
geistigen und geistlichen Sinne."

64M_GI‘I_’ £22" 1' nos. 45' 136, pp. 130' 271.

157

These two documents are so evidently concerned with the
possession and transmission of sovereignty that their
vocabulary may be almost technical. Alas, these docu-
ments are not always consistent; nor are diplomas, nor
any other sources. Again, all that may be concluded is
that it is simply not possible to base a whole interpre-
tation on the appearance of a word or two. At the same
time, extreme care must be taken so as not to take these
words out of context. This is what Louis' critics have
done.

More serious in the eyes of some scholars are
the lines in which Louis agreed not to intervene in
Rome except on the request of the pope. These lines,
it is said, clearly indicate that imperial rights had
been cast to the wind. Interesting is the fact that
some scholars who so argue recognize that chapter 9
created something of an immunity without realizing the

65

significance of this. Another historian, influenced

by the now antiquated position on immunities, sees that
the papal lands became immune and judges this to have

66

been a diminution of imperial rights. Finally, two

scholars saw that the lines imply an immunity and,

 

6sVon Schubert, Kirche im Frfimittelalter, p. 350;
Thomas, ”Pactum Ludov.," p.7133.

 

66Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, III.1, p. 99.

 

158

again influenced by the older thinking on the subject,

decided that the lines were interpolated.67

The key
point here is that the idea that imperial rights suf-
fered as a consequence of the immunity clause derives
from scholars who recognize that an immunity, or some-
thing like one, was created.

Leaving completely to one side what is now known
about the binding of protection and immunity, there is
still no excuse for this sort of thinking on the subject
of immunity itself. Immunity simply did not bring about
a lessening of royal power. It was an effective extension
of that power so long as the royal power itself remained
strong. No one has put the real significance of immuni-
ties into sharper focus than Lot when he wrote:

For a long time historians understood nothing . . .
about these concessions. Their view was super-
ficial. The Carolingian sovereigns knew what they
were doing. It did not escape them that their
presumed functionaries, the counts, were intrac-
table, without cease in a state of rebellion,

open or hatching. To withdraw from their action
immense quantities of immune land, immunized that

 

67Su ra, n. 58. It is interesting to note that
Ullmann, "Origins of the Ottonianum," pp. 118ff, holds
the lines to be genuine because they are so favorable
to the papacy. He goes so far as to suggest that the
lines in the Ottonianum which explicitly reserve imperial
rights are an imperial forgery. His theory is destroyed
by Horst Ffihrmann, who proves that the text of the
Ottonianum as we have it is curial and probably due to
Cardinal John "digitorum mutilis": SA, XXII, (1966),
pp. 128ff. I bring this up only because I cannot con-
sider Ullmann an ally in my attempts to prove the authen-
ticity of the passage. Obviously our interpretations
are very different.

159

is, this was in reality to weaken the provincial

tyrannies and to reinforce the central power.

The immunist, in effect, was transformed into a

sort of functionary.
So, a grant of immunity to the papacy in no way weakened
imperial rights.

Fortunately, there is a case which proves this.

In 823 litigation arose between Paschal and Abbot Ingoald
of Iarfa. It seems that Paschal claimed that Farfa owed
rents to the papacy for certain estates. Lothar, co-
emperor and then in Rome as his father's agent, investi-
gated the matter and found Paschal's claim to be utterly
without foundation. He delivered a judgment in favor
of Farfa.69 Paschal's claim was so patently false that
he surely did not invite Lothar to sit in judgment of it.
Therefore, Lothar's action proves that imperial rights
still obtained in "immune" Rome. For, after all, a grant
of immunity only forbade entry to royal or imperial
officials, never to the king or emperor himself.

Similarly, those historians who argue that Louis

damaged imperial rights by agreeing to return fugitives

 

68"Le concept d'empire a l'époque carolingienne,"
Recueil des travaux historiques de F. Lot, 3 vols.,
TfiariE, 1968-73), I, p. 351. These words were written
in 1947.

69Paschal's false claim and the case itself are
described in Chron. Farf., ed. Balzini, FSI, I, pp. 182ff;
cf. MGH, Sip. Kar., III, no. 51, pp. 147348 (a diploma of
Lothaf—from 840—describing the case of 823).

160

70 In the first place, Pepin and

71

are on weak ground.
Charles had done precisely the same thing without
bringing the opprobrium of historians down upon them-
selves. More to the point, however, those who interpret
the fugitives clause as having been damaging have not
penetrated its nuances. When this penetration is under-
taken it becomes clear that the fugitive clause enhanced
the definition and regularization of imperial rights.

Definition is the keystone of chapter 9. This
chapter is genuine and it is Frankish. Much more impor-
tantly, however, it is original. Never before had the
Franks set down clearly and in writing the precise rights
which they possessed over the Roman BishOp and the Papal
States. Not only were those rights written down in 816,
but they were inscribed in considerable detail. And,
amidst those details, it is possible to see the appli-
cation to Rome of regular Frankish institutions and con-
cepts.

The tenth chapter of the Ludovicianum contains

 

provisions for papal elections. It established that no
Frank, nor Lombard, nor any man whatsoever, should move

against the Romans in papal elections. Residents of

 

7OExamples: von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmit-
telalter, p. 397; Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, III.1,
p. 99.

 

 

71MGH, Cap., I, no. 91, c. 9, p. 93; no. 95,
c. 16, p. 201}

161

the Papal States were forbidden to perpetrate any sort

of evil at the time of elections. All Romans, aided by
divine inspiration and the intercession of St. Peter,
were to see to the election of a new pope and a canonical
consecration was to follow. After election and conse-
cration, notification of the election was to be brought
to the emperor, or to his successor, and the bond of love,
peace and friendship was to be renewed. These measures
seem simple enough but they have, like most of the rest

of the Ludovicianum, evoked a good deal of controversy.

 

Therefore, I shall begin by offering my own views of
chapter 10 and conclude by discussing views to the con-
trary.

Chapter 10 can only be interpreted when it is
placed firmly into a context. Such a context may be
sought either in previous Carolingian practice with
regard to papal elections or in any canonical text from
the Carolingian period which governed papal elections.
Fortunately both of these avenues may be followed and
each yields the same result. Let us begin with previous
Frankish practice.

The year 751 may be taken as a point of departure.
In that year the Carolingians and the papacy began to
have very serious relations with one another. Moreover
the Exarchate of Ravenna was dissolved. The latter fact

is important because it had been through the exarch that

162

the Byzantine emperor exercised his right to approve of
any elected candidate before the newly elected was con-
secrated. Dissolution of the exarchate provided a
possible ambiance for Carolingian intervention. There-
fore it may be asked whether the Carolingians, whose
star was on the ascendant in Italy just as the Byzantine
star was being extinguished, ever claimed or exercised
the old Byzantine right of approval. Scholars have long
recognized that this question must be answered nega-
tively.72 Thus, it is clear that when Louis guaranteed
free elections in 816 he did no more than to give
written expression to the practice of his ancestors.

Turning to the matter of prescriptive documents,
we find that there was, indeed, a rule in force, from
the Carolingian age, governing papal elections. In 769
an election decree was passed which forbade intervention
in the election of a pope by any layman, be he Frank,

Roman, peasant or emperor.73 Since Frankish bishops

 

72Ullmann, "Origins of the Ottonianum," p. 117;
Ernst Mayer, Italienische Verfassun s eschichte, 2 vols.,
(Leipzig, 1909), II, p. 64 and n. 67. That the Franks
did not intervene can be seen in the time between elec-
tions and consecrations: Paul I, 35 days (due to politi-
cal strife in Rome), Hadrian, 8 days, Leo III, 1 day,
Stephen IV, less than 10 days. Cf. C. Bayet, "Les
éléctions pontificales sous les carolingiens," Révue
Histori ue, XXIV, (1884), pp. 69-72. The statement in
the LIEeIIus de imperia potestate, MGH, SS, III, p. 720,
that Charles placed—an agent in RomE_Eo aversee papal
elections is patently anachronistic.

 

73MGH, Conc., II.l, no. 14, p. 86; cf. Vita
Stephani III, LiB. Pont., ed. Duchesne, I, p. 476.

 

163

were present at the synod which issued the decree, it

may be presumed that the decree met with the approval

74

of the reigning king, Charles. Hinschius noted long

ago that the elections of Stephen and Paschal conformed

75

to the decree of 769. In the case of Paschal, whose

election followed the issuance of the Ludovicianum in

 

816, Hinschius' observation is inaccurate for reasons
which will appear presently. Nevertheless, Hinschius'
assertion serves to demonstrate that, in issuing the

Ludovicianum, Louis did not feel privileged to override

 

the decree of 769.

On the whole, then, it appears that Louis let
Frankish custom and canon law be his guides in making
his own pronouncement on papal elections. This is cer-
tainly true in all that concerned royal or imperial
intervention, but a closer examination of the text of
chapter 10 reveals that Louis introduced a very impor-
tant change. The decree of 769 had reserved elections
to the Roman clergy. Chapter 10 says the person whom
"all the Romans" ("omnes Romani") have elected should be

consecrated without turmoil. Louis vastly expanded the

 

74For the names of the Franks see MGH, Conc.,
II.l, no. 14, pp. 75ff.

75Kirchenrecht, I, pp. 230-32.

 

164

franchise in papal elections, and it is this aspect of
chapter 10 which yields a prOper interpretation of it.

The great political and economic importance of
the papacy in Rome is well known, as are the troubles in
Rome since at least the election of Paul I. Louis'
measure, then, which was fully in the Frankish tradition
in one sense, must actually be regarded, like the pro-
visions of chapter 9, as an attempt to create some sta-
bility in Rome, by allowing the citizenry as a whole to
have a say in choosing their immediate overlord. Louis
then enveloped this extension of the franchise with pro-
mises not to intervene himself, and to insure nonviolent
elections. Understood in this way, the election pro-
vision in chapter 10 accords perfectly with the pro-
visions of chapter 9 which gave Louis some means of
intervening in Rome. First Louis gained a means of
intervening and then he attempted to minimize the like-
lihood of his having to intervene. It may be noted in
passing, moreover, that when the constitutional and
political provisions of chapters 9 and 10 are looked at
together, the consistency and cogency of the Ludovicianum
become rather apparent.

Opposing views may now be considered. Von Schu-
bert suspects the authenticity of the passage. He
thinks that it is too favorable to the papacy and that

some later pope is responsible for the passage as we

165

read it. His argument is not based only on this
assumption, however. He believes his theory is con-
firmed by the fact that the imperial office is not men-
tioned and that subsequent announcements of elections
and consecrations were to be made to ”reges Francorum."76
The lack of the imperial title proves nothing.
The words in question are "legati ad nos . . . dirigantur"
and since the imperial title is mentioned several other
times in the document, it may be concluded that Louis
assumed the existence of his title in using "nos." As
to Louis' designating his sons "kings of the Franks,"
that is exactly what they were. It must be remembered
that we are dealing with a document first issued in 816
and then again in early 817. At that time Louis' sons

were only kings: Lothar of Bavaria and Pepin of Aqui-

taine. The Ordinatio Imperii, which made Lothar co-

 

emperor and sole successor to the imperial title, was

77 Von Schubert's

not issued until later in 817.
objections are utterly without substance.

Another argument dealing not so much with the
authenticity of the chapter as with its provenance was

advanced by Thomas. She considers the passage a curial

production from the time of Hadrian. According to her,

 

76Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 397.

 

77Sfl, no. 650, places the Ordinatio in July.

166

the overwhelming strength and prestige of Charles caused
Hadrian to leave the document in obscurity for fear of
what might have happened if he had presented it. Then,
under the weaker Louis, the curia rescued the document
from oblivion and foisted it upon its weaker adversary.78

Her evidence is scant. First she says that the
precise language of the passage suggests that a model
was used. Then she feels that the lack of reference
to the imperial title points to the years before 800.
Finally, she says that Leo III never demanded free
election so the production is due to Hadrian (772-795).
Her arguments are ingenious, but little more.

Thomas' theory may readily be countered. First,
there are no sound reasons for arguing that the Franks
could not draw up a document in clear, precise language.
Second, she is guilty of reasoning from invention. Not
one single source proves, let along intimates, that
chapter 10 is based on a document which emanated from
Hadrian's curia. Third, her theory is badly out of
step with the historical circumstances as our sources
do describe them. In other words, neither Leo III nor
Hadrian had to call out for free election because of
the existence of the election decree of 769 which the
Franks never violated. Fourth, her idea that the lack

of mention of the imperial title points to the years

 

78"Pactum Ludov.," pp. 155-65.

167

before 800 is erroneous. As we have seen in connection
with von Schubert's ideas, the lack of the imperial
title in chapter 10 proves nothing.

Finally, as aspects of von Schubert's and Thomas'
reasoning indicate, there is a line of interpretation
which holds chapter 10 to be favorable to the papacy.
Generally, it is argued that Louis gave up his imperial

rights in papal elections.79

These scholars usually

argue that since Byzantine emperors had the right of
confirming a papal election before the elected was con—
secrated then, after 800, the Carolingians had the same
right and Louis gave it up in 816. This, however, is
jumping to conclusions about the nature of the Carolingian
imperial office and the rights attendant upon it. There
is no evidence that the Franks considered themselves to

be the exact constitutional duplicates of their Eastern
counterparts. Certainly, the Franks considered themselves
to be equally prestigious, but this is a very different
thing. Indeed, it would be easy to cite many things
which Byzantine emperors could, and did, do, which the
Franks never did, and never claimed a right to do.

Moreover, as noted already, the Franks never claimed

and never exercised any rights in papal elections.

 

79Besides those already noted: Hartmann, Ges-
chichte Italiens, III.1, p. 97; Bayet, Les éléctions
pontificaIes," p . 72ff.

168

Thus, in 816, Louis did not abdicate any imperial rights;
that is, he did not "favor" the papacy.
Chapter 10 is another authentic and essentially

Frankish component of the Ludovicianum. It is traditional

 

in some important respects, though by introducing a
subtle but crucial change in tradition, it provided the
Carolingian sovereigns with yet another means of con-
trolling and influencing the volatile political life of
Rome.

One final point concerning the Ludovicianum must

 

be made. At the end of chapter 10 we read of a pact of
"friendship, love and peace" and in chapter 9 we find

a promise to defend the named rights, territories, etc.
of the Roman Church. It is necessary to determine the
precise significance of this pact and promise. In
other words, did they have any binding legal content,
and, if so, to whose advantage?

Let us look first at the promise in chapter 9
and ask whether Louis legally obliged himself by means
of an oath to protect the Roman Church. Most historianS'
hold that Louis performed an oath to this effect as a

80

part of his coronation ceremony in 816. They believe

this to be reflected in the Ludovicianum. This theory

 

 

80Eichmann, Kaiserkanung, II, pp. 151, 169;
Fritze, ngst und Frankenkfinig, pp. 43-44. The latter
work provides a good’discussion of other literature.

 

169

is based on the fact that oaths later became a regular
part of the coronation ceremony. This reasoning is
unsound.

The ppgg used in 816 contains no oath and no

81 The

source conclusively proves that Louis swore one.
next surviving imperial ordo has, presumably, an oath.
It is reasonable to assume that its text would not have
changed a great deal from that of the oath that scholars
assume was used in 816, and its text is useful for
analysis in any case because it is considered to be the
first surviving imperial coronation oath. It reads:
Promissio Imperatoris:

In nomine Christi promitto, spondeo atque pol-
liceor ego N. imperator coram Deo et beato Petro
apostolo, me protectorem ac defensorem esse huius
sanctae Romanae ecclesiae in omnibus utilitatibus,
in quantum divino fultus fuero adiutorio, secundum
scire meum ac posse.82

One need not look very deeply at this text to see that
in both spirit and language it corresponds to the Ludo-

vicianum. It also corresponds to the apprOpriate

passage in the Ottonianum, a point which I mention only

 

because Otto I is also presumed to have sworn an oath.
Is this actually an oath? Let us look at another

oath from a twelfth century ordo:

 

81The lines from Ermoldus cited supra p. 62 are
certainly too vague to be called into witness.

BZQEQEEEEI ed. Elze, MGH, FIGA, IX, no. I, p, 2,

170

In nomine Dei Iesu Christo Ego N. rex et
futurus imperator Romanorum promitto, spondeo,
p0111ceor et per hec evangelia iuro coram Deo et
beato Petro apostolo tibi N. beati'Petri vicario
fidelitatem tuisque succes§oribus canonice instran-
tibus, meque amodo protectorem ac defensorem fore
huius sancte romane ecclesie et vestre ersone
vestrorumque successorum in omniBus utiEitatIBus,
in quantum divino fultus fuero adiutorio secundum
scire meum ac posse, sine fraude et malo ingenio.
Sic me Deux adiuvet et hec sancta evangelia.
(Italics mine)83

 

 

 

 

 

An examination of the italicized parts of this text shows
that this is, quite unmistakably, an oath. Moreover,

the oath was sworn to the person of the pOpe. It is

also very clear that the second text cited here is built
upon the first. Before drawing any conclusions, and in
order to gain a little more precision, let us look at a
Frankish oath from 802:

Sacramentale qualiter repromitto domno Karolo
piissimoiimperatori, filio Pippini regis et Ber-
thane, fidelis sum, sicut homo per drichtum debet
esse domino suo, ad suum regnum et ad suum rectum.
Et illud sacramentum quod iuratum habeo custodiam
et custodire volo, in quantum ego 5010 et intel-
ligo, ab isto die inantea, si me adiuvet Deus, qui
coelum et terram creavit, et ista sanctorum patro-
cinia. (Italics mine)84

 

 

 

Again, look at the italicized words. These words, or
words like them, appear in the second passage above but

not in the first. Let us admit without hesitation

 

83Ibid., no. XIV, p. 37.

84MGH, Cap., I, no. 34, p. 102.

171

that the last two are oaths and then ask why their common
language is not met in the first.

I am well aware that I am comparing oaths of
very different natures. Nevertheless, any oath must have
certain components to make it an oath. In the second

and third texts above we find iuro, iuratum habeo, sacra-

 

mentum and the use of gospels or relics. Words like
these, and an item on which an oath was sworn are always
met. In the first passage above there is nothing like
this, nor is there anything similar in the Ludovicianum.
For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that
the promise cited above from g£g2_B did exist in Q£§2_A,
the gpgp used in 816, and that it subsequently dis-
appeared from the manuscripts. How are we then to
explain the changes in the oath from gpgg XIV: changes
in just those kinds of things which actually constitute
an oath? Let me again emphasize that the promise cited,
whatever its relation to the coronation of 816 may be,

corresponds to the Ludovicianum. The answer can only

 

be that in the Ludovicianum there is a promise and not

 

an oath at all.

It was on Friday October 3, 816 that Louis made
a promise to Stephen and handed him a document to that
effect. A few months later he extended the same promise
to Paschal. Whether Louis symbolically laid down the

promise again on Sunday October 5, 816, however likely

172

it may be, is of no consequence. The evidence suggests
only a promise and, at that, one freely undertaken. By
the twelfth century, if not before, an oath concerning
protection would be a pre-condition to coronation, but
no such thing existed in 816 or 817. This is not sur-
prising in view of the enormous strides made by the
papacy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

There is other evidence which points to the

same conclusion. In chapter 11 of the Ludovicianum

 

Louis spoke of the oath sworn by his bishops, abbots

and nobles to uphold the Ludovicianum, and he Spoke of

 

his own promises. Certainly, he was drawing a distinction
between a promise and an oath. In 818 Paschal wrote to
Louis and reminded him of his "vows" ("votionum") to

take up the cause of the Roman Church.85 Why did Paschal

not use sacramentum or iuramentum or some such word if

 

 

he meant precisely oath and not vaguely vow or promise?
Papal sources knew such words and certainly the dis-

tinctions between them were not so fine as to be beyond

86

Paschal's understanding. Later in the ninth century

 

BSEE' n00 10! MGH! E or V, p. 68. Fritze,

Papst und Frankenkonig, p. 4 takes this as evidence of
an oath.

 

86Vita Hadriani, Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, I,
p. 498: "seseque mutuo per sacramentum munientes." The
year was 774 and the passage is speaking of Charles and
Hadrian in reference to the reaffirmation of Quierzy.
This is further proof that, from either side, we should
expect such a word if an oath had been sworn.

 

 

 

173

bishOps assembled at Troyes knew of royal promises and
of oaths sworn by Pepin and Charles, but not by Louis.87
Finally, not one source connected with the coronation

of 81688

or with the pacts of 816 and 817 knew of an
oath. Louis promised, but he did not legally bind him-
self, to defend the Roman Church. In my view, Louis
undertook a solemn moral obligation embodied in a promise.
In later centuries this promise was transformed into an
oath and, instead of being freely offered out of imperial
initiative, it became a prerequisite to coronation. It
may be that this whole problem is a prime example of the
dangers of reading history backwards.

How is the pact of "friendship, love and peace"

to be understood? The Ludovicianum indicates that this

 

was to be renewed after the election of each new pope.
Scholars have concluded, rightly it seems, that this
pact was personal and to be renewed on the death of

either party.89 Since the Ludovicianum was first issued

 

in 816, it is possible to see in Paschal's election the

 

87Mansi, Concilia, XVII, 347: "Promissio regum
. . . et sacramenta quae Pippinus et Carolus obtulerunt
beato Petro apostolo." Note that here, as in 816, the
promises and oaths are to Peter whereas in Ordo XIV they
are to the person of the pope.

 

881t is significant that one will search in vain
for any reference to an oath sworn by Lothar in 823.

89Thomas, "Pactum Ludov.," p. 133; Fritze, Papst
und Frankenkanig, p. 17.

 

174

operation of the provisions with which we are here con-

cerned. The Annales Regni Francorum clearly indicate

 

that two legations were sent by Paschal: one to inform
Louis of his election; one to renew the pact which had

90 The Astronomer does

been made with his predecessors.
not distinguish between the legations, but he indicates
that their function was to confirm the friendship which

91 All sources

existed between the papacy and the Franks.

which deal with this particular pact make it clear that

it was distinct from the promise which was just analyzed.

Unfortunately, they do not detail the nature of this pact.
Historians have long been debating the nature

of the personal bond between the Carolingians and the

papacy, a bond which goes back at least to Charles Martel.

This bond is almost always viewed as something distinct

from the bonds created after 754 by the Frankish donations

to the Roman Church. The personal bond has been called

political or legal or moral and the impetus behind it has

been alternatively assigned to the papacy or to the

 

90SSrG, s.a. 817, pp. 145-46, cited supra n. 7.

91Vita Hlud., 27, MGH, §§r II, p. 621.

 

175

92

Franks. One great scholar, apparently despairing of

finding a sure answer, speaks of "formlose Versprechun-
gen."93

There is a way out of the morass. Recently,
Fritze has postulated that the description of the bond
of friendship corresponds to certain particulars of

Franko-Latin legal usage. It points to the creation of

a Schwurfruendschaft in Frankish law, probably in 754,

 

but perhaps later. This was an intensely personal bond
between a Frank and another important person with whom
there existed no other logical basis for a relationship
than "peace, love and friendship." It did not imply an
alliance in the strict sense and it did not create
obligations other than the preservation of "amicitia,
pax et caritas" between the concluding parties.94 The

only weakness in Fritze's theory is that it calls for an

acceptance of the idea that Schwurfruendschaft actually

 

existed in Frankish law. If it did, and Fritze's own

 

92The classic studies are Caspar, "Papsttum,"
pp. 154ff; Haller, Pa sttum, I, pp. 421ff, 451ff;
Schramm, "Das Versprechen Pippins und Karls des Gros-
sen ffir die r6mische Kirche," in his Kaiser, Kénige und

Papste, I, pp. 149-92.

93Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 115..

 

94Papst und Frankenanig, pp. 17-35, 45-62.

 

176

earlier researches make this extremely likely,95 then

there is no reason to doubt that it was extended to papal
relations. Indeed, it explains the pacts concluded
between Louis and Stephen and Paschal better than any
previously offered solution.

Seen in this light, the personal bond between
Louis and the papacy turns out to be the one over which
there existed a legal sanction. It is, however, crucial
to see that this bond was personal between Louis and
Stephen and between Louis and Paschal, and that it had
nothing to do with any arrangements made by Louis as
emperor with popes as representatives of the papacy. In
this latter sphere Louis made political and constitutional
provisions, and he made promises, but he did not legally
bind himself or oblige himself in any inextricable way.
In fact, he bound the papacy to adhere to the law embodied

in his proclamation, the Ludovicianum. Of course,

 

Louis was no less bound by the document. But it was
his creation and he could, and did, make alterations.
The papacy could only comply.

The Ludovicianum was, therefore, a landmark in

 

papal-Frankish relations. It marked the first attempt

by the Carolingians to put their relations with the

 

95"Die frankische Schwurfruendschaft der Mero-
wingerzeit," ZRG, LXXI, ga, LXXI, (1954), pp. 74ff.
Schramm, KaisEET'Kanige fifid Papste, I, pp. 176-79,
expresses some doubts about Fritze's theory.

 

177

papacy on a clearly defined basis. It also saw the
first attempt to integrate the Papal States into the
institutional life of the Carolingian Empire. At the
same time, however, a close reading of the document
provides a glimpse of Louis as a policy maker. In
this respect, Louis appears most favorably. As policy,

the Ludovicianum is clear, concise and coqent. It

 

addressed itself to the great problems of the day and,
given the alternatives which were available in the early
ninth century, it proposed sensible solutions to those
problems. There is no persuasive evidence that the docu-
ment is inauthentic and there is no reason to seek its
origin in Rome. Finally, there is not a single line

in the Ludovicianum which justifies the conclusion that

 

Louis was a weakling.

CHAPTER IV

THE CONSTITUTIO ROMANA

 

About seven years after the issuance of the Ludo-

vicianum, there ensued the next milestone in papal-

 

imperial relations. This was the Constitutio Romana of
824. It seems to me that this document, when viewed

in its proper light, is a coherent extension of policies
which Louis had begun at least as early as 816. Nonethe-

less, the Constitutio contains some minor and some major

 

alterations and adjustments of the measures already taken.
These changes were made necessary by two things. First,
they reflect Louis' increasing awareness of the real
nature of the social and political life of Rome.

Second, the changes were responses to the emergence

of problems that Louis could not have foreseen in 816

and 817. Still, the alterations effected in 824 did

not depart from the spirit and objectives of the £222?

vicianum, and the consistency with which Louis applied

 

himself to the problem of integrating the papacy and the
Papal States into the empire is a real tribute to his

good sense and judgment.

178

179

The Constitutio, however, presents some intriguing

 

problems. Some scholars regard it as the beginning of
a radical departure from previous Frankish practice. The

Ludovicianum, these historians argue, was extremely

 

favorable to the papacy, whereas the Constitutio was

not.1 Even among scholars who do not regard the Ludo-

 

vicianum as a total gain for the papacy there is a ten-

dency to see the Constitutio as the beginning of a new

 

era in papal-imperial relations.2 As we shall see, this
line of thought arises from a failure to study the two
documents in connection with one another. All too often
the pacts have been studied separately--much too
separately--and, while this method certainly and
legitimately leads to the conclusion that they were
very different, it obfuscates all that they had in com-
mon.

Other problems arise as well. Not infrequently

the Constitutio is seen as the work of Lothar or of Wala.

 

Its inspiration has been sought among Lothar's entourage
and among the radical ecclesiastical reformers of the
period. Very seldom is it attributed directly to Louis.

In the pages that follow, considerable attention

 

1Recent and characteristic of this view is Ull-
mann, "Origins of the Ottonianum," p. 117.

2For example, Fritze, Papst und Frankenkanig,

 

p. 17.

180

will be directed to the question of who was responsible

for the Constitutio.

 

Finally, the constitution is much less easy to

analyze in detail than the Ludovicianum because its

 

material is topical in nature, and the topics are
scattered throughout the document. It was, for example,
possible to provide a concise description of the E2927
vicianum but such a description is virtually impossible

for the Constitutio. It can be said that it is shorter

 

than its predecessor, occupying about one and one-half
quarto pages, and that it contains nine paragraphs and
an oath. Then, because legal, institutional and politi-
cal provisions are scattered so randomly throughout the
text--one paragraph often touching on two or three dif-
ferent subjects--it becomes impossible to make any con-
cise descriptive statements. Consequently, the analysis
which follows is topical in nature. The broad tOpics
which the document contains are singled out and analyzed
individually. This is, perhaps, less desirable than a
chapter-by-chapter analysis but the nature of this docu-
ment precludes such an analysis.

Fortunately, there is no need to enter into any

diplomatic or textual arguments concerning the Constitutio

 

Romana. With only one small and insignificant exception,

there is no reason to suspect the authenticity of any

181

part of the constitution.3 This exception is the oath
at the end of the document and, since it will be dis-
cussed in some detail later, it suffices for now to say
that it is perfectly genuine. From the diplomatic point

of view it is enough to note that the Constitutio forms

 

the model for the whole of the second half of the SEES-
nianum.4 It is interesting to observe that Louis' two
pacts with the Roman Church served as the foundation
upon which were built the more famous imperial privileges
of later centuries.

Before the constitution itself can be analyzed as
a coherent extension of policies begun in 816, and as a
document that involves adjustments rooted in the course
of events after 816, it is crucial to clarify two matters.
First, the basic Roman institutions and their interrela-
tionships must be described in order to gain a firm com-
prehension of the position of the papacy in early ninth
century Rome. When these institutions are understood in
their proper perspective, it will be easier to see why
the measures Louis adopted in 816 were only partially
adequate. Another way of saying this is that it is now

necessary to analyze the consequences of the fact that,

 

3For its MSS tradition see Boretius' comments,
MGH, Cap., I, no. 161, p. 322.

4MGH, Dip. Ott., I, no. 235, pp. 324-27, esp.
pp. 326-27.

 

182

since 754 at least, the Franks admitted that the pope was
lord--if I were writing German I would have said "Landes-
herr"--of the Papal States. Second, a series of par-
ticular historical events which led up to the consti-
tution must be examined. Individually and collectively
these events were decisive in instilling in the Franks

a deeper awareness of the peculiarities of the Roman
situation, and of the inadequacy of their earlier attempts
to deal with it. Unhappily, this second preparatory
study must suffer from a documentation which is appre-
ciably less ample than we would like. But, several
general trends can be discerned which, in the past, have
not been sufficiently recognized as precursors to the

Constitutio.

 

The student of Roman institutions is fortunate
to have had his path cleared by some of the most able
medievalists of this and of the last century. Therefore
I have been content, in what follows, to summarize their
findings, while emphasizing certain key points. In the
main I have relied on Duchesne's book on the Papal States,
a learned work grounded on the years of research he

invested in his monumental edition of the Liber Pontifi-

 

calis, and on Hartmann's history of early medieval Italy.
The latter work is dated in places, but remains funda-
mental. Louis Halphen's study of Roman institutions

contains much of value, as does Hirschfeld's study of

183

the Roman courts. Peter Partner's new book on the Papal
States is a bit jejune but contains some fresh ideas.
Here and there other scholars are vouched to warranty,
but, for the greater part of what follows, the historians
just noted have been my principal guides.

The Duchy of Rome, that old Roman and Byzantine
conscription inside of which were situated most of the
lands which we now lump together and call the Papal
States, had undergone considerable internal reorgani-
zation after the Byzantine reconquest of Italy in the
sixth century. The characteristically bureaucratic
forms, which were ubiquitous in the Byzantine Empire,
were to a great extent set aside in favor of military
rule rooted in the land. Apart from high officials,
such as the Exarch of Ravenna, the Duke of Rome, Urban
Prefect and the civil judges, the whole area was organized
under soldiers to whom landed estates had been granted.
This system was not unlike the later feudal institutions
in many respects. The greatest among these soldiers were
entrusted with castles, a virtual ring of which had long
since been built around Rome to protect it from bar-
barians. A small number of regular Byzantine high
officials and a hierarchically structured military
organization, then, were the basic characteristics of

the constitutional and political structure of Italy on

184

the eve of Arichis' conquest of the exarchate in 751,
at which time, of course, the whole system came crashing
down.5

The papacy, probably since the fourth century but
certainly since the time of Gregory I (590-604), had
been building a bureaucracy of its own. This bureaucracy,
however, should not be seen as a deliberate attempt to
thwart the Byzantines or to set up a rival government.
Rather, it was a well-conceived and tightly organized
structure whose purpose was to facilitate the efficient
administration of papal lands, charitable services in
Rome ranging from the food supply to hospitals, and care
of regular ecclesiastical services throughout Rome and
its environs.

The papal bureaucracy consisted in part of twenty-
five cardinal priests, all of whom were in the eighth
century associated with a particular Roman church. They
had charge of the revenues of these churches and con-
ducted services in them. They formed a council around
the pope, but it may be doubted whether their advisory
functions were very important in great affairs. In
addition to them there were seven deacons, each one of
whom stood at the head of one of the ancient ecclesiasti-
cal regions of the city. Their chief, the archdeacon,

was the head of the ecclesiastical personnel as a whole.

 

5Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II.1, passim.

 

185

Under these seven deacons were two further groups of
seven deacons. One group had subordinate administrative
duties in a region and the other group had duties around
the pope. The deacons' principal charges were adminis-
tration of papal lands and supervision of charitable
services. The deacons all resided at the Lateran which
was the real nerve center of the papal government.

The papal palace at the Lateran was presided

over by an official called the vicedominus. Around him

 

were other officials such as the superista, cubicularii,

 

stratores, nomenclator and vestiarius. The duties of

 

 

some of these officials are well known, while for
others there is available only the scantiest information,
if any at all.

The papal Chancery was also located at the

Lateran. Its employees were called notarii or scrinarii.

 

Within the Chancery there was a special group of offi-
cials, the seven regional notaries. The first two of

these, the primicerius and secundicerius, were among the

 

 

great officers of the Church, and their duties extended
far beyond the confines of the Chancery. The biblio-

thecarius, or papal archivist, began to separate from

 

the Chancery and head a distinct office in the ninth
century.
Finally, the Lateran contained the financial

offices. These were headed by the arcarius and

186

saccellarius. To the financial office were attached

 

defensores, who had relationships with the tribunals,

 

doubtless in cases touching the papal revenues. They
may also have had the duty of executing sentences passed
by the ecclesiastical courts. Again, there was a hier-

archy, with the pgimicerius defensorum being among the
6

 

great officers of the Church.
The last element within the papal bureaucracy
which requires special mention is the judicature. The
regular exercise of legal jurisdiction in Rome was per-
formed by the public officials and by the officers of the
papacy. Naturally, the principal business that ought
to have fallen to the papal courts touched on the eccle-
siastical jurisdiction of the papacy. But, because the
Church held that clerics could only be tried by clerics,
there was a very considerable blurring of the lines of
demarcation between the ecclesiastical and public
jurisdictions. The problem was further compounded by
the fact that so much of the business of the papal
bureaucracy was essentially public in nature.
The highest papal judges were the seven palatine
or ordinary judges. Usually they are called iudices

ordinarii in the sources. It appears that their prin-

 

cipal work consisted of sitting with other judges,

 

6For the above see Duchesne, L'état pontifical,
pp. 98-102.

 

187

but they could preside over the tribunals. These judges
were not confined to judicial responsibilities since
they were also great officers of the central government
of the papacy. The body of ordinary judges took shape
from the fourth century to the ninth and consisted of

the following officials: the primicerius and secundi-

 

cerius of the notaries, the arcarius, the primicerius

 

defensorum, the nomenclator, the saccellarius, and the

 

 

 

protoscrinarius, who was the last to be added. It is

 

not known whether these judges had competence solely
or mainly in cases touching upon their fields of admin-
istrative specialization. Next to these judges was a

body, of unknown number, called iudices dativi, who may

 

originally have been appointed 3g Egg but who later appear
as regular magistrates. It seems that they could not
render decisions by themselves and, in distinction to
ordinary judges, they could be laymen. Finally, it

should be noted that these were not the only judicial
officers or, at any rate, they were not the only officials
who could be employed as judges. In 772 Hadrian used

his vestiarius as a judge.7

 

This complex and efficient system was in full
operation at the time of the collapse of the Byzantine

administration in Italy. It may well be assumed that

 

7Hirschfeld, "Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom,"
pp. 444-45, 467-70; Halphen, L'administration de Rome,
pp. 37’ 42-51.

 

188

so long as the Byzantine government was capable of
exerting steady and watchful influence, the papal govern-
ment was confined to its proper sphere. Likewise, while
the Greeks controlled papal elections, the central figure
in this highly centralized system could not act too
independently. In fact, the more tightly the pope was
controlled, the more likely it was that his government
was used by the Greeks to complement their own.

This all changed after 751. The papal bureaucracy
was left intact while its counterpart virtually disap-
peared. Moreover, the landed nobility, which had been
the keystone of the Byzantine reorganization of Italy,
was left in a highly disorganized state over against the
massive and efficient papal machinery. It may be noted,
parenthetically, that the highest Byzantine civil magis-
trate in Rome, the urban prefect, remained in existence
but he became a papal appointee and his role declined
so much in significance that he is unmentioned in the
sources for more than 200 years.8

The papacy could call on great reserves of
prestige because of its leadership of the Church and,
during several centuries, this prestige had been trans-

lated into various kinds of political power. Also, the

 

8Some doubt his continued existence, but the
arguments of Halphen, L'administration de Rome, pp. 16-18
and Hirschfeld, "Gerichtswesen,"p. 473, in favor of it
are persuasive.

 

189

fact that the papacy was responsible for feeding much

of the population of the city and because Peter's suc-
cessors ministered to many of the human needs of the
Roman pOpulace, a large and natural following was
available to the pope. Added to this was the power that
accrued to the papacy from its proprietary rights over

a significant portion of the lands of central Italy. It
is obvious the papacy was an institution of no little
power and influence. We have seen that the Franks first
interacted seriously with popes who were generally recog-

nized as Landesherrn of the old Duchy of Rome. This is

 

important, but it is even more important to realize that
the papacy was, after 751, the institutional center of
this area as well. Administrative and judicial business
passed almost entirely into the hands of the papacy and
its bureaucracy.

The status of the military nobility is closely
related to the new ordering of Roman affairs. These
noblemen held estates, often of very great size, and
sometimes castles, around Rome. They formed the leader-
ship and much of the ranks of the Roman militia. They
thus possessed considerable military and economic power,
and their importance to the Byzantine government had

given them great political power.9 In addition, they

 

9Some good words on this subject may be found in
Heldmann, Kaisertum Karls, pp. l31ff.

 

190

had a voice, and probably a very important one, in papal
elections until the election decree of 769.

This decree, coming as it did after the collapse
of the Byzantine government in Italy, was a cause of
considerable consternation to the nobility. It forbade
any participation in papal elections by laymen. The
decree also gave clear expression to the position which
the papacy was claiming for itself in Rome. It required
all citizens to regard the p0pe as their common master.10
It was grievous enough to the nobility that it had lost
much of its standing in the constitutional structure of
Rome, but in 769 it was threatened with a complete loss
of political power. At very least, the nobles were
deprived of any voice in the choosing of their immediate
overlord.

As if this were not serious enough, the papacy
initiated a new land policy at least as early as the
pontificate of Zachary (741-752). Estates of up to

twenty miles in breadth, called domuscultae, were set

 

up in the countryside around Rome and exploited directly
by the papacy itself. The inhabitants of these estates,
peasants mostly, were papal employees and they could be

armed, whereas the ecclesiastical bureaucrats could not

 

10MGH, Conc., II.l, no. 14, p. 86: "Optimates
militiae vel cunctus exercitus . . . ad salutandum eum
sicut omnium dominum properare debent."

 

191

be. This system certainly provided the papacy with a
counterbalance to the military power of the nobility
in the countryside.11

Seen from the point of view of the nobility,

however, the domuscultae raised more serious concerns.

 

Influential laymen had long held in their hands, usually
by means of an emphyteusis contract, large tracts of
papal lands. With the passage of time much of this land
had been lost to the papacy. Byzantine and Lombard con-
fiscations had also caused a good deal of papal land to
pass into the hands of the nobility. Naturally enough,
the nobles did not want to lose this land and, at the
same time, they must have looked with suspicion towards
a future which held out the prospect of no more papal
lands for them. For this was precisely the thrust of
papal policy. The papacy could only hOpe for the
restoration of a limited number of its confiscated
estates, and experience had taught the popes that super-
vision of lands which were in the hands of others was
both troublesome and unprofitable. Therefore, the papacy
decided to get directly into the business of exploiting
its own lands. To this must be added the fact that many

of the domuscultae were, apparently, new colonizations.

 

The nobility can hardly have been happy with this

 

11On the domuscultae see Partner, Lands of St.
Peter, pp. 45-46; Duchesne, L'état pontifical, pp. 105-06;
Hartmann, Sgschichte Italiens, 11.2, p. 297.

 

 

 

192

reduction in the pool of available land. Land was
wealth in early ninth century Italy, as elsewhere, and
it is not surprising that the new papal land policies
became a source of much contention.12
In studying Roman affairs, then, one does well
to heed the words of Heldmann who wrote that it is a
grave error to see the papacy, the Byzantines and the

13 Indeed, the

Franks as the only actors in the drama.
Roman scene itself was very complicated.

)Let us note just a few more factors which con-
tributed to that complication. The Romans themselves
had a number of very legitimate and historically important
concerns. Likewise, it would be wrong to view internal
Roman affairs as a constant battle between two implacable
adversaries, the clerical bureaucracy and the military
nobility. Most of the popes of this period came from the

14

nobility and cannot, therefore, have been completely

out of tune with its wants and needs. Likewise, the

 

12The papal transition to "Grundherrschaft" in
its lands is the subject of a lucid article by Hartmann,
"Grundherrschaft und Bureaukratie im Kirchenstaat vom 8
bis zum 10 Jahrhundert," Vierteljahrschrift ffir Social-
und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, VII, (1909), pp. 142-58.

 

 

13Kaisertum Karls, p. 366.

 

14This can be concluded from the first paragraph
of nearly every papal vita in the Liber Pontificalis from
the time of Stephen II (752-757). Leo III was a notable
exception.

 

193

papal bureaucracy had a constant and crying need for an
ample supply of able men. There existed two schools for
the recruitment of Roman clergy, that is, potential
bureaucrats. Children of nonnobles entered the schola
cantorum and sons of nobles entered among the 2223-

cularii.15 So many nobles entered the clergy that,

 

according to Duchesne, it is only until mid-way in the
pontificate of Hadrian I (772-795) that it is possible
to speak of a confrontation of the clerical and military

orders.16 After that time it is more prOper to speak of

factional strife within the bureaucracy itself.17 In
my opinion, this factional strife does explain most
litigous circumstances that arose, but the nobility, it
seems to me, would have objected pp 2123 to the land
policy of the papacy after Zachary, because this struck
at the very source of their wealth and position.

I already noted that during the years from 800
to 816 the Franks had not intervened in any decisive way

in the internal life of Rome. This is no less true for

the years before 800, the years during which the forms

 

15Duchesne, L'état pontifical, pp. 103-04.

 

161616., pp. llOff.

l7Partner, Lands of St. Peter, pp. 25-26; cf.
Haller, Papsttum, I, p. 442 and Classen, "Karl der
Grosse, Papsttum und Byzanz," p. 544.

 

 

194

just described took shape. Charles went to Rome several
times and dealt there with various problems. However,
he did not integrate Rome into the Italian kingdom. It
is safest to say that Charles' interventions before 800
were not undertaken in respect of any legal rights which
he possessed, but because he was the ally of the pope.18
He did not, we should note, erect Frankish institutions
in Rome, and he did nothing to alter the institutions of
the city.19
Did Charles have any rights in Rome? There are

at least two ways of looking at this. Schramm has argued

that, from at least 772, the papacy had begun to confer

upon Charles the prerogative rights of the Byzantine

 

18Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, 11.2, p. 342.

 

19The Libellus de imperia potestate in urbe Roma,
MGH, SS, III, p. 720, an Italian work written in the last
HEEadE_of the ninth century according to Congar, Ecclési-
ologie, p. 70 n. 50, contains a number of anachronistic
errors, one of which says that Charles placed the first
permanent missus in Rome. The Libellus is often quite
accurate, however, as when it says, p. 721, "Si enim
aliquis iram incurrebat imperatoris . . . et licitum esset
caesari venire Romam, veniebat; sin autem, mittebatur dux
Spoletinus." This must refer to the years after 800
since caesari is used. The reference to a duke must be
to Winigis. This means that the reference could even be
to the reign of Louis. Still, this appears to be an
accurate reflection of Charles' activities before 800 as
well. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, III, pp. 10-
11, made the mistake of assuming that Chafles did keep
officials in Rome, though he correctly assesses the role
of Winigis. Duchesne, L'état pontifical, p. 164 is more
accurate. He says that Chaers claimed some right of
inspection. This is not entirely accurate, however,
because Charles did not have this as a right until after
800.

 

 

 

195

emperors. These would have included such things as
dating by his years, coining in his effigy, depicting
him in Roman churches, and the like. According to this
view Charles was, by about 796, "quasi-emperor" and
therefore his coronation in 800 should be viewed as a
"recognition" ("Anerkennung") of his imperial dignity.20
It almost seems superfluous to point out that a quasi-
emperor is no emperor at all and has no imperial rights.
However, Schramm's thesis has been confronted from
another direction by Josef Deer who has proved that the
actions of Hadrian and Leo III were taken solely to the
advantage of the papacy. They did not give away, and
had no intention of giving away, any rights in Rome.21
Even if Charles had no imperial rights there are

those who argue that he had specific rights because he

held the title Patricius Romanorum.22 This is simply

 

not true. Ganshof has shown that it was the only title

by which Charles could exercise any authority in

 

20"Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als Kaiser,
in his Kaiser, Konige und Papste, I, pp. 215-63.

 

2J'"Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom, 772-800,"
Schweizer Beitrage zur allgemeinen Geschichte, XV,
(1957), pp. 5-63, esp. 61-62.

22For example, Haller, Papsttum, II, p. 24, who
says that this made Charles lord in Rome.

 

196

Rome23 but that it certainly did not give him any

decisive judicial or administrative rights there.24
The pope could only confer this title in the name of the
emperor25 and even if Hadrian had it in mind to create

an office like the exarch,26 it must be pointed out that

Charles did not take up the rights of the exarch.

Finally, it should be observed that Patricius was only

 

an honorary title in Byzantium and not an office or

magistracy.27 Its bearer had no rights simply because

he was a patrician.

 

23"Notes sur les origines byzantines du titre
'Patricius Romanorum,'" Mélanges Henri Gregoire, Annuaire
de l'institut depphilologie et d'histoire orientales et
slaves, X, (1950), p. 263.

 

 

24Cf. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, III,
p. 85; Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 113
n. 1;Heldmann, Kaisertum Karls, p. 345; Sickel, "Kir-
chenstaat und Karolinger,T p. 405.

 

 

 

25Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II.2, p. 187.
Although the Constitutum Constantini, c. 15, ed. Ffihrmann,
p. 89, claimedfthis rigHt for the papacy it is difficult
to attribute much significance to this because the for-
gery itself cannot be taken as a statement of fact, and
because it cannot be said for sure when the forgery was
produced.

 

 

26Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 119.

 

27Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II.2, p. 188.
Ganshof, "Patricius Romanorum:1F p. 265, makes a point that
has been overlooked by most scholars. In the Byzantine
Empire public offices were conferred by a decree offal
0fa Aoyéu whereas the patriciate was conferred by a letter
agfai Gfa BpaBefouv which was not unlike the letters
patent that English kings used to confer honors.

 

197

The Frankish king became emperor in 800 and this
most certainly conferred upon him rights in Rome. Not
until 816, however, did the Franks begin to spell out
.their rights. As we have already seen, Louis, in issuing

the Ludovicianum, took some measures which were designed

 

to mitigate the volatile situation in Rome. He expanded
the franchise in papal elections which, at least, gave
the nobility some way in choosing its master. He also
agreed to receive some kinds of fugitives and to examine
the reasons for their flight. Certainly this gave him

a means of exercising some influence in Roman politics.
But, as we shall see, these measures were inadequate.
They did not come to grips with the fact that the papacy
and some dominant faction had a virtual stranglehold on
the institutional structure at Rome. Little by little
Louis realized the kinds of oppression that resulted
from this and so, in 824, he took steps to regulate the
situation.

However, the Franks had been reluctant to inter-
vene in internal Roman affairs during their previous
dealings with the Romans and this prevented them from
learning very much about the situation in Rome. They
had dealt, at least prior to 816, with specific problems
on an §§_§gg basis and it is difficult to discern
anything very consistent or deliberate in their actions.

Consequently Louis' first attempt to define his rights

198

proved lacking. Actually, it may be more accurate to

say that in 816 Louis defined his own rights in Rome
rather clearly but failed to give sufficient precision

to the rights of the Romans. While this is more accurate,
it is still not a complete answer, because in 824 Louis
spelled out his own rights even more clearly than he had
before. A series of events gave Louis a deeper under-
standing of the Roman situation than he had possessed in

816-17, and his response was the Constitutio Romana.

 

We must now turn to those events.
There are five crucial events which led to the

issuance of the Constitutio Romana. These must be

 

studied in order to place the document into its prOper
perspective. In each of the five events which will now
be described we can see the Franks, and Louis in par-
ticular, gaining precise insights into the nature of

Roman affairs. As we shall see, when the Constitutio

 

Romana is judged against the background formed by these
events, it takes on the character of a response to them.
The first case was alluded to in the previous
chapter where the litigation between Paschal and the
monastery of St. Maria of Farfa in 823 in which Lothar
passed judgment against Paschal was described. My con-
cern then was to show that the Franks did, indeed, act

upon the provisions of the Ludovicianum. In the context

 

of the present chapter, it should be said that it must

199

have taught Louis something about the territorial
aspirations of the papacy. The facts of the case have
been presented already and so it is only necessary at
this time to summarize them and to indicate what Louis
learned. Paschal raised a claim that rents from some
of Farfa's estates belonged, in fact, to the papacy.
Lothar finally presided over the case and discovered
Paschal's claim to be so false that he immediately
rendered judgment in favor of Farfa. Never before had
Louis seen the papacy raise such a claim, and the very
fact that Paschal raised it must have shown Louis that
papal territorial ambitions were not only not dead, but
also not sufficiently checked in 816.

The second problem concerns the travails of Pope
Leo III in 815. Of course, Leo's pontificate had been
disturbed in a more famous uprising against him in 799.28
Leo was attacked by a mob in Rome and almost murdered.
This event, which was so important as a prelude to the
coronation of Charles, is of concern to us at this time
only in so far as it shows that violence in Rome was not
uncommon before Louis' reign. In 815, probably in the

spring,29 Leo discovered that certain noblemen were

 

28For the basic details it suffices to refer to
Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 799, p. 107.

29The chronology is difficult to establish.
Astron., Vita Hlud., 25, MGH, SS, II, p. 619 says "hoc
anno cursum vertente, perIat tum est imperatori . . .

 

200

30 We do not know how he dis-

conspiring against him.
covered the conspiracy but his response is known. He
rounded up the leaders and had them executed in a field
near the Lateran.31 News of all this reached Louis, who
was then in Saxony, and he diSpatched his nephew, King
Bernard of Italy, to investigate. Bernard was asked to

32 Bernard

report back to Louis through a Count Gerold.
and Gerold went to Rome and looked into the matter but,
unfortunately, the sources fail us at this point. They

say only that Bernard fell ill in Rome, and that he did

 

which, perhaps, suggests early in the year. But, Ann.
Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 142, says that Loni?—
Haard aBout the conspiracy at about the time of the
assembly at Paderborn. BM, no. 587b, dates this assembly
July 1, 815. Allowing a few weeks for news to travel
from Rome places this conSpiracy in May or, possibly,
late April.

30The sources lay considerable emphasis on the
fact that nobles were involved. Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG,
s.a. 815, p. 142: "quosdam de primari us Romanorum ;
Ann. Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 20: "quidam primores";
AEEron., Vita Hlud., 25, MGH, SS, II, p. 619: "Romanorum
aliqui potentes";" Ann. SiEfil'en'sEs, MGH, ss, XIII, p. 37:
"Quidam primores."—-Examp1es could Be muIEiplied.

 

31Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 142. Bene-
dict, ChrofiiEon, 4, MGH, SS, III, p. 711, adds the detail
"in campo LateranensiETV’ THis same source says 300 were
killed. BM, no. 587a and Simson, SS Ludwig, I, p. 61
n. 5, thifik this excessive.

 

32The fullest accounts are Ann. Reg. Franc.,
SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 142 and Astron., Vita Hlud., 2 , MGH,

SS, II, p. 619. SS, no. 589a says that Gero1d was count
5? the east march, so, an important person.

 

201

33 Probably all

report back to Louis through Gerold.
he discovered was that there had been, in fact, a con-
Spiracy and that the leaders had been put to death.

Did Leo exceed his rights? There is a very
interesting passage in the Astronomer's account of this
affair. He says that Leo captured the conspirators
and sentenced them to death "by the law of the Romans."34
We do know that Count Gerold was hotly pursued back to
Louis by three papal legates, BishOp John of Silva-
Candida, the Nomenclator Theodore and Duke Sergius,
in order that these men "might make satisfaction to the
emperor concerning all that had befallen their lord."35
The sources do not tell us what Louis told this legation
or, indeed, if he told it anything.

It is very likely that Louis learned something
from all of this. First, he would have learned that a
capital sentence in Roman law had been rendered at Rome.

This, in one sense, need not have surprised him, for

Roman law was the only law in force at Rome. But, what

 

33Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 142: "Is
cum Romam venisset, aegritudine decubuit, res tamen, quas
compererat, per Geroldum comitem . . . imperatori mandavit."

 

 

34Vita Hlud., 25, MGH, pg, II, p. 619.

 

35522, Egg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, pp. 142-43.
One should not be misled by the presence of "Dux Sergius"
in this legation. Duces were papally appointed officials
who were responsible for getting persons to appear before
the tribunals and who sometimes presided over the courts.
Cf. Halphen, L'administration de Rome, pp. 34-35.

 

 

202

manner of crime had been committed? If we take note of
the position of the pope in Rome as described earlier
and if we note that the papal legation spoke to Louis
of the conspiracy against their "lord," then it seems

likely that the crime was lése-majesté. Now, this is a

 

crime against a sovereign and Louis had not been attacked,
at least not directly. Louis learned for the first time
Of the dangers implicit in the very unclear situation at
Rome. The papacy had never, so far as is known, denied
Carolingian sovereignty over Rome after 800. But, the
Carolingians had never attempted to define the precise
nature of their sovereignty. Since the position of the
papacy in Rome was virtually that of a sovereign and
since Leo's actions in 815 were very much those Of a
sovereign, something had to be done by way of definition.
In other words, Louis discovered that he had to make it
clear that he was sovereign in Rome. As we have already
seen, Louis took some steps in just that direction in
816. We shall also see that in 824 he was compelled to
go further.

Meanwhile, the unhappy Leo was not yet rid of
his troubles. Later in the year, the precise date can-
not be determined, Leo fell ill and the Romans seized
upon this Opportunity to ravage certain newly established

papal estates in Campania. These estates were the

203

36

domuscultae which were described above. Bernard got

 

wind of this sedition and took two steps. He sent
Winigis of Spoleto to stOp the plundering and he sent
news to Louis.37 Apparently, Louis took no immediate
action, at least we do not hear Of any. In June of the
following year Leo died and Stephen IV was elected in

his place.38

We have already seen that Stephen set

out from Rome to meet Louis almost immediately after

his election. In all probability, the flames of sedition
were still very much alive at Rome.

Several things about Stephen's journey to Reims
have already been noted.39 First, he was a nobleman.
Second, he sought release of those persons held in
Francia for their part in the attacks on Leo. Third,

he sought to satisfy the emperor about his election.

Finally, he wished to discuss a number of things which

 

36Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 143:
"Romani cum Leonem papam aegritudine decubuisse viderent,
collecta manu omnia praedia, quae idem pontifex in singu-
larum civitatum territoriis noviter construxit, primo
diripiunt, deinde inmisso igne cremant"; Astron., Vita
Hlud., 25, MGH, SS, II, p. 620 adds, "domocultas appel-
lant." For_§3me_?eason Haller, Papsttum, II, p. 25,
calls this a peasant's revolt.

 

 

37Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 815, p. 143.

 

 

38pg, no. 616a.

398upra, pp. 53ff.

204

were Of some importance to the Church. His meeting with

Louis resulted in the coronation and in the Ludovicianum.

 

Stephen must have told Louis that he himself
represented and had been elected by those interests
which had so long and so violently Opposed Leo III.

This may have been one of the things in his election
about which he wanted to satisfy Louis. The emperor,
naively as it turned out, seems to have believed that
the noble party had returned to the fore in Rome and

so he did not cut incisively into the institutional or
political structure of the city in 816. The smooth and
orderly election of Paschal in 817 must have confirmed
Louis' impressions. Leo III must have looked, or he may
have been made to look, like an intruder in an otherwise
orderly succession of noble popes. Consequently, Louis
satisfied himself with a firm assertion of imperial
rights in 816 and 817. At the same time, Louis defined
the possessions of the papacy. This was, no doubt, an
attempt to put an end to papal requests that the Caro-
lingians should restore various papal lands. However,

given the recent attacks on the domuscultae, the measure

 

was most certainly directed equally against the Romans.
Finally, Louis set himself up as final arbiter of such
difficulties as might arise in Rome.

If we look only at what Louis had learned about

Roman affairs down to 816/17, then his response, embodied

205

in the Ludovicianum, appears to be a major step forward.

 

A very considerable degree of clarity had been given to
papal-imperial relations and to imperial rights in Rome,
and it must have seemed as though the most pressing
political issues at Rome had been resolved. However,
Louis had seen only some symptoms of the diseases which
were then afflicting the Roman body politic. The years
ahead showed him several more.

The third event which must be seen as a prelude

to the Constitutio Romana was the sending of Lothar to

 

Italy in 822. Since the death of King Bernard in 818
Italian affairs had been ruled by means Of missi. Roman
affairs, we may assume, were being governed by the pro-

visions of the Ludovicianum. As the third decade of

 

the ninth century began, it may have appeared to Louis
that Italian affairs required attention. In September of
822, Louis sent Lothar to Italy along with Wala and a
palace official, Gerung.4O

This fact hangs together with several others
from the years 821 and 822. In 821 Louis resolved on
a general reconciliation with all of those who had suf-
fered anything at his hands since 814, and particularly

with those who had been implicated in the revolt of

 

40Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 822, p. 159. For
the date see SM, no. 762a.

 

206

41 It is particularly important to note

Bernard of Italy.
that Adalhard returned from exile and that Wala returned
to court.42 These two men had a greater knowledge of
Italian affairs than any other Frank. Wala had been

sent to Italy in 812 as adviser to the young and inexper-
ienced Bernard and Adalhard had also served there in an
advisory capacity. More importantly, however, Adalhard
had spent some time in Rome and was an intimate of Leo

III.43

It cannot be mere coincidence that shortly before
he sent Lothar to Italy Louis recalled the two men who
knew the most about the peninsula.

Adalhard apparently wanted no part Of the busy
public life he had led under Charles, and he spent the
years until his death in 826 on monastic concerns at
Corbie, where he was abbot. When Adalhard did return

to the palace in 821, he was, it seems, interrogated

on his feelings towards Louis and he answered that all

 

41For sources see SE, no. 740d.

42It cannot be said for certain that Wala was
banished, though he was certainly out of favor. Cf.
Weinrich, Wala, p. 32. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens,
III.1, p. 108, believes that Adalhard was responsible
for Wala's return. This is likely.

 

43Pasc. Rad., Vita Adalhardi, 16, 17, PL, CXX,
1571A-D; Trans. S. Viti, 5, MGH, SS, II, p. 578: Cf.
I Placiti, ed. Manarese, nos. 21,-26, 28.

 

 

207

was well.44 Nevertheless, he retired to his monastery.
Now, Wala's biographer says that Wala became "quasi
fidissimus" and it is not impossible that Adalhard had
a hand in getting him restored to favor.45 In any case,
in 824 Wala was sent to Italy as adviser to the young,

inexperienced Lothar.46

This is precisely the role he

had played earlier with Bernard, and since only eight

or nine months separated Adalhard's and Wala's restoration
from Louis' decision to send Lothar to Italy, there may

well be a connection.47

It might be wrong to assume that
Louis recalled Adalhard and Wala solely to gain advice
on Italy. But it is very likely that he did and that
they advised him of the necessity of introducing a direct
Frankish ruling presence in Italy. Furthermore, it is

almost a certainty that Adalhard suggested to Louis

that Wala should accompany Lothar.

 

44pasc. Rad., Vita Adalhardi, 48, pp, cxx, 1534A.

 

45Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.26, PL, CXX, 16010.
The author was so hostile to Louis that His use Of ”quasi
fidissimus" may be sarcastic. Wala was, to all appear-
ances, quite important. Agobard sought his intercession
with Louis: Agobard, 2p. no. 4, MES, Epp., V, p. 164.

 

46pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.25, pp, cxx, 1600,
says Wala was "pedagogus . . . augusti caesaris.” Cf.
Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 822, p. 159: "Walahum . . .
et Gerungum . . . , quorum consilio in re familiari et
in negotiis ad regni commoda pertinentibus uteretur."

 

 

 

47Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 396,
assumes this connection.

 

208

Lothar left for Italy in September of 822 and
he returned to Francia by mid-June of 823.48 While in
Italy, he issued some legislation and handled, it seems,
a good deal of litigation.49 Of course, he also ruled
in the dispute between Paschal and Farfa, and he was
crowned emperor. His commission in Italy cannot have
been a very broad one judging from his actions there.50
The Astronomer tells us that Lothar was planning to
return to his father to inform him about the things he
had accomplished and the things he had left undone when
he was invited to Rome.51 Perhaps Lothar had only been
sent to Italy to take account of the situation there.

52

Wala, however, remained in Italy and, when he finally

returned in 824, the abbot of St. Denis, Hilduin, one of

 

48SM, nos. 762a, 773a.

49The best accounts of Lothar's activities in
Italy during these months are Eiten, Unteranigtum, pp. 73-
79 and Weinrich, Wala, pp. 47-48. Someiinteresting anec-
dotes are preserved in Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.26, pp,
CXX, 1601B-l602B.

 

 

SOMOhr, Karol. Reichsidee, p. 85, believes that
Lothar did not really become consort until 825.

 

51Vita Hlud., 35, MGH, pg, II, p. 627: ”et qui-
busdam perfectis, quibusdam adhuc infectis, de singulis
respondere et ad patrem de reditu cogitaret."

 

52Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.28, SE, CXX, 164OD,
indicates clearly that Wala did not return until after
the election Of Eugenius II in 824.

 

209

Louis' most trusted advisers, was sent south.53 By

that time, though, Lothar had himself been sent back to
Italy.

The years from 821 to 823 seem to have taught
Louis not only that an imperial presence was required
in Italy, but also that the presence of one or more of
his trusted advisers was needed as well. This was not

called for in the Ludovicianum, but it was spelled

 

out in great detail in the Constitutio Romana. Why,

 

if Lothar himself had been given only a limited mandate
in 822, did the change take place? We have seen that
Lothar returned to his father without having solved all
of the problems which existed in Italy. The gravity of
that unfinished business was brought home to Louis by
certain events which occurred shortly after Lothar had
departed from Italy.
Sometime between June 28 and July 27, 82354

Louis received news that Theodore and Leo, respectively

the primicerius and nomenclator Of the Roman Church, had

 

 

 

53Ex Adrevaldi Flor. Mir. S. Benedicti, 28, MGH,
ss, xv.1, p. 492, states that Loui§ sent Hilduin to fiaae.
53110, Trans. S. Sebastiani, 2, MGH, SS, XV.1, p. 380,
adds some details. Its editor, H51de§:Egger, does not
believe that Hilduin could have been in Italy because
diplomas were issued to him in 824 and 825 at Compiegne,
Aachen and an undetermined place. Cf. SM, nos. 789, 791,
796. Weinrich, Wala, p. 50 nn. 49-51 removes these dif-
ficulties (with further literature).

 

 

 

54SM, no. 778a.

210

been blinded, and then beheaded, in Rome.55 Apparently
at least two other persons had suffered a like fate.56
This sorry affair was the fourth prelude to the Consti-
pppig. These men were destroyed for loyalty which they
had shown to Lothar and some in Rome felt that the murders
were committed with the knowledge and perhaps on the

order of Paschal.S7 Louis immediately decided to send
Eififii to Rome to investigate the affair and he chose
Adalung of St. Vaast and Count Hunfrid Of Chur. Before
they had even set out, however, papal envoys, Bishop

John of Silva-Candida and the archdeacon Benedict,
appeared before Louis and asked him to lend no credence

to the report that Paschal had been involved in the

murders. Louis quickly sent them away "with an appro-

priate response" ("cum congruo responso remissis," "iuxta

 

55Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 161.

56Considerations were made on behalf of the
widows and orphans of a Floronis and a Sergius in the
Constitutio. Theodore is also mentioned, but not Leo,
suggesting that he was not married. Cf. Appendix, D, c. l.

 

57Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 161: "et
hoc eis ob_hac Eafitigisse, quod se in omnibus fideliter
erga partes Hlotharii iuvenis imperatoris agerunt; erant
et, qui dicerent, vel iussu vel consilio Paschalis pontif-
icis rem fuisse perpetratam." Astron., Vita Hlud., 37,
MGH, SS, II, p. 627, suggests that PaschaI'consented to
Eh‘é meders. Thegan, Vita Hlud., 30, MGH, 83, II, p. 597,
speaks of "quandam insOIentiam quam Romafius_EOpulus super
Romanum pontificem Paschalem dixit" and continues
"imputantes ei . . . "

 

 

211

quod ratio postulabit") and directed his own missi to
proceed to Rome and discover the truth of the matter.58

Upon reaching Rome, Louis' migpi_were unable to
pursue their investigation because Paschal and a number
of other Roman clerics had purged themselves by oath

59 Again Paschal dispatched envoys,

of any wrongdoing.
this time four: John of Silva-Candida, Sergius the

Bibliothecarius, Quirinus a subdeacon, and Leo the

 

Magister Militum. They bore an insolent response.

 

Paschal said that he had had nothing to do with the
murders but that he had no intention of delivering up

the murderers because they belonged to the "familia S.
Sgppi," that is, the clergy of the Roman Church. More-
over, Paschal said, they had gotten what they deserved.
Finally, the envoys, speaking Of course for Paschal, said
that the dead had been guilty of a breach of majesty and

had been condemned by law.60

 

58Astron., Vita Hlud., 37, MGH, pg, II, pp. 627-
28. His words "investigaturos de dEBiis veritatem"
suggest that Louis was not entirely satisfied with the
information proffered by the papal legates. Cf. SSS.
Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, pp. 161-62.

 

 

59Astron., Vita Hlud., 37, MGH, SS, II, p. 628;
Ann. Rgg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, pT—162; Thegan, Vita
HIEd., 30, MGH, SS, II, p. 597, says 34 bishOps an
priests and-dEacafis.

 

 

60Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 162: "et
interfectores praedictorum hominum, quia de familia
sancti Petri erant, summopere defendens mortuos velut
maiestatis reos condemnabat, iure caesos pronuntiavit."
Astron., Vita Hlud., 37, MES, SS, II, p. 628, brings

 

212

The sources make it quite clear that because Of
the oath sworn by Paschal and his clergy there was little
that Louis felt he could do. At the same time Louis was
displeased by the affair and desirous Of taking some
action. He did see, though, that his present course
of action was likely to lead to no good result. It may
be argued by some that Louis' characteristic weakness
before the Church caused him to be satisfied with
Paschal's response. As we shall see, however, he was
not satisfied. Again he sent away the papal envoys with
a suitable response, but this time he seems to have been
determined to do something.

This is not the manner in which this series of
events is normally interpreted. Hauck and Haller are
quite representative of the positions usually taken.
According to the former, Louis was completely satisfied
with Paschal's explanation, while "others," who remain
unnamed, were not.61 The latter concludes that we have
in this affair yet another example of Louis' acting

"weak and short sighted as ever."62 Only Thomas has

 

out Paschal's insolence more clearly: "Interfectores
autem nequaquam exibere potuerit; sed et eos qui inter-
fecti sunt, meritis exigentibus talia perpessos asseru-
erat."

61Kirchengeschichte, II, p. 494.

 

62Papsttum, II, p. 27.

213

suggested that the murders indicated to Louis the need
for a new course of action.63
The sources support Thomas' position. In fact,
they indicate clearly that Louis resolved to take affirma-
tive action. Let us examine at the key passages on which
one can base this interpretation. If this view is correct,

then we are dealing with a very important prelude to the

Constitutio Romana, which was issued before another year

 

had run its course.
The first significant account is presented by
the Astronomer:

The emperor, therefore, most merciful by nature,
feeling himself powerless to pursue further the
cause of the dead, though very much wishing to do
so, decided to desist from this sort of investi-
gation, and he dismissed the Roman envoys after
giving them a suitable response.

The other key source is the Annales Regni Francorum:

 

Louis, when he had been informed of the pOpe's
oath and exculpation by his own legates and those
of the pOpe, decided that there was nothing fur-
ther to be done in this affair and he sent the
aforementioned Bishop John and his colleagues back
to the pope, having given them an appropriate
response. 5

These passages are certainly not evidence of any

weakness on Louis' part. They show that he was anxious

 

63"Pactum Ludov.," p. 168.

64Vita Hlud., 37, MGH, §_§_, II, p. 628.

 

65Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 162.

214

to take further action but was hindered in his ability
to do so. Let us remind ourselves that Louis sent his
own missi to make inquiries and that he did not merely

66 Indeed, Louis

accept the papal version of the story.
seems to have been at least mildly skeptical throughout
this sorry business. This affair was almost enough to
make Louis take vigorous action in Rome and, in any case,
the sources demonstrate the firming of Louis' resolve.
When viewed from another angle, however, the

sources for this event show us that Louis gained addi-
tional insights into Roman politics. What about the oath
that Paschal swore? It bears an obvious relationship to
the one sworn by Leo III in 800. Each time a pOpe stood
accused of high crimes, and each time a public purgation

was performed. Did this have any legal significance?

It is hard to say. Purgatio canonica, an oath of defense

 

against evidence in a judicial proceeding, may be the
procedure with which we are here concerned. This raises
some problems, however. It was never admitted by anyone
that Leo was tried in 800, and there is no evidence of

a trial in 823. In 823 there is no evidence of any kind
of judicial proceeding. The missi sent by Louis cannot
be construed as a court because they found, upon reaching

Rome, that they could not pursue their investigation

 

66Ann. Lobienses, MGH, SS, XIII, p. 232, says
that the oaths were performed in the presence of Louis'
missi but this does not imply a judicial proceeding.

 

 

215

because of the oaths. If there was no investigation,

there was certainly no trial. Then, too, scholars are
not of one mind on when purgatio was introduced into

canon law. Wallach feels that it was introduced at the
time of Burchard's treatise in the eleventh century,67
while Adelson and Baker believe that it was introduced
for the first time in 823 but that it did not then take

68 About all that can

on its later legal significance.
safely be said is that another very unclear situation
existed. At stake, obviously, was whether or not a pOpe
could act with virtual impunity by covering his acts with
a cloak that was Of very dubious legal validity.

The murders raised another very similar problem.
Paschal argued that he did not have to turn over the
murderers because they belonged to the familia of St.
Peter. What he did, quite simply, was plead benefit
of clergy. This tactic was always a great vexation to

medieval rulers and it was not brought to any satis-

factory resolution until centuries after Louis had gone

 

67Luitpold Wallach, "The Genuine and Forged Oaths
of Pope Leo III," Traditio, XI, (1955), pp. 37-63, esp.
pp. Slff; cf. idem, "The Roman Synod of 800 and the
Alleged Trial of Leo III," Harvard Theological Review,
XLIX, (1956), pp. 123-42.

 

68H. Adelson and R. Baker, "The Oath of Pur-
gation of Pope Leo III in 800," Traditio, VIII, (1952),
pp. 35-80, esp. pp. Slff.

 

216

to his grave. It is a bit perverse to blame Louis for
not solving this dilemma when greater men than he had
no better luck with it.

Amidst the affair of the murders two further
points must have come to Louis' attention. Both of them
deal with internal affairs at Rome. First, Paschal's
envoys argued that the dead men had been condemned by
law ("iure") and they mention a breach of majesty
("maiestatis reos"). As we have seen, the same thing
had happened in 815. For the second time, the fact of
the pOpe's preeminence in Rome had been brought home
to Louis. The legal system in force in Rome, and Louis'
sovereign rights there, had been twice called into

question. The Ludovicianum had left the pOpe as some-

 

thing of an immunist in Rome, and we may well suspect
that Louis and Paschal had very different interpretations
of what that immunity implied. In the following year
(824) Louis detailed it according to his own view.

Fifth, and finally, Louis must have realized that
Rome was not polarized between the clerical bureaucracy
and the nobility. Let us recall one of the first facts
which was established in the case of the murders. The
dead men had lost their lives for loyalty to Lothar.
Let us further remember that Theodore and Leo were two
of the highest officers of the Roman Church, noblemen,

perhaps, but part of the clerical bureaucracy just the

217

same. An interesting bit of detail is provided by the
little treatist on imperial power in Rome. It says

that all the "greater" men of the city, both bishops

and laymen alike,69 became adherents of the emperor at
about this time. Gregorvuis argued that on Lothar's
first appearance in the city there had been a split into

70 As we shall see in a

papal and imperial factions.
moment, the cleavage was not quite so neat. What it

is important to note is that Louis learned, probably

for the first time, that the strife in Rome was fac-
tional and that it cut across what he had regarded as
traditionally lay and clerical lines. Louis did not
learn this in 815 because at that time the dispute con-
cerned papal land policy, and in a contest of that type,
the lay and clerical lines would have manifested them-
selves very clearly.

Now, if the fact of factional strife had not
emerged clearly enough in the murders of two high
officials of the Church, then Louis did not have to
wait long for further clarification. The strife, of

which the murders must have been a part, continued

into the next year. When Paschal's legates returned

 

691.110. 513 imp. p33” M_G§, gs, III, p. 720:
"Propterea_Ifiventum est, ut omnes maiores Romae essent
imperiales homines, tam episc0pi quam laici . . . " This
must refer to 823-24 since the next line refers to the
oath sworn in 824.

70Geschichte der Stadt Rom, III, p. 45.

218

to Rome they found him ill, in fact, on the point of
death. A few days later he did die and there ensued
a double election. Finally, Eugenius, a nobleman and
titulary of St. Sabina, was raised to the papal dig-
nity.71 The sorry state of Roman affairs can be seen
in the fact that, on the one hand, we have a report
that the Romans refused to let Paschal be buried in

St. Peter's,72 while, on the other, the Liber Pontifi-

 

calis states tendentiously that Eugenius was elected

unanimously.73 Another source relates that Wala played

a great role in getting Eugenius elected74 and many

scholars consider this to be a reliable story.75 Wala

 

71Ann.R __g. Franc., SSrG, s. a. 824, p. 164. BM,
no. 785b, places Eugenlus' elevation in May which seems
late to me. Paschal' s envoys had been received at an
assembly at Compiegne on November 1, 823 and dismissed
shortly thereafter. The Annales say Paschal died "paucis
post adventum (that is, back at Rome) illorum exactis
diebus" so perhaps January 824. I think four to five
months too long an interval despite the contested election.

72Thegan, Vita Hlud., 30, MGH, §§, II, p. 597.

 

73Vita Eugenii II, Liber Pontificalis, ed.
Duchesne, II, p. 69.

 

 

74Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.28, PL, CXX, 1604D:
"in cujus nimirum ordinatione plurimum laborasse dicitur."

 

75Weinrich, Wala, pp. 51- 52; Ewig, Handbuch,
p. 129; Amman, L' époque carolingienne, p. 253; HaIIer,

Papsttum, II, p. 27Ti

 

219

then left Rome for Francia, no doubt to report to Louis
on the state of affairs in Italy.

It seems that it was felt that Wala had effected
the election of a man through whom necessary reforms

could be achieved.76

Obviously, the time had come to
deal with the troubled political situation at Rome.
Everything points to the fact that, at long last, the
Franks had come to grips with the precise nature of

the conflict at Rome. The papacy had been using its
position in Rome not only to the derogation of imperial
rights but also to the immediate disadvantage of Roman
citizens. Paschasius Radbertus says that, for a long

time, individuals had been suffering confiscations of

their lands. The Liber Pontificalis states that Eugenius

 

spent much of his pontificate restoring, from the pro-

 

perty of the Lateran, estates to persons who had been
77

 

unjustly deprived of them. The Ottonianum, in a

 

passage containing certain provisions which it had taken

over from the Constitutio Romana, says that the measures

 

 

76Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 1.28, fig, CXX, 1604D:
"Gallias tandem, pene omnibus correctis rebus, et Eugenio
sanctissimo apostolicae sedis ordinatio antiste . . . si
quo modo per eum deinceps corrigerentur, quaediu negle-
gentibus a plurimis fuerant depravata, regrediamur."
Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 398, calls
Eugenius a "geffigigerflman, which’Is probably correct.
Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, III, p. 55, calls
him pro-Frankish) which is certainly an exaggeration.

 

 

 

77Vita Eugenii II, Liber Pontificalis, ed.
Duchesne, II, p. 69.

 

 

220

were first taken "for a variety of reasons, indeed because
of inexcusable acts undertaken by popes against the people

subject to them."78

Finally, a passage in the treatise
on imperial power in Rome, which certainly refers to the

time after the issuance of the Constitutio, says that

 

persons condemned in Roman courts would have their
prOperties divided equally between the emperor and the
pOpe.79 This is a compromise struck in 824 but it
reflects the situation before 824 in that popes had
probably been using the courts to take possession of all
of the property of various persons. The Franks finally
learned that the papacy had been abusing its own pre-
eminence in Rome and its control of the Roman insti-
tutions, particularly the courts, to sate its glut-
tonous desire for lands. Years before, Charles had
heeded or ignored, strictly at his own pleasure, Hadrian's
almost incessant pleadings concerning the lands of the
Roman Church. Still, Charles never tried to rule the
situation precisely. In 816 Louis did attempt to reach
some definition. Both policies failed, quite simply,
because neither emperor understood the precise nature of

the problem at hand, or how to deal with it.

 

78MGH, Dip. Ott., I, no. 235, p. 326, pp. 20-21.

 

79912! QE,£EE' 293., MGH, SS, III, p. 721.

221

If it took Louis a long time to learn his lesson,
then, at least, he learned it well. In June of 824
Louis resolved to send his son Lothar to Rome in order
that "in his place he might do those things which neces-

80

sity seemed to compel." Sometime in August, Lothar

arrived in Italy and shortly thereafter the Constitutio
81

 

Romana was issued.

Before analyzing the Constitutio it is necessary

 

to say something about exactly who was responsible for
it. Many scholars are of the Opinion that the Con-

82 This

stitutio is the work of Lothar and/or Wala.
view is grounded in the belief that Louis was such a
weakling that he could never have taken such firm and
forthright steps as are found in the constitution.

This view conflicts with the sources. Louis sent Lothar

to Italy to order the situation. There is no reason to

doubt that the precise provisions of the constitution

 

80Ann. 333. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 824, p. 164; "con-
ventu circIEEr VIII KaI. Iul. (June 24) pronuntiato atque
Compedio . . . animo intento Hlotharium . . . Romam mit-
tere decrevit, ut vice sua functus ea quae rerum neces-
sitas flagitare videbatur." Cf. Ann. Fuld., SSrG, s.a.
824, p. 23: "Imperator Hlotharium—filium suum ad iusti-
tias faciendas Romam misit."

812M, nos. 1020a, b.

82Partner, Lands of St. Peter, p. 49; Weinrich,
Wala, p. 48; Ewig, Handbuch, p. 129; Von Schubert, Kirche
1m Frfihmittelalter, p. 398; Amann, L'époque carolingienne,
p. 209; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, pp. 496-98.

 

 

 

222

were not due to Lothar's on-the-spot judgments. But he
cannot have issued so important a constitution on his own
initiative, nor can its general tenor have been other
than what Louis desired it to be. As for Wala, it is
very likely that his final reports were influential.
Louis had not been in Rome, after all, and he had to

rely on what others told him. Still, it is simply
impossible to believe that Lothar and Wala forced the
constitution on an unwilling Louis. Finally, considerable
attention has just been directed to the background to the
constitution in order to show that it resulted from an
increasing awareness on Louis' part of the measures that
had to be taken.

I shall now try to prove my earlier assertion
that the measures taken in 824 were a logical extension
of those taken in 816, with allowances for all that had
been learned in the intermediate eight years.

Let us begin with what the Constitutio says

 

about papal elections. In chapter 3 of the constitution
we find that the franchise is still extended to all

83 Again, a stern warning

Romans, as it had been in 816.
is issued to anyone who might presume to interfere, but

this time a sanction was added. Louis stated that he

 

83For all subsequent references to the Constitutio
see Appendix D which is my reproduction of the text from
MGH, cae.’ I, pp. 323-24.

 

223

would exile anyone who impeded the regular election pro-
cess. This certainly reflects the troubled election of
Eugenius. In 816 Louis had felt it sufficient to give
all Romans a voice in papal elections. Then, the double
election in 824 showed Louis that the populace as a whole
was divided. Thus did Louis learn that the factional
strife in Rome cut across lay and clerical lines and
centered on the person of the pope, the immediate lord
of all Romans. So by adding a firm imperial sanction,
embodied in a threat to exile troublemakers, Louis tried
to bring some order and harmony into the electoral pro-
cess. It is difficult to see what else Louis could have
done. Papal elections were supposed to be essentially
spiritual affairs but circumstances had made them into
intensely political contests. Louis had, therefore, to
de-politicize as much as possible the spiritual side of
the process, while, at the same time, he had to control
the political contest.

The Constitutio has appended to it an oath which

 

says several important things. It required the swearer

to be faithful to Louis in all respects. It also demanded
that papal elections be carried out canonically and

justly and that a newly elected pOpe could not be con-
secrated until he had sworn the oath to the emperor

through the emperor's missi.

224

It is crucial to observe that this was, in

84 Since an Italian

Frankish law, a subject's oath.
source hands down the oath in exactly the same form as

the Constitutio, there is no reason to doubt the authen-
85

 

ticity of the form and language of the oath. As we
shall see, this oath is a very revealing document.
Before looking at the implications of the oath
itself, let us see what the text of the oath has to say
about papal elections. The Romans were enjoined not to
tolerate an election which had proceeded unjustly or
uncanonically, and they were not to recognize the new
pope until he had sworn an oath to the emperor in the
presence of imperial missi. This was, obviously, an
enormous advance over previous Carolingian practice;
indeed, Halphen called it a revolution.86 The oath

presents a problem, however, in that some very good

and serious scholars have suspected that the oath was

 

84Fundamental is Lot, "Le serment de fidelité a
l'epoque franque," RB, XII, (1933), pp. 569ff. See also
Charles Odegaard, "Carolingian Oaths of Fidelity,"
Speculum, XVI, (1941), pp. 284- -96, esp. p. 295 and Anton,
Furstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, pp. 321- 22. Cf.
contra, Auguste Dumas,fi Le serment de fidelité et la con-
ception du pouvoir du Ier au IXe siécle," Revue his-
torique du droit francais et étra anger, (1931), esp.
pp. 294-96. Lot ably destroys Dumas argument that a
separate subject's oath did not exist.

 

 

85Pauli Continuatio Romana, MGH, SSrL, p. 203.

 

86L'empire carolingien, p. 225.

 

225

never sworn at all, or that it was not sworn in the form
in which we now read the text of it.87
Therefore, in order to determine whether there
really was a revolution in papal relations, it is neces-
sary to establish that the oath was sworn. The problem
can be approached in several ways. First, we can attempt
to determine whether such an oath, a Frankish subject's
oath, could have been sworn by a cleric, in this case
the pope. The answer to this query must be affirmative.
Between 822 and 824, in a capitulary, Louis reminded
the clergy of his empire of the fidelity which they had

88

sworn to him. Agobard, who was neither an ardent

admirer of Louis nor soft on the matter of clerical
rights, recalled on several occasions the fidelity
which he and other churchmen had sworn to Louis.89
After the great revolt of 833, Ebbo, Archbishop of
Reims, was deposed for infidelity to the emperor.90

Finally, Hincmar of Reims, the greatest ecclesiastical

 

87Simson, SS Ludwi , I, p. 230 n. 4; SM, no.
1021; von Schubert, K1rche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 397;
Ullmann, "Origins of the Ottonianum," p. 117.

 

8824—9—11, .C_aE" 1' no. 150, C. 8' p. 304.

89Agobard, gpp. nos. 10, 15, MGH, Epp., V, pp. 202,

223-24.

90Flodoard, Hist. Rem. Ecc., 11.20, MGH, SS,
XIII, p. 471. He adds that Jesse of Amiens was deposed
for the same reason.

226

jurist of the time, never denied the duty of clerics to
swear fidelity to the emperor, though he had strong
words on the form of the oath that was to be used
because he did not want clerics to swear the vassal's

oath.91

Incidentally, this is why it is important to
realize that the oath with which we are dealing is a
subject's oath and not a vassal's oath. Many other
examples could be cited, and historians generally agree
that bishops and other clerics had to swear to become
fideles of the emperor but that this did not imply that

92 This cer-

they held their offices from him as fiefs.
tainly establishes the possibility that such an oath was
extended to the person of the pope.

Possibility has been established in another way.
The fact that the oath speaks of an oath Eugenius made

in writing ("per scriptum"), and that the Roman continu-

ation of Paul the Deacon's History of the Lombards places

 

the oath in 825, has led several scholars to argue that
the oath formed part of a second pact between Louis and

Eugenius from the year 825, but that this pact has not

 

91Anton, Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos,
p. 326 (with sources).

92Ganshof, Feudalism, trans. P. Grierson, 3d ed.,
(New York, 1964), p. 54; Imbart, Les éléctions episco-
pales, p. 110; Lesne, Hist. ro . ecc. en France, II.2,
pp. 85-8& DeClercq, La 13913 at1on_?31i§Ieuse franque,
II, p. 177.

 

227

93 These scholars' arguments need not detain

survived.
us here, for convincing as they are, they still establish
probability more than certainty. That is, they make it
almost a certainty that Eugenius swore an oath but call
into question whether we possess a c0py of the oath from
824 to 825.

Certainty is gained by a study of the circumstances

of the following years. The Ottonianum, and this is

 

significant in and of itself, took up the requirement

that an oath be sworn. At the same time, the Ottonianum

 

says that the oath was to be sworn as it was by "our
venerable and spiritual father Leo."94 For many years
it was thought that the Leo in question had to be Leo

VIII (963-65) because the language of the Ottonianum

 

seems to speak of a living man. Then, diplomatic studies

demonstrated that this portion of the Ottonianum was

 

taken over verbatim from an earlier privilege from about

the year 850. This privilege has not survived.95

 

93Stengel, "Entwicklung des Kaiserprivilegs,"
pp. 224-25 and nn. 40, 41; Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsges-
chichte, II, pp. 127-28; Ottorino Bertolini,—‘Osserva-
Zione sulla 'Constitutio Romana' e sul 'Sacramentum
Cleri et Populi Romani' dell'824," Studi Medievali in
Onore Antonio de Stefano, (Palermo, 1956), pp. 50-52,
67ff. This study agrees almost entirely with Stengel and
is mainly a detailed critique of Ullmann's theories.

 

 

 

94w. D_ig. Ott., I, no. 235, p. 326, 11. 24-27.

95Kehr, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, pp. 135-

37.

228

Finally, Hampe proved that the Leo in question is Leo IV

(847-855).96

Therefore, Leo IV swore an oath. Unfor-
tunately, nothing can be said about his immediate pre-
decessor, Sergius II (844-847) and nothing can be said
for sure about Eugenius' immediate successor, Valentinus.
Since the latter survived his election by only a few
weeks the sources say almost nothing about him. Very
significant, however, is Gregory IV (827-844). It is

known that his election was examined in the manner pre-

scribed by the Constitutio97 and there is evidence in
98

 

a letter written by Gregory that he swore an oath.
So, if subsequent pOpes had their elections examined
and swore oaths in just the manner required by the Con-

stitutio, then there is no reason to doubt that the

 

practice was, in fact, instituted in 824. Greater force

is given to this argument by the fact that the practice

 

96"Die Berufung Ottos des Grossen nach Rom durch
Papst Johann XII," Historische Aufsatze Karl Zeumer dar-
gebracht, (weimar, 1910), pp. 159ff,‘163ff.

 

 

97Ann. Re . Franc., SSrG, s.a. 827, pp. 173-74;
Astron., Vita H u ., 41, MGH, SS, II, p. 631; Benedict,
Chronicon,*24, MGH, SS, III, p. 711.

 

 

98Gregory IV, epistola, apud Agobard, ep. no.
16, MGH, Epp., V, p. 230.

 

229

had never before been used by the Carolingians.99

Therefore, one cannot look before 824 for the insti-
tution of the oath.

Let us sum up the new regulations governing papal
elections. The franchise belonged to all Romans. Elec-
tions were to be canonical. The election process itself
was to be examined by the emperor and the pope had to
swear an oath indicating that he was a subject of the
emperor. Moreover, firm sanctions were introduced to
discourage hindrances of the electoral process.

It should be noted that these regulations proved
to be durable. As we have seen they were included in
Otto's privilege in 962. In 898 John IX tried to effect
a return to the electoral principles embodied in the
decree of 769, but he must have failed, and his actions
suggest that the policies of 824 were still in effect
at the end of the ninth century.100

It is wrong to see in the policies of 824 a

return to the Byzantine system, as some historians do.101

 

99The oath itself is absolutely new. The state-
ment in Lib. de imp. pot., MGH, SS, III, p. 720 that
Charles piapea‘an official IH—Rome to observe elections
is patently false. So far as I know only Heldmann, 5237
sertum Karls, pp. 347-48 believes it.

 

looMansi, Concilia, XVIII, 221.

 

101E.g., Schieffer, "Krise des karol. ImperiumS,"

p. 7.

230

The eastern emperors had possessed a right to approve
papal elections and not infrequently they exerted some
influence in the electoral process itself. The Con-

stitutio did not claim the right to approve elections
102

 

and it asserted no right of intervention. Simply,
but very importantly, the Franks claimed the right to
guarantee free and canonical elections and to include
the newly elected among the subjects of the empire.
This latter fact is the most important measure taken in
824 in respect to papal elections, for the pOpe was made
so visibly a subject of the emperor that he could not
henceforth exploit the fact that the Carolingians had
never required him to show his subjection. Leo III and
Paschal had been able to act with virtual impunity
because Carolingian legal pronouncements, or, actually,
the lack of them, had left the pOpe as a "petit-sovereign"
in Rome. Subjects, however, are not sovereigns and this
was made perfectly clear in 824. Consequently, it is
only in respect to the fact that the Carolingians made
the pope admit his subject status that we can speak of
a return to the Byzantine system.

It has been argued that this requirement that an

oath be sworn derived from the radicals of the imperial

unity party who desired a firm integration of the papacy

 

102Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, I, p. 236; Mayer,
Italienische VerfassungsgeschiChte, I, pp. 65-66.

 

231

into the empire in order that the empire might no longer
have the appearance of having two heads. These men,
it is argued, wished that the empire would fully conform

to the concept of a Christian "corpus."103

Perhaps
these thinkers were influential though one must be
careful not to assign too much significance to their

influence or, again, one runs the risk of taking

responsibility for the Constitutio away from Louis.

 

When the provisions of 824 are set beside those of

816, then it seems quite obvious that theoretical con-
siderations were less influential than an awareness

on Louis' part of the need to create greater legal and
political clarity. This is not to say that Louis did
not think that the empire was not a "corpus" or that he
was not deeply impressed by the thinkers of his age who
so argued. It is simply a matter of getting first things

first. The spirit of the Constitutio is remarkably prac-

 

tical. That is, the document appears as a response to
the cold, hard, political realities of the city of Rome.
The oath was, as its text indicates, to be sworn
by all Romans. Again, this marked a real advance. In
796 Leo III had tried to get Charles to require an oath

104

of all Romans. Charles refused, for reasons which have

 

103Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 398;
Mohr, "Kirchliche Einheitspartei,'p. 15.

 

104Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 796, p. 98.

232

never been sufficiently explained. There is no evidence
whatsoever that the oaths required by Charles in 802
were sworn in Rome. This oath, after all, was to be
sworn "nomini caesaris" by all those who had already
sworn "nomini regis." The Romans had never sworn to
Charles as king and, quite logically, were not obliged

to swear to him as emperor.105

In 816 Stephen IV took
up the oath of the Romans before he went to Reims. Paschal
did not do this in 817 and there is no mention of it in

the Ludovicianum. Apparently, Louis initially planned

 

to follow in his father's footsteps. He must have been
satisfied with the implicit integration of the Romans

into his empire contained in the Ludovicianum. Exper-

 

ience then seems to have taught him that it was both
wise and necessary to give clear legal expression to the
fact that the Romans were his subjects.

In chapters 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Constitutio,

 

Louis dealt with depradations, injustices and property
disputes which had taken place in recent years. He
ordered that such unlawful acts should cease and that
where they had already taken place, they should be
rectified, if possible. Louis' insistence on doing
justice in these matters is clearest in chapter 6 where

he declared that he would amend damages done by popes

 

105Lapdtre, Saint siege, pp. 212-13, 213 n. 2,
argues that the oaths of 802 were never sworn in Rome.
One text (there are two) of this oath is cited supra,
p. 170.

 

233

or on their orders. Finally, he said that old cases
requiring correction, or new cases that might emerge,
should go before either his missus or the missus of the
pOpe, unless the latter refused to do justice, in which
case Louis' officials would handle the matter. This
leads to one of the most important provisions of the

Constitutio.

 

In chapter 4 Louis provided that permanent giggi'
should be established by himself and by the pope. Louis'
missus had two principal responsibilities. He was to
make a yearly report to Louis on the conduct of papal
officials in Rome, and he was to hear complaints from
those who felt that they had been denied justice. Exper-
ience had taught Louis that a firm imperial presence
was required in Rome if even a modicum of stability were
to be introduced into that tumultuous city. In 824 he
created such a presence on a permanent basis. He
actually went further than this. We have already seen
that in the 820's Louis' eldest son Lothar spent a good
deal of time in Italy and that, from time to time, some
of Louis' most trusted advisers labored in and around
Rome. Moreover, there is abundant evidence that wander-

ing (discurrentes) missi now worked regularly in the

 

Papal States. This was certainly a vigorous assertion
of imperial rights and, at the same time, a check upon

blatant attacks on those rights by anyone in Rome.

234

The permanent missus was supported by revenues
from the exercise of justice and by funds from several

106 The

fiscal estates in the neighborhood of Rome.
quality of justice rendered by this missus must have
been high, for he soon became a court of first instance
for cases which ought to have gone before the regular
Roman courts and he may well have been receiving busi-
ness that should have fallen to the papal missus.107
There is a case from 829 which is instructive. The
monastery of Farfa went before the imperial missus and
argued that the papacy held in its possession some
estates unlawfully taken away from Farfa by Hadrian and
Paschal. Gregory IV argued that the lands did not belong
to Farfa. An investigation was held, and Farfa was found
to be correct in its claims. Judgment was rendered
accordingly. Gregory, however, refused to give up the
estates until the emperor himself should appear.108
Brunner has argued that in seeking to get a judgment
from the emperor the pope may not so much have been

trying to avoid a judgment that was going to go against

him as exercising the "ius reclamandi ad regis definitivam

 

106Lib. de imp. pgg., MGH, §§, II, p. 720. Cf.
Hirschfeld, "GerIEhtswesen," p. 436.

107Ibid., pp. 436-37.

108Chron. Farf., ed. Balzini, FSI, I, pp. 186-87;
I Placiti, ed. Manarese, FSI, no. 38.

235

109 Anyone who was under the protection of

sententiam."
the king could have his case brought before the king, in
which case the king functioned not as a representative
of the person under his protection, but as highest judge.
Whatever Gregory's intentions may have been, however,
the case is interesting because it shows the workings
of the newly erected institutions. In 823 Lothar had
rendered judgment in Rome against the papacy, but he
then functioned solely as emperor. In 829 imperial
officials handed down a decision in much the same way
as they would have done if the court had been in Bavaria
or Saxony or Aquitaine.

The introduction of a permanent missus into
Rome has been interpreted as an indication of the weak-
ening of the central power of the Carolingian government
under Louis. According to this view, Charles never
instituted permanent miggi and, therefore, retained

110 This view is

centralized control in his own hands.
historically inaccurate in at least one respect. It

has recently been shown that Charles did use permanent

 

109Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, pp. 64-65.

 

110Victor Krause, "Geschichte des Instituts der
Missi Dominici," MIOG, XI, (1890), pp. 238-39.

236

missi, at least as early as 802.111 Moreover, the

establishment of a permanent missus in Rome did not
preclude the sending of itinerant mi§§i_to keep an eye
on the permanent one.112 These wandering mi§§i_were
always the principal agents through whom the Carolingians
exercised supervision in the territories subject to them.
There certainly existed the possibility that, without
regular examination, the permanent missus could have
begun to act arbitrarily. This situation need not have
arisen, however, and it was no more likely in Rome than
anywhere else in the far-flung empire. What finally
brought a weakening of central control over this missus
was the separation of Italy from secure imperial control
in the civil wars which began in 829, and also the
general decline in the use of itinerant miggi after the

113 Louis cannot be blamed for not fore-

death of Louis.
seeing these eventualities.
There is another interesting way to look at the

Roman missus created in 824. In many ways he was more

like a count than a missus. Like a count he was

 

111W. A. Eckhardt, "Die Capitularia missorum
specialia von 802," SA, XII, (1956), pp. 498-516; cf.
Ganshof, Institutions, pp. 25-26 and Lesne, Hierarchie
Spiscopale, pp. 82-83.

 

 

 

112Halphen, L'administration de Rome, p. 3.

 

113On the decline of the missi see Krause, ”Missi
Dominici," pp. 229-30.

237

appointed for a long term, perhaps for life, in a spe-.
cific place. He had responsibilities for preserving
imperial rights, keeping peace and order, doing justice
and exercising the bannum, collaborating with itinerant
miggi and taking oaths.114 Now, the Roman missus is
never called count (i.e. 92233) in the sources and I
would not dare to call him one. However, it does seem
fair to draw an analogy between the two. No matter how
this missus is viewed, though, the result is the same.
Rome and its environs had been firmly, that is, legally
and institutionally, integrated into the Frankish state.
This same thing had been done by something analogous to
an immunity in 816 but the turmoil of the intervening
years made it clear to Louis that the more usual Frankish
administrative and judicial institutions were necessary.
The next set of provisions in the Constitutio
which require some comment are those governing the Roman
officials. Chapter 1 required all Roman officials to
show the proper obedience to the pope and to his dukes
and judges. As we have already seen, chapter 4 required
the permanent missus to make an annual report to Louis
on the conduct of these officials. Finally, chapter 7
demanded that all officials in Rome who exercised

judicial power should present themselves to Louis "in

 

114On the duties of the counts see Ganshof,
Institutions, p. 27. Useful too is Fustel des Coulanges,
Royauté Franque, pp. 423-37.

 

 

238

order that he might know their number and their names
and admonish each one of them concerning the ministry
entrusted to him."
These points call for several remarks. First,
it should be noted that not only in chapter 1 but also
in chapter 8 Louis called for obedience to the pope.
This is indicative of the traditional Carolingian reserve
with respect to the historic position of the papacy in

Rome. The pope was left as Landesherr in Rome and Louis

 

had, evidently, no intention of substituting himself for
the pope in the day-to-day administration of Rome. All

statements in the Constitutio about the Roman officials

 

make it clear that Louis considered them to be papal

115 Even Louis' reordering of the judicature

officials.
in Rome by placing his own missus at its head does not
imply that high criminal jurisdiction passed to the
Franks.116 What Louis did was to claim the right of
supervision over the officials generally and particularly
over those who functioned in the courts. Experience

had taught him that venality was rife, and so he made it

abundantly clear to everyone that he would no longer

tolerate judicial abuses.

 

115Halphen, L'administration de Rome, p. 2;
Hirschfeld, "Gerichtswesen,“ p. 424.

 

l16110151., p. 423.

239

One final aspect of the constitution requires
notice. In chapter 5 Louis stated that all inhabitants
of the Papal States should declare the law under which
they wished to live. This had several extremely impor-
tant consequences. First, it broke the Roman concept of
territoriality of the law in favor of the Germanic
principle of personality of the law.117 Second, it
seems to have removed Franks, Lombards and other non-
Romans from the regular jurisdiction of the Roman
courts.118 This means that non-Romans were made equal
to Romans in the Papal States, for all persons were
given access to a system of courts where they could get

a fair airing of their cases.119

Unfortunately, there
is no surviving evidence from cases prior to 824 indi-

cating how or why the rights of non-Romans had been

 

11.7Ibid., pp. 435-36. Personality of the law had
been the Frankish practice in all of Italy except the
Roman region before 824. This even held true for Romans
found outside the area of Rome. Cf. MGH, Ca ., I,
no. 90, c. 11, p. 191, no. 91, cc. 6, 77-8,—Ig, pp. 191-
93, no. 94, c. 4, p. 199, no. 95, c. 4, p. 201, no. 98,
cc. 1, 8, p. 204, no. 103, p. 212, no. 105, c. 14, pp. 218-
19.

118This must be the prOper interpretation of "si
alterius gentis invenirentur habitores regali iudicio
iudicabantur," Lib. §g_i§p. 233., MGH, SS, III, p. 720.
Partner, Lands 5f_St. Peter, p. 49-BElieves that this
provision allowed Romans to escape the harshness of the
Roman courts. Certainly, Mayer, Italienische Verfas-
sungsgeschichte, II, p. 74, is correct in arguing that
theiprofessio iuris" meant that each person had to
declare his own law, not choose one or the other.

 

 

 

119Hirschfeld, "Gerichtswesen," pp. 435-36.

‘

240

abused. However, since most of the rest of the 922-
stitutio was a resPonse to necessitous circumstances,
there is every reason to believe that this portion was
as well.

If the constitution has been correctly inter-
preted here, then it can only be seen as a continuation
of the policies begun in 816. It marked the final
Carolingian answer to the question of how to integrate
Rome and its bishop into the institutional structure
of the empire. The sovereignty of the emperor was made
clearer than it had ever been, and the pOpe was made
to feel the fact that he was a subject. Louis reserved
to himself the right to pass capital sentences against
anyone who perpetrated a crime against a person under
his protection, and this was certainly a response to
the quasi-sovereign actions of previous popes who, on
their own volition, murdered their opponents. This was
really an extension of the protection measures in the

Ludovicianum. Louis did not suppress the native insti-

 

tutions of Rome, thus showing the reserve which the
Franks always showed in their dealings with the position
of the papacy in Rome. But, in erecting Frankish insti-
tutions in Rome, Louis brought his own pre-eminence
clearly to the fore. Moreover, in creating, as it were,
a set of checks and balances on the exercise of authority
by the papacy, Louis went a long way towards preventing

arbitrary papal actions in the future.

241

All of this is not to say that Louis turned the
pope into some kind of an imperial chaplain. A very
wide sc0pe of secular business was left to the pope
in and around Rome, and the spiritual primacy of Peter's
successors was never called into question. In fact,
the years ahead and, to some extent, the years during
which Louis was tightening the imperial grasp on Rome,
witnessed a counter-offensive on the part of the papacy.
No doubt as a consequence of its realization that its
secular ambitions were being thwarted, the papacy began
vigorously to assert its spiritual authority. As we
shall see in the following chapters, this provided the
papacy with new ground upon which to do battle with its

imperial masters.

CHAPTER V

LOUIS, THE PAPACY AND THE SECOND

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

In all that concerns papal relations, the first
twenty years of Louis' reign falls into two fairly distinct
periods. The first decade may be called imperial and the
second decadempapal. In 816 Louis was crowned by Stephen IV
and he used the occasion to demonstrate to one and all the
profound dignity of his imperial office. He cast his office
in deeply religious terms and it was, therefore, fitting
that the highest possible ecclesiastical authority perform
the coronation. In 817 Louis crowned his own son, Lothar,
and later, in 824, he was sent to Rome for an embellishment
of his office. In 816 Louis began the process of inte-
grating the papacy and the Roman territory into the Caro-
lingian Empire. This process was completed in stages and

culminated in the Constitutio Romana of 824. Legal re-

 

straints were placed on the secular ambitions of the papacy
and a firm imperial presence was created in Rome. The
papacy was not again so effectively constricted in politics

until more than a century after Louis' death.

242

243

These legal and political measures did not strip
the papacy of its ancient traditions or of its essential
vitality. Under Paschal and Eugenius the papacy began to
employ its spiritual weapons to renew and reinforce its in-
fluence in the world. Whatever else he may have been, or
may have striven to be, the pope was a priest. Indeed, he
was the chief priest of the Christian world. At least
partly because the Carolingians themselves laid such enor-
mous emphasis on the Christian foundations of their empire,
the papacy discovered that it had an even grander role to
play than ever the earlier pOpes might have imagined. Al-
though Louis judged papal secular strivings to be intoler-
able and, in consequence, took vigorous steps against them,
he could hardly have passed the same judgment on papal'
spiritual, that is, priestly, strivings. If anything, Louis
encouraged them by insisting on the Christian ethic as the
basis for his empire.

All of this led to an apparent paradox. The Caro-
lingians, and Louis in particular, defined their terri-
tories as a Christian empire. Carolingian legislation
literally breathes Christian ethics and Christian morality.
The Carolingians regarded clerics, whether popes or parish

priests, as helpers, adiutores, in the work of saving the

 

souls of the inhabitants of their empire and in making
God's will reign supreme on earth. But here was the paradox.

Salvation was, 32 fond, the work of priests, not of kings.

244

Both kingship and the priesthood had long histories behind
them but priests had always been concerned with the next
world. Kings, who were once essentially judges, or rich
potentates, or powerful warlords, had only recently gone
into the businesscfifsaving souls. Consequently, to define
kingship in spiritual terms and to identify the obligations
of a Christian king with the duties of the clergy was to
create the possibility that secular government would become
inessential. In other words, the domination which the
papacy had been unable to accomplish through political
machinations would be obtained, with no little help from
the Carolingians themselves, by the exercise of priestly
powers. It is not necessary, and in fact it is wrong, to
argue that the papacy, from its inception, sought sole
leadership in the world. What it did seek was spiritual
leadership, though it cannot be denied that the papacy

made some forays into a few alarmingly unspiritual areas.
But, and again this is the key point, spiritual leadership
and total leadership amounted to virtually the same thing

in a world which was called the Imperium Christianum and

 

whose inhabitants were the populus Christianus.

 

The preceding chapters focused on Louis. The re-
maining chapters of this study concentrate, for the most
part on the papacy. During the later years of Louis'
reign the major initiatives in papal-imperial relations

came from Rome, not Aachen. This is by no means to say

245

that Louis became an idle observer or that he began to be
PUShed around by the pOpe. Far from this, Louis remained
true to the firm and conscientious stand he had adopted in
the years 814 to 824. Events in papal-imperial relations
after 824, however, must be viewed from the perspective of
the pOpe simply because, in beginning to deploy its spiri-
tual weapons, the papacy became the driving force. As we
shall see, Louis responded to papal initiatives and, at
times, he used new initiatives of his own.

The first case which displays the dimensions of
this new orientation in papal-imperial relations is the
second iconoclastic controversy which arose in 824. Some-
times one gets the impression that Charles, with one stroke
of his regal might at Frankfurt in 794, put an end to the
iconoclastic controversy in the West. This, of course, is
not true. The papacy was never really brought around to
the Frankish point of view, despite the fact that papal
envoys attended the discussions at Frankfurt. Then, during
the reign of Louis, the Frankish Empire itself was rent by
an iconoclastic struggle which, if we may believe one of
its chief participants, Claudius of Turin, was of consider-
able proportions.1 Louis, it seems, commissioned two of

the more learned churchmen of his empire to write treatises

 

lgp. no. 12, MGH, Epp., IV, p. 610. Claudius
Spoke of reports against him which had spread "per omnes
Gallias usque ad fines Spanie."

246

against Claudius2 and there is every reason to believe that
the problem engaged the attention of many persons. Finally,
in 824, the Byzantine Emperor, Michael II, appealed to Louis
for some assistance in dealing with a new quarrel over images
which had broken out in the East. This was the so-called
"Second Iconoclastic Controversy" and it is this diSpute
which forms the subject matter of the present chapter.
Since, as in the seventh and ninth decades of the
eighth century, it was the Greeks who involved the papacy
and the Franks in a quarrel, it is fitting briefly to survey
the course of the iconoclastic problem in the East in the
years after the second council of Nicaea in 787.3 If
Nicaea had returned the East to the iconodule position
which had reigned before the emergence of the Isaurian
dynasty in the person of Leo III in 726. The decree of
the iconoclastic council of 754 had been removed. The
iconodules saw their position remain dominant under Irene

and her successors Nicephoros and Michael Rhangabe. Genuine

 

2Jonas of Orléans, De Cultu Imaginum, PL, CVI,
305ff and Dungal, SB} no. 9, Responsa contra pEEversas
Claudii Taurinensis, MES, Epp., IV, pp. 583-85. On the
relation of these works to Louis and to the iconoclastic
problem see Anton, Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos,
p. 212, K. Voigt, Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem
Grosse bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit,(Stuttgart, 1936),
p. 417 n. 169 and Manitius, Geschichte der lat. Literatur,
II, p. 377.

 

 

 

 

 

3For the following see A. A. Vasiliev, History of

the Byzantine Empire, 2 vols.,(Madison, Wis., 1964), I,
pp. 283ff.

 

 

247

sentiment in favor of icons, however, was probably less of
a factor than constant civil strife and foreign threats from
Muslims and Bulgars which tended to preclude serious dis-
cussion of dogmatic issues. It is even difficult to attri—
bute the strength of the iconodules to the monks, who were
always the most vocal supporters of the icons, because their
leader, Theodore of Studion, was in exile for his Opposition
to the elevation of the Patriarch Nicephoros from the laity.
Then, in 813, an iconoclastic reaction set in when
Leo V came to the throne. Leo, an Armenian and more of a
soldier than anything else, deposed Michael Rhangabe and
quickly began to push through various iconoclastic
measures. Leo's program was so extreme that Patriarch
Nicephoros protested and was himself deposed. In 815, a
new council was called and the iconoclastic decrees of 754
were returned to force.4 Theodore of Studion, whom Michael
Rhangabe had recalled from exile, was again banished along
with a great many iconodules, and it appears as though
large numbers of Eastern Christians met martyrdom under
Leo V.
Leo's excesses were not confined to persecuting
iconodules. Thus,iJ1820, a revolt by Michael II sent Leo
to his grave and Michael to the imperial dignity. Michael

was, perhaps, mildly iconoclastic. His religious policy

 

. . On this council see C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq,
Histo1re des conc1les, 5 vols. in 10, (Paris, 1907-13),
IV.1, pp. 1-7.

248

has been variously interpreted but most scholars regard him
as tolerant of the iconodules, while noting that he never
restored to them all of the privileges and practices they

lost in 815.5

In 824, Michael appealed to Louis in order
to obtain use of Louis' good offices with the pope.
Michael's letter to Louis has survived.6 Michael
described to Louis the strife which had torn the Eastern
Empire since the times of Irene and how he had come to the
throne to restore peace and harmony. Michael stated his
great desire that the peace and friendship earlier con-
cluded between the two empires might continue. Michael then
commented on the superstitions that had sprung up everywhere
because of over zealous devotion to icons, and he went on to
say that in 821 a synod was held to discuss the matter. It
had been decided at that time to raise icons to higher
places in churches so that peOple would not have ready
access to them. Because of these measures, some iconodules
felt that Michael had attacked orthodoxy and they fled to

Rome to seek aid from the pOpe. Michael assured Louis that

he held strictly to the faith as it was set down in the

 

5Several of the leading positions on Michael are
dispassionately discussed by Vasiliev, Byzantine Empire,
I, pp. 285-86 and nn. 162-64.

 

6MGH, Conc., 11.2, no. 44A, pp. 475-80. The letter

is dated in April of 824 and was received by Louis in
November. SM, no. 793a.

 

249

six7 ecumenical councils and he wished Louis to know that
only false Christians and enemies of the Church ("pseudo-
christiani, ecclesiae calumniatores") had fled to Rome.
Michael had written to this effect to the pope, and now he
sought to enlist Louis as an ally.

Interpretations of Louis' subsequent actions are
generally based on his dealings with Eugenius. Therefore,
it is crucial, particularly in view of the fact that
Michael sought Louis' intercession with Eugenius, to
establish the role of the papacy in this controversy.

There is some very important evidence pertaining to the
papal position which has not been exploited by any of the
scholars who have concerned themselves with this contro-
versy, and it is only when this evidence is described and
placed into its proper perSpective that Louis' role can be
assessed.

Theodore of Studion was the leader of the iconodule
elements in the East and one of the most influential clerics
of his time. On at least two occasions he appealed to
POpe Leo III to intervene in dogmatic diSputes in the East.8

In both cases Theodore's adversary was the emperor and in

 

7The reference to six councils is perhaps a gesture
to Frankish sensitivities which had been severely offended
by the so-called seventh council, or II Nicaea, in 787.

8Theodore of Studion, SM, I, 222' nos. 33, 34, ES,
IC, lOl7B-C, lOZlB.

250

one letter he particularly upbraided him for holding that
his own will was superior to that of God.9 Theodore was
arguing the thesis that in matters of dogma the will of the
clergy is superior to that of emperors because the former
stood closer to God. Important too is his appeal to the
pOpe as the highest judge. Some years later, in two letters
to Paschal, Theodore went even further. In the first of
these letters Theodore expressed what no eastern church-
man had ever expressed: the Petrine theory of papal
supremacy.10 In the second letter Theodore appealed to
Paschal as the man "sitting upon the premier apostolic
throne."ll This letter may have been a reaction to the
introduction of an iconoclastic patriarch in 821 but it

does not seem necessary to take Theodore's writings as

politically motivated and lacking in genuine conviction.

 

91bid., e . no. 34, 1025c: "TO Bodinua 16v Ba0(156v
HOOKOIVEIV eeou n6rav 806101v10-" ("Since they wish
to place the will of emperors above that of God.")

) l01bid., Bk. 11, ep. no. 12,11529. ""AKove,
afloatoxlk fiana 880N681nre “clunv va XpIOTOU npoBdev-
KAEIGOUXE In; ouoavwv BaOfA IGC- nétpa In; flfOTewg, e¢’
p’q) K066un1a1 n ngollkn EKKAnofd- HéTpa: ydp ou TOV
nerpov 660v6v Koouwv Kaf Gténwv-" ("Listen, apostolic
head, placed by God before the flock of Christ, keeper of
the kingdom of heaven, rock of faith upon which the
Catholic Church is built; for you are Peter, ruling and

governing the See of Peter.")

llIbid., Bk. II, ep. no. 13,1153D: "6n? 16v
anooroAIKov flprIOTOV 6p6vov eéuevo;'

251

There are certain other aspects of his corres-
pondence which bear out this contention. After Michael
held his synod in 821, the iconodules said that Michael
should appeal to the pope, and again they used the
familiar Petrine arguments.12 Theodore can not have been
solely responsible for trying to get Michael to appeal to
the pOpe. Moreover, in his first letter to Leo III,
Theodore associated the BishOp of Thessalonika with his
ideas.13 Finally, in a letter to Patriarch Thomas of
Jerusalem, Theodore suggested that they should seek the
aid of the "Western Patriarch" because of his pre-
eminence.14 All of this suggests that there was, perhaps
for the first time, some genuine sentiment in favor of
papal primacy in the East. Thus we would go very far wrong
if we understood Theodore's letters to the pOpe as mere
blandishments.

In order to place these Greek sentiments into their
proper perspective, let us recall what the Greek attitude
to Hadrian had been in 785. Hadrian, upon receipt of news
that the Byzantines were about to hold a synod to reverse

the iconoclastic decrees, was overjoyed. He wrote a fairly

lengthy letter which was to be read at the opening session

 

12Mansi, Concilia, XIV, 399.

13.12]:- I, EP- no. 33, 3g, 1c, lOZOD-lOZlA.

1411233.. 135. II, _e_p. no. 121, 1397A.

252

of the synod.15 Hadrian set forth what he considered to be
the orthodox position on icons. He also articulated very
clearly the doctrine of papal primacy, and he demanded
restoration of the papal estates in southern Italy as well
as the church provinces of Sicily and Illyria which had
been taken away by Leo III and Constantine V. When this
letter was read to the synod all reference to papal primacy
and to the lands to which Hadrian had laid claim were
omitted.16 In addition the Greeks made some subtle changes
in the theological arguments which Hadrian had presented.
So, at the end of the eighth century the Greeks had rejected
papal political primacy as well as papal spiritual primacy.
Now, a question may be raised as to whether Hadrian's
spiritual primacy had been rejected, because he did endorse
the canons of II Nicaea. It is certainly possible that
Hadrian did not know that his letter had been changed, and
that the positions which the Greeks had adopted were not
quite the ones which he had prOposed to them. This, of
course, is a guess, but it is a fact that Hadrian misunder-
stood the iconoclastic controversy. Hadrian was an icono-
dule in the tradition of Gregory the Great. For him, icons
were useful didactic tools, helpful in the instruction of

illiterate Christians. In the East, however, the

 

15Mansi, Concilia, XII, 1056ff.

l6Ibid., 1059ff.

253

controversy was Christological and, perhaps, the last
manifestation of those Antiochene and Alexandrian disputes
which had disturbed the eastern half of the old Roman world
since the third century. Hadrian did not perceive this,
and so he certainlyciuinot grasp the true nature of the
canons which he embraced in 787.17
Let us consider for a moment the possibility that
Hadrian's motives were essentially political in embracing
the canons of II Nicaea. The Franks, as we know, were
extremely upset at the pronouncements of the second Nicaean
council. It hardly needs to be said that the Franks dif-
fered widely from the extreme iconodule position which
carried the day in 787. What particularly annoyed them,
however, was the fact that the Greeks called II Nicaea an
ecumenical council.18 For years scholars have argued that
the Franks disliked being regarded as inferior by the
Greeks or that the Franks refused to recognize a universal
synod in which they had taken no part. These views are
only partly true, and they tend to place too secular an
emphasis on the Frankish perception of the problem. It has
recently been shown that the Franks were genuinely and

particularly repulsed by the theological positions adopted

 

l7Gert Haendler, Bpochen karolingischer TheOIOgie,
(Berlin, 1958), pp.24-26, 3lff.

 

18The Frankish wrath is evident in many sources,
e.g., Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 794, p. 94: "Pseudo-
synodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant. . . .
reiecta est."

 

254

in 787.19 Subsequent Frankish conduct demonstrates that

power politics was much less a factor for them than
religious concerns.

Charles dispatched a letter to Hadrian in which he
had the author detail a number of specific objections to
the canons of II Nicaea. This letter does not survive but
Hadrian's lengthy response does. This letter is very im-
portant.20 In it, Hadrian said that he in no way intended
to defend the persons responsible for the eastern synod but
that he felt obliged to defend the tradition of the Roman

21 He then went on to

Church and of his predecessors.
reSpond to the objections raised by the Franks. It is
clear, in this portion of the letter, that he did not grasp
the full significance of the Nicaean canons. He articulated
a series of typically Gregorian positions as though they

had been the ones adOpted in 787. Then, and this is cru-
cial, Hadrian said that he had still not returned a response
to the East concerning the synod because he feared that

they might return to their errors. He noted that the Greeks

had recanted their doctrinal errors but they had neither

recognized his primacy in the Church nor returned his lands

 

19Ohnsorge, "Orthodoxus Imperator," in his
Abendland und Byzanz, pp. 64—78.

 

20
pp. 5‘57.

Epp. Sel. Pont. Rom., no. 2, MGH, Epp., V,

 

211bid., p. 7.

255

and church provinces. He concluded by saying that if the
Greeks did not make these concessions he would seriously
consider pronouncing them heretics.22

What is important here is that Hadrian left the
door Open for the Franks. They wanted, above all, a con-
demnation of II Nicaea, and they desired this mainly for
theological reasons. If II Nicaea were to gain the mark
of papal approval, so the Franks must have reasoned, it
would have become the seventh ecumenical council of the
Universal Church and they would have been bound by its
provisions. Since they differed greatly from the theology
of II Nicaea they were in a very difficult situation. To
refuse to recognize a universal council would have made
them heretics, and to change their own theology was un-
thinkable. So, on political grounds, Hadrian provided for
the condemnation of II Nicaea which pleased the Franks and
left the papacy able to maintain its claims to spiritual
primacy in the Church.

This condemnation came at Frankfurt in 794.
Scholars have long regarded this assembly as a dire humil—
iation for Hadrian and the papacy.23 This view is wrong
for a variety of reasons. One has only to look at the

Libri Carolini, a work which may have been written by

 

 

22Ibid., p. 57.

23Very characteristic is Haller, Papsttum, II,
p. 15 and Voigt, Staat und Kirche, p. 344.

 

256

either Alcuin or Theodulf of Orléans but which certainly
had Charles' explicit approval,24 to see that it is a
massive polemic against the Greeks, not against the
papacy.25 Wherever Hadrian was mentioned, he was treated
with the greatest gentility and obeisance26 and the Roman
See was praised as the very font of orthodoxy.27 The
Franks even went so far as to blame Presbyter John and
Patriarch Tarasias for deceiving Hadrian about the true

events of 787.28 Finally, the author of the Caroline Books

 

said that the Franks had only one intention: to come to
the aid of the papacy.29 This is not the stuff out of
which humiliations are made and neither is the second
capitilum of the Capitulary of Frankfurt where the papacy
is treated with respect.30 Again, Hadrian's path was

smoothed, and anathemas were launched only at the Greeks.

 

24Wolfram von den Steinen, "Karl der Grosse und die

Libri Carolini," Neues Archiv, XLIX, (1932), pp. 260ff.

 

25Libri Carolini, ed. Bastgen, MGH, Conc., Supp.,
I.l-30, pp. 8-3U_passim, II.31, pp. lOO—IUZ, IV.28,
pp. 227-28. Numerous other examples could be cited.

 

26E.g., Ibid., 1.2, p. 12, 1.4, p. 16.

271bid., I.6, pp. 20-22.

281bid., 11.4, p. 66.

291bid., prologue, pp. 2—3.

3OMGH, Conc., 11.1, c. 2, p. 165.

257

We know that papal envoys attended the delibera-

31 but we have no conciliar documents

tions at Frankfurt,
which show us what role they played or how the discussions
proceeded in general. All we have is a capitulary issued

at that time and, as a result, Werminghof printed it among
the Concilia. This was, perhaps, misleading because it can
lead to the conclusion that the greatest business undertaken
there concerned the Greeks and the iconoclastic problem.

But, a careful examination of the capitulary shows that

this was not the case. The first capitulum dealt with the

 

adoptionist heresy then raging in Spain, the second with
images, and then there followed dozens more dealing with a
huge range of secular and ecclesiastical concerns. Hadrian%5
supposed humiliation did not even rate pride of place!
Beyond this, however, Ganshof has shown that the Capitulary
of Frankfurt betrays a profound effort on the part of
Charles to procure some peace, stability and order in a
very troubled kingdom. He reached this conclusion on the
basis of a very precise analysis of the circumstances pre-
ceding the assembly at Frankfurt and, in so concluding, he
places the whole iconoclastic problem into its prOper per-
spective.32 In short, it was one among many problems then

faced by the Franks.

 

31Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 794, p. 94.

 

32"Observations sur le synode de Francfort de 794,"
Miscellanea Historica A. de Meyer, (Louvain, 1946),
pp. 306-318.

 

258

Let me recapitulate. The Franks achieved their
goal; II Nicaea was condemned. But Hadrian did this for
political reasons. The Greeks had refused to recognize his
primacy and would not return his lands. Hadrian was not
humiliated and no source suggests even the remote possi-
bility that Charles had set out to humiliate him. Finally,
it should be noted that no source explicitly states that
Hadrian submitted to the Frankish theology on icons. Such
a submission can not be presumed from his condemnation of
the Greeks, and the second canon of Frankfurt does not say
that Hadrian accepted the Frankish View. Certainly it
would be a grave error to argue that the Eibgi Carolini
were somehow binding on the papacy. If it is true that
the Franks refused to submit meekly to Hadrian's ideas,
then it is no less true that Hadrian elected not to submit
to theirs. Hadrian may have suffered a little in prestige
as a result of the Franks not bending to his will, but we
should not lose sight of the fact that the Franks did
everything in their power to make it look as though they
were, as always, fully in the tradition of the Roman See
on this important dogmatic issue.

When Theodore's writings, and the fairly wide senti-
ment which they must have represented, are judged against
the background formed by this digression into earlier
events, it shouldtxaclear that his letters would have

been like veritable manna to the pOpe. Here was a Greek,

259

a member of that race who had been responsible for the
papacy's difficulties in the first place, arguing Petrine
theories and papal spiritual primacy. As we have seen, the

Ludovicianum had been a first step in curbing the political

 

and territorial ambitions of the papacy and by the time the
second iconoclastic controversy had really broken out in

the West the Constitutio Romana will have been the decisive

 

check upon those ambitions. In 794 papal spiritual
supremacy had been, at least to some extent, called into
question on all sides and now, in the early ninth century
this very authority was being asserted, and from an un-
expected quarter at that. Spiritual primacy was really

the only pre-eminence that the papacy could still claim for
itself in 824 and the obstinacy shown by Eugenius should not,
therefore, surprise us. Likewise, the second struggle over
images allowed the papacy, in the person of Eugenius, to
maintain its essentially iconOphile position, a position
which it had never abandoned.

The course of the second controversy may now be
surveyed. As a response to Michael's appeal for assis-
tance Louis sent Freculf of Lisieux and a certain Adegar,
about whom nothing else is known, to Rome to request papal

33

permission for a Frankish inquest into the affair. Per-

mission was granted and on November 1, 825 a number of

 

33MGH, Conc., 11.2, p. 482.

260

Frankish bishOps met at Paris.34 By December 6, the bishOps

had concluded their discussions and they sent Halitgar of
Cambrai and Amalar of Metz to Louis with a document contain-
ing their Opinions.35 Louis then wrote to Jeremias of Sens
and Jonas of Orléans, the latter of whom was among the most
learned churchmen of the empire and probably chosen for this
reason as well as for his very close relationship with
Louis,36 and stated that the proffered documents met with
his approval. Furthermore, Louis ordered Jeremias and

Jonas to go to Rome and there to present Eugenius with a

37

summary of the conclusions reached at Paris. Louis also

prepared a personal letter to Eugenius which Jeremias and

Jonas were to bear to Rome.38

The two bishOps were urged
to make Eugenius see the correctness of the Frankish point
of view and, in both his letter to them and in his letter

to Eugenius, Louis sought to gain permission to send legates

of his own to ConstantinOple in any delegation that

 

34The basic facts are adequately presented by
Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, IV.1, pp. 40—48;
cf. Jaffe, no. 2560.

 

 

 

35MGH, Conc., II.2, p. 483. This was the Libellus
Synodalis.
36

Jean Réviron, Les idées politico-réligieuses
d'un évéque du IXe siécle: Jonas d’Orléans, TPari§,—1930),
pp. 27ff, Giff, emphasizes this, as does DeClercq,
Legislation réligieuse franque, II, p. 57.

 

 

 

37MGH, Conc., II.2, p. 533.

 

381bid., pp. 534-35.

261

Eugenius might wish to send there. The evidence, which
will be analyzed in detail in just a moment, suggests that
Eugenius was not persuaded by the Frankish envoys.

These are the basic facts of the case and, un-
fortunately, they can not be followed further with any
degree of certainty. Louis seems to have had in mind as

his legates to the East Halitgar and Amalar39

and the
Royal Annals, under the year 828, report of the return of
Halitgar from ConstantinOple. However, Halitgar's com-
panion was Ansfrid of Nonantula, not Amalar.4o Moreover,
legates from Michael had appeared before Louis in the year

41 It has

before to confirm peace between the two empires.
been suggested that these diplomatic exchanges were con-
nected with the religious dispute and that Halitgar was
Louis' personal envoy in a papal mission to the East.42
This is, of course, possible, but it does not explain what
happened to Amalar. It seems safest to admit that we do
not know what became of the whole affair after Jeremias
and Jonas went to Rome. Our sources contain no subsequent

references to the papacy or to the Byzantines in connection

with this dispute, and this makes it a little difficult to

 

39Ibid., p. 533.

4OSSrG, s.a. 828, p. 174.

411b1d., s.a. 827, p. 174.

42Von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 400.

 

262

reach any firm conclusions about the affair itself and
about Louis' role in it. However, if some of the subtleties
of the Paris documents from 825 are studied carefully, a
few points, at least, can be established with considerable
clarity.

The documents make it readily apparent that the
Franks expected some trouble from Eugenius. In his letter
to Jeremias and Jonas, Louis instructed them to prepare an
extract of the most pertinent points of the Paris conclu-
sions in order to facilitate their presentation to

Eugenius.43

Louis continued and urged the bishOps to be
patient and modest and to remind Eugenius that the fathers
at Paris had undertaken their labors only with papal per-
mission. Above all, they were advised to avoid offending
Eugenius. In fact, Louis told his envoys to use extreme
caution to carry their point and to be sure that they did
not arouse the wrath of the pope and push him into an
extreme position. Eugenius was to be reminded that the
Paris bishops had as their concern only the resolution of

44

a grave theological issue. Finally, and again indicative

 

43MGH, Conc., II.2, p. 533: "Idcirco ammonendo

praecipimus sollertiae vestrae, ut, priusquam de his
aliquid domno apostolico indicetis, diligenti cura eadem
vos recensere curetis et ea, quae melius et aptius
praesenti negotio convenire inveneritis, excerpere atque
describere illique ad legendum offerre studeatis."

 

44Ibid.: "Illud tamen summopere praevidete, ut ea
illi de his ostendatis, quae rationi de imaginibus habendae
per omnia conveniunt et quod ipse vel sui minime reicere

263

of the trouble which Louis expected, the emperor wrote
"but if Roman obstinacy should bring this to no good end"
then Jeremias and Jonas should request that Franklin legates
also be sent to Constantinople.45
Louis' personal letter to Eugenius, which was to be
delivered by Jeremias and Jonas, demonstrates the same
sentiments.46 A large portion of Louis' letter was devoted
to reminding Eugenius that the Franks had undertaken to
study the matter only because he, Eugenius, had given them
permission to do so. Likewise, Louis laid enormous emphasis
on the idea that he and the Frankish bishops only wanted to
help the pope to reach a decision and that they were in no

way arrogating to themselves the rights of the Holy See.47

 

valeant. Sed et vos ipsi tam patienter ac modeste cum eo
de hac causa disputationem habeatis, ut summopere caveatis,
de nimis ei resistendo eum in aliquam inrevocabilem per-
tinaciam incidere compellatis, sed paulatim verbis eius
quasi obsequendo magis quam aperte resistendo ad mensuram,
quae in habendis imaginibus retinenda est, eum deducere
valeatis."

45Ibid.: "Si tamen hoc ad nihilum Romana
pertinacia permiserit."

46Ibid., pp. 534-35.

47These points could be established by citation of
nearly any portion of the letter. Cf. ibid.: ”Summa
cura ac sollicitudine tractaremus, quale vobis adiutorium
in hoc negotio . . . potuissemus"; "Et ob hoc a vestra
sanctitate petivimus, ut sacerdotibus nostris liceret . . .
sentias quaerere atque colligere . . ."; "Sicut iam
commemorati sumus nos debitores existere, ut huic sanc-
tissimae sedi in quibuscumque negotiis auxilium ferre
debeamus . . .";'Wkn1ideo tamen de nostris missis
illuc dirigendis interrogamus, quasi necessarium nobis

264

The letter also contained a warning, to be sure a warning
couched in very guarded language, concerning the legation
that Eugenius was about to send to the East. Louis asked
Eugenius to make sure that his envoys to Constantinople
were men of wisdom and absolutely beyond reproach.48

The contents and implications of these letters may
be summed up briefly. The Franks expected the pope to
hold a somewhat different view of the iconoclastic problem
from their view. The possibility was considered that the
pOpe could be brought around to the Frankish Opinion but
it was thought to be equally possible that the pope would
be hOpelessly recalcitrant. Finally, Louis' intentions are
quite clear--he wanted the pope convinced of the soundness
of the Frankish theology on images--but his actual role
appears to have been a rather passive one. This last point
must be pursued because one of the objectives of this
chapter is to understand and to interpret Louis' role.

It has been customary to regard Louis' conduct

in 824 and 825 as decidedly different from that of his

 

videatur aut nos vestros missos hanc legationem per se
perficere dubitemus, sed potius propter hoc eos vobis
offerimus, ut sciatis nos in omnibus esse paratos, quae
huius sacratissimae sedis necessitas aut voluntas
postulaverit."

48Ibid., p. 534: "Ft ideo cautissime considerare
debetis, ut Iegatio vestra, quam illuc dirigere disponitis,
tanta prudentia tantoque moderamine suffulta sit, sed talis
sit, neque a Graeco neque Romano, iuste valeat reprehendi,
sed talis sit, qualem semper decet in omnibus causis ab
ista sacratissima sede proficisci."

265

father in 794. Hauck went so far as to call Louis
cowardly and to say that he trembled before the pope.49
Some scholars, while holding in the main to the prevailing
Opinion, have interpreted Louis' reserve in terms of a
Frankish desire to maintain peaceful relations with
Byzantium. The problem in 824 was raised by the Greeks, and
in theological terms the Frankish position was, it should

be noted, closer to the Byzantine than to the papal posi-

tion.50

Still, regardless of the perspective from which
the problems of 824 have been viewed, scholars generally
conclude that Louis' reserve stands in marked contrast to
the energetic action of his father. Therefore, in order
properly to interpret Louis' role, it is necessary to show,
first, that conditions in 824/25 were not similar to those
of 794 and, second, that in the purely dogmatic dimensions
of the second iconoclastic dispute Louis acted exactly as
his father had acted in dogmatic quarrels.

We have already seen that during the years between

785 and 794 Hadrian was as much motivated by political

 

49Kirchengeschichte, II, pp. 499, 502. Cf. von
Schubert, Rifche’im_Frfihmittelalter, p. 400; Voigt, .
Staat und Kirche, pp. 415-16. Interestingly, the Catholic
scholar F. X. Seppelt, Geschichte der Papste, (Munich,
1955), II, p. 212, agrees that Louis acted differently from
his father but praises Louis' non—intervention.

 

 

50A. Gasquet, L'empire byzantine et la monarchie
fran ue, (Paris, 1888), p. 325: Ullmann, Papal Government,
p. I37.

266

concerns as by theological ones. We have also seen that

his condemnation of II Nicaea was conditioned by the failure
of the Greeks to give in to his political requests and to
admit explicitly his spiritual primacy. Finally, we noted
that there is no evidence that Hadrian and the Franks ever
reached a common interpretation of the iconoclastic problem.
The crucial point is that there were political considera-
tions which allowed for a Franco-papal détente in 794.

No such political problems or possibilities existed
in 824. The papacy had long since been forced to renounce
its claims to lands earlier appropriated by Constantinople.
Long and hard negotiations between the Franks and the Greeks
had finally brought about peaceful relations between the two
empires, and the papacy was no longer in a position to
meddle or mediate between them. In the time of Hadrian the
political position of the papacy in Rome and Italy was still
very much an unsettled matter but, owing to the great
settlements of 816 and 824, this was no longer the case
when the second quarrel over images broke out. By the
time of Eugenius the papacy could assert only its spiritual
supremacy. It should not surprise us that Eugenius proved
absolutely uncompromising in 824/25. In other words,
Charles faced a pOpe who was in a position to compromise
but Louis did not have the same luxury.

Let us remember that the Franks had stipulated the

dogmatic supremacy of the papacy in the Libri Carolini

 

267

and that Leo and Paschal had, quite unexpectedly, been
flattered by some very eminent Greeks. This certainly must
have contributed to Eugenius' decision to hold the line on
the papal interpretation Of icons in 824, but there were
other factors which were undoubtedly Of some significance.
These must be sought among the Franks.

It was noted earlier that, in the early ninth cen-
tury, the Franks were engaged in a minor iconoclastic con-
troversy of their own. One of the chief participants in
this dispute, Claudius Of Turin, had some interesting things
to say about the pope. He said "certainly he is not to be
called apostolic who sits in the chair of the apostle, but

51 Claudius'

rather he who fills the apostolic Office."
Opinion is representative of a fairly wideSpread concil-
iarism which was then emerging in the Frankish epiSOOpate.
This view held thatixxecclesiastical matters Christ's
commission had been handed equally to all bishops and that
the bishops, in their totality, were the conservators of
the tradition of the Church. The pOpe was more highly
esteemed than any other single bishop but not an independent
52

authority, according to the conciliarist ecclesiology. It

is interesting to note that the statement attributed by

 

513 . no. 12, MGH, Epp., 1v, p. 613: "Certe ille
non dicendus est apostolicus qui in cathedra apostoli,
sed qui apostolicum implet officium."

52This is one of the theses ably argued by Morrison,
Two Kingdoms, passim; cf. Congar, Ecclésiologie, pp. 158ff.

 

 

268

Rufinius to Constantine at the time of the first Nicaean
council appears repeatedly in the early ninth century.
Presumably, Constantine said to the assembled bishOps,
"You are gods constituted by the true God; go, discuss
your issues among yourselves for it is not fitting that we

judge gods."S3

Needless to say, this passage is important
in understanding the relation of secular to ecclesiastical
authorities but it is no less significant as an indicator
of the Frankish idea that ecclesiastical disputes were the
common stock of all bishops and particularly of bishOps
canonically convened in council. Eugenius probably knew
that these ideas were abroad and he can hardly have been
happy with this direct attack on the Petrine theory of
papal supremacy. Again, it is easy to see why Eugenius
refused to budge in 824.

The currency Of these conciliarist ideas, and
Eugenius' obstinacy in 824, can be related to one another
rather closely by the Paris documents of 825. I have
several times called attention to the extraordinary gen-
tility with which the Franks treated Hadrian in 794. The

Paris fathers, in a Libellus destined for Eugenius' eyes,

took Hadrian severely to task. They stated that Hadrian

 

53Historia Ecclesiastica, X.2, 2L, XXI, 468: "Vos
dii estis, a vero Deo constituti: ite, et inter vos cau-
sas discutite, quia dignum non est ut nos judicemus deos."
This appears in a Paris synod Of 829 and in an Aachen synod
of 836 as well as in the Episcopgrum Relatio and the
treatises of Jonas Of Orléans. For proof see Anton,
Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, pp. 437-46.

 

 

 

269

prOperly condemned those who destroyed sacred images but
that he foolishly overreacted and ordered that images be

54

adored. They attacked the letter which Hadrian had sent

to the Greeks by claiming that his citations from the

fathers were irrelevant.55

They said almost the same thing
about the letter that Hadrian sent to Charles. In this
letter Hadrian was accused of having acted in an unfitting
manner.56 Finally, Hadrian was accused of deviating from
the path of rectitude, though it is said that he, perhaps,
did this unwittingly.57 Since the papacy still held to the

views which were being attacked in 825, Eugenius' displeasure

at these attacks on his predecessor can well be imagined.

 

54MGH, Conc., II.2, p. 481: "sicut iuste repre-

hendit illos,<primagines sanctorum temerario ausu in
illis partibus confrigere et penitus Obolere praesump-
serunt, sic indiscrete noscitur fecisse in eo, quod super-
stitiose eas adorare iussit."

 

55Ibid.: ”Inseruit etiam in eadem epistola quaedam

testimonia sanctorum patrum, quantum nobis datur intellegi,
valde absona et ad rem, de qua agebatur, minime
pertinetia."

56Ibid.: ". . . tam superstitiosa tamque incongrua
testimonia memorato Operi inseruerant, per singula
capitula in illorum excusationem respondere quae voluit,
non tamen quae decuit conatus est . . . talia quippe
quaedam sunt quae.in illorum obiectionem Opposuit, quae
remota pontificali auctoritate et veritate et auctoritati
refragantur." The document to which Hadrian's responses
are being considered is the now lost letter of Charles to
Hadrian carried to Rome by Angilbert.

57Ibid., p. 482: "Quibus verbis liquido colligitur,
quOd non tantum scienter quantum ignoranter in eodem facto
a recto tramite deviaverit."

270

In addition to these attacks on Hadrian and his
theOlOgy, the Paris Libellus contained some other words
which would have struck a dissonant chord with Eugenius.

The Frankish bishops Observed that Eugenius was defending

an erroneous position and that he did not seem to be willing
to cede to the truth.58 Then the bishops asserted that

they had constructed their arguments in such a way that
Eugenius could hardly fail to see their correctness and
that, having seen it, he would certainly yield to it.59
Again this emphasizes the fact that the Franks considered
the papacy to be in the wrong. Later in the synodal books
the bishops Offered an interesting bit of praise on behalf

Of the Roman See. They noted the special responsibilities

of the papacy and the special name--universalis-—which it

 

bore. At the same time, however, they stated that the
pOpe did not merit the title universal when he did not
struggle for the strength, and according to the traditions
of, the Universal Church.60
SO, the evidence goes full circle. Ideas found

in Claudius of Turin, in various synods, and in treatises

are also found inaaLibellus which bore Louis' stamp of

 

58Ibid.: "Volens nolensque veritati cederet atque
succumberet."

591bid., pp. 482-83.

601bid., p. 522.

271

approval.61

These ideas were inimical to the papacy and
another powerful inducement to obstinacy on the part Of
Eugenius. It suffices to say that he succumbed to these
inducements, as well as to the others which have been
described here and, as a result, he refused to submit to
the Franks in 825.

The foregoing arguments should be enough to demon-
strate that conditions in 824/25 were so different from
those in 794 that any comparison is dangerous. It is safe
to conclude that on both occasions it was considered
necessary to win papal approval. This is implicit in the
attempts made both times to convince the papacy Of the
rectitude of the Frankish view. It is also important to
note that both times genuine papal approval failed to
materialize. Also, it would probably be a mistake to
attribute too much significance to the nascent conciliarism
among the Frankish clergy. This tendency certainly would
have alarmed Eugenius, but it would have been only one
factor in the formation of his ideas and only a partial
motivating force among the Franks themselves. The Frankish
sources, with a few exceptions, are respectful Of Rome, and
although the bishops considered Eugenius and Hadrian to be
representatives of an erroneous position they did not feel

themselves capable Of declaring them heretics. The crux of

 

61Ibid., p. 533: "Et quia placuerunt et ad id,
prOpter quod collectae sunt, necessariae atque utiles a
nobis iudicantur . . ."

272

the problem lies in the fact that the Church had not yet
decided where sovereignty lay in dogma. Generally speaking,
the papacy claimed and was conceded a certain pre-eminence.62
But, as Hinschius wisely pointed out years ago, it was not
until the doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed in
1870 that the matter reached any definitive resolution.63

There are still a few loose ends to be tied up if
Louis' role in the second iconoclastic struggle is to be
prOperly understood and interpreted. Louis' critics, that
is, those who argue that he acted so differently from his
father, would probably not be silenced by an argument
that reached only the two conclusions that Charles did not,
in fact, impose his will upon Hadrian-~making Louis no dif-
ferent for not imposing his will on Eugenius--and that
conditions in 825 and 794 were so different that comparisons
are dangerous. These critics would certainly argue that
Charles generally took a more energetic part in dogmatic
disputes than his son. This view is demonstrably false,
for the two rulers acted in exactly identical fashion.

In the first place, it should be Observed that the
Frankish clergy rather consistently argued that the king

was responsible for defending the faith. Paulinus Of

Aquileia, on several occasions, claimed that it was the

 

62Cf. MacDonald, Reason and Authority, pp. 68-71;
Morrison, Tradition and Authority, pp. 157ff; Ullmann,
Papal Government, pp. 109-II.

 

 

63Kirchenrecht, 1v, pp. 432-36.

 

273

special preserve of churchmen to struggle against enemies
Of the faith with the weapons Of churchmen. He further
stated that it was the responsibility Of kings tO fight
against "visible enemies" while clerics had it as their
duty to fight against "invisible enemies" with spiritual

weapons.64 This same thesis is met in Alcuin,65

and it
would not be difficult to cite other examples of its
appearance. The important point here is that the clergy
did not assign to the king any role in the definition Of
dogma, only in the protection of it.

The same view was adopted by the Paris fathers of
825. With reference to Charles' conduct, they said simply

that he had acted prOperly in calling to Hadrian's atten-

tion the errors of the Greeks so that Hadrian, by his

 

64MGH, Conc., II.1, p. 132: "necessarium tamen

existimo Omnibus christianis cunctisque fidelibus, maxime
apostolicis viris, contra hostes eius fidei armis dimicare";
p. 142: "Unde supplicandus est tranquilissimus princeps
noster, ut ille pro nobis contra visibiles hostes pro
Christi amore Domino Opitulante dimicet, et nos pro illo
contra invisibiles hostes, Domini inprecantes potentiam,
spiritualibus armis pugnemus." Cf. MGH, Epp., IV,

no. 18, p. 525.

65Epistolae, MGH, Epp., IV, p. 282: "Hoc mirabile
et speciale’in te pietatis Dei donum praedicamus: quod
tanta devotione ecclesias Christi a perfidorum doctrinis
intrinsecus purgare tuerique niteris, quanta forinsecus
a vastatione paganorum defendere vel propagare conaris.”
H. Lilienfein, Die Anschauung von Staat und Kirche in
Reich der Karolinger, (Heidelberger Abhandlungen, I, 1902),
pp. 33-35, and others, take this passage to be'Indicative
Of Charles' preponderant role in dogmatic issues. I ask,
simply, where does this passage say that Charles defined
the faith which he undertook to defend? Cf. infra, nn.
67, 68.

 

 

 

274

apostolic authority, could call for the necessary changes.

Let us recall that Charles' letter to Hadrian and the Libri

Carolini had royal approval, but were not of royal author-
ship. Referring Specifically to Louis, the bishops
praised his zeal in seeking to bring the affair to a
prOper conclusion67 and they went on to make a crucial
statement about Louis' prOper role. They stated that
Louis, as was fitting, had the desire to take the affair
under consideration but that he lacked the authority to
investigate the matter himself.68
The analysis of dogmatic issues was, therefore,
reserved to clerics. Pious monarchs had a duty to protect
and propagate the faith, but its content was not properly
their affair. These conclusions are certainly justified
by what might be called the general or theoretical pro-
nouncements in the sources which have survived. Unfor-

tunately, the reasoning of Paulinus, Alcuin and the Paris

fathers is not juristic, and no one in the Carolingian age

 

66MGH, Conc., II.2, p. 481: "Ft multis in locis

(soil. in capitulis Graecorum), ut dignum erat, reprehen-
disset et quaedam capitula, quae reprehensione patebat,
praenotasset eaque per Angilbertum abbatum eidem Hadriano
papae direxisset, ut illius iudicie et auctoritate cor-
rigerentur." (Italics mine.)

 

 

67Ibid., p. 482: "Quo zelo ad haec consideranda
vestra sancta devotio excitata fuerit. Non enim ignoramus
animum vestrum magno taedio posse affici . . . "

68;§i§.: "Quoniam inerat vobis voluntas consulendi
et deerat auctoritas quaerendi."

66

275

produced a genuinely legalistic treatise on the subject.
If we were left in the realm of theories, we would be on
very dangerous ground because it is seldom possible to say
how widely a given theory is, or was, accepted. Likewise,
there are abundant examples from the Carolingian age of
clerics articulating one view and Of kings, seemingly,
adhering to a precisely Opposite one. Happily, however,
we are not banished to the world of ideas. Charles played
a role in several theological disputes, and when his role
in them is studied, it will be seen that it conforms per-
fectly to the prevailing theories. It will also be clear
that Louis played essentially the same role as his father
had before him.

The council at Frankfurt in 794 has already been
discussed several times so let us begin with it. Delibera-
tions there ranged widely over a number Of issues that
were Of grave concern to the Franks. Among these were the
canons of II Nicaea and the adOptionist heresy Of Felix
of Urgel and Elipandus of Toledo. It is only with these
that we are concerned. First, it should be noted that the
synod was called by Charles, but that it also had papal
approval, that is, it met with papal authority.69 In the

ninth century the Franks considered Frankfurt to have been

 

69Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s. a. 794, p. 94;

Capitulare Franconofurtense, MGH, Conc., II. 1, p. 165:
“Apostolica auctoritate atquefi p1iss1m1 domini nostri
Karoli iussione.

 

 

276

a papal assembly-70 and so, however great Charles' role in

calling it may have been, the significance of the papal
sanction should be be underestimated.

Even if it is conceded that papal approval was
necessary to enter into any serious discussion of dogma,
it does not follow that Charles played no role in the
discussions or in the final decisions. The final judgments
reached at Frankfurt were published in a capitulary and
this caused them to enter into the public law of the
Franks. The Obligatory force of any capitulary derived
solely from the power of the king who issued it, and it
can hardly be imagined that a king would have issued a
capitulary whose contents were not to his liking. It is
known, in fact, that most capitularies were direct expres-

sions of royal will.71

This might seem to suggest that the
role of the clergy at Frankfurt was negligible, but a
careful study of the text of the capitulary shows that this
was not the case.

It is fortunate that we can turn to the sources for

a firm answer because there exists for Charles' role at

Frankfurt the same divisions of scholarly Opinion that have

 

7oJonas of Orléans, De Cultu Imaginum, I, PL, CVI,
309; cf. Hincmar's Opinion: _‘IussIOne apostolicae-Sedis
. . . convocante imperatoris" cited by Congar, Ecclésiologie,
pp. 170-71.

 

 

71Ganshof, "Récherches sur les capitulaires,"

277

been found in the other issues raised in this chapter. Some

argue that Charles dictated to his clergy72 while others

claim that he left the bishops pretty much to themselves.73
The correct interpretation of the Capitulary of
Frankfurt was advanced some years ago by Hans Barion on
the basis of a precise study of its text.74 Only the first
two Frankfurt canons dealt with dogmatic issues; the first
with adoptionism, the second with iconoclasm. The disposi—
tory language of these canons is distinctive. Canon 1
reads "sanctissimi patres . . . statuerunt" and canon 2
says "sanctissimi patres . . . condempnaverunt."75 In
almost every case, dispositions in the capitularies were
made in the third person singular or in the first person
plural. It is enormously important to note that these are

precisely the forms used in the remainder Of the Capitulary

of Frankfurt. Consider just a few examples:

 

72E:.g., von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter,
p. 367; Voigt, Staat und Kirche, pp. 343-44.

 

 

73Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, III, p. 701; Brunner,
Deutsche Rechts eschichte, II, p. 418; Morrison, Two
Kingdoms, pp. 33-34.

 

 

74Das frankisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frfihmittel-
alters, (Kanonistische Studien undTexte, V, VI, Bonn-
Cologne, 1931), pp. 252-53, 265-66. His conclusion is
"that dogmatic issues were independently decided legally
by the bishops."

 

 

75MGH, Conc., 11.1, p. 165.

 

278

c. 3: indulsit, concessit

c. 4: Statuit piissimus domnus noster rex

c. 6: Statutum est a domno rege et sancta synodo
c. 9: Definitum est etiam eodem domno rege sive a

sancta synodo
c. 55: Dixit etiam domnus rex

76

In canons after the first two, the king, or the king and
the synod spoke. In the first two, those dealing with
dogma, only the synod Spoke. The conclusion is clear:
Charles had no authority to pronounce when purely theo-
logical points were at issue. He gave legal force to a
truth proclaimed by his clergy. If he had dictated to his
clergy or if he had possessed the legal right to do so,

he would surely have spoken in his own name, as he did
without exception in all other cases.

Charles can be observed playing the same role in
the adOptionist dispute. The adOptionists were a group
of Spanish heretics centering particularly on Bishops
Felix of Urgel and Elipandus of Toledo. They maintained
that Christ was the adoptive son of God and questioned
the fullness of his divinity. As a broad generalization,
it is fair to fit this heresy into the context of the

Christological disputes which had rent the Christian world

since the third century.77 When the heresy began to flare

 

76Ibid., pp. 166-71. Note particularly cc. 6 and 9
where both king and synod diSposed of the matter at hand.

77A brief but adequate description of adOptionism
may be found in Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles,
III.2, pp. 1001-1019.

 

279

up in the years around 785, Hadrian got wind of it and

directed several letters to the Spanish episc0pate,78

79

cluding a very substantial one. At some point, Hadrian
called the problem to Charles' attention. Probably this
occurred in 788 or 789 though Opportunities would have
been so numerous that it is difficult to fix the date
securely.80

Charles decided to take the matter under considera-
tion at a synod at Regensburg in 792. Felix of Urgel was
summoned there and convinced of his error. He recanted and

was sent to Hadrian.81

It may well be that Hadrian had
sought Charles' assistance because the Frankish king was
in a much better position than the pope to lay his hands
on Felix. Very little can be inferred from this, however.
The meetings at Regensburg were concerned with far more
than just Felix, Elipandus and the adoptionists. There
was the already present iconoclastic problem, the recent

Avar campaign which had been something less than a success,

and the revolt Of Pepin the Hunchback to be considered.

 

78Codex Carolinus, nos. 95, 96, 97, MGH, Epp., III,
pp. 637-47.

 

79Epistola Hadriani ad Episcopos Hi3paniae, MGH,
COHC., 11.1, pp. 122-30.

 

80Jaffe, no. 2468; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des
conciles, III.2, pp. 1024-25.

 

Bléng. q. d. Einhardi, SSrG, s.a. 792, p. 91; Ann.
Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 792, p.—12.

 

280

That Charles decided to deal with the heretics at all may
have been dictated by a desire to put the troubled Frankish
house in order. Moreover, Charles, Hadrian and the
Frankish clergy were all of one mind on the adOptionist
problem, so there was neither reason nor occasion for
Charles to intervene alone in the matter. Then, too,
Hadrian had initiated the condemnation of the errant
Spaniards, so it would be wrong to see Charles' role as
more than an associate or corroborative one.

The matter was not allowed to drop at Regensburg,
however. In 793 a number Of Spanish clerics wrote to
Charles and to the Frankish clergy.82 In essence these
letters asked Charles and the Franks to arbitrate the
diSpute and they made it clear that a decision in favor

83 These letters are much less

of Felix was expected.
instructive about Charles' role than the Frankish responses
to them.

In the letter prepared by the Frankish bishops
Charles was praised highly for his solicitude in dealing
with the heresy. Then the clergy went on to a lengthy and

detailed refutation Of the errors of Felix. There is only

a vague hint that Charles had had anything to do with the

 

82793 seems reasonable since the letters arrived
after Regensburg but before Frankfurt. Jaffe, no. 2482;
Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, III.2, p. 1043.

 

83MGH, Conc., 11.1, pp. 120ff.

281

treatise--the response of the Frankish bishops was indeed a
treatise—-sent to Spain. The bishops praised the wise and
pious prince who had sat with them and helped them. How-
ever, they continued and said that Charles had instructed

them to prepare a Libellus against the Spanish clergy.84

 

Charles' own letter to the Spanish is enormously
important. It contains the only words which have survived
from Charles himself treating of his role in dogmatic
disputes.85 He began by saying that his sole desire was
that all be united according to the teachings of the
Church. TO serve that end, he wrote, the bishops of his
whole empire had been called together so that they could
determine "what ought to be believed" ("quid credenum
sit"). Likewise, he told the Spanish, he had several
times sent missi to Rome to find out the position of the
papacy on this matter. Charles even said that he had
called in certain men from England, among whom Alcuin must
certainly be numbered. Then Charles said that he was
sending individual books prepared by each body Of clerics
who had studied the matter. These books, according to
Charles, had been prepared "by ecclesiastical authority"
and came, one each, from the papacy, the bishOps of Italy

and the bishops of Gaul, Germany, Aquitaine and England.

 

84Ibid., pp. 143-57.

851pm., pp. 158-64.

282

Near the end of the letter, Charles said that he
had attended the discussions, which discussions it is not

,86 but

clear, because the Spanish had asked him to do so
from several other statements in the letter it is clear that
Charles had played, at best, a passive role in the delibera-
tions. On several occasions he stated that he wished to
associate himself fully with the statements contained in

the Libelli and that he joined himself perfectly to the

opinions of the Holy See.87

He also said that he agreed
completely with whatever might be found in the books and
that it was not his duty to explain their contents to the
Spanish.88
Charles' letter indicates that he defended and
called his own the theology prescribed by his clergy.
Nowhere did he say that he had defined the doctrines which

he espoused, and nowhere did he claim the right to do so.

Throughout his letter, Charles asserted that because his

 

86121d., p. 161: "Ecce ego vestris petitionibus
satisfaciens congregationi sacerdotum adiutor et arbiter
adsedi.”

87Ibid., p. 160: "Meae prOpriae unanimitas cum his
sanctissimis . . . decretis et catholicis statutis.”
"Me sanctissimae multitidini et probatissimae auctoritate
. . . associans." "Sed apostolicae sedi . . . coniungo."

881bid.: "Quidquid in illorum legitur libris . . .
indubitanter teneo"; p. 161: "Quid vero de hoc libella
praesules ecclesiarum Christi fidaei catholicae doctores
intellexissent, non Opus mihi in hac mea iterare epistola,
dum eorum libellus prOprius hoc vobis evidenter ostendit.”

283

clergy adhered to the universal traditions of the Catholic
faith he could do nothing else but subscribe to their inter-
pretations. In fact, the conclusion of the letter is an
exhortation to the Spanish to return to the fold; indeed,

to return to the theology which they would find in the books
written by Charles' clergy.

Charles was involved in one final doctrinal dis-
pute. This was the "filioque" controversy which emerged in
808 and 809. This controversy centered on the fact that
the Eastern and Western Churches made their professions of
faith in slightly, but significantly, different ways. In
the East, the Holy Spirit was held to proceed from the
Father through the Son. This was stated by Cyril of
Alexandria in the fifth century: "5K 105 fidrpbs 6: 0:06."
The Western view was that the Holy spirit proceeded from
the Father and from the Son. In Greek this was expressed

\

) a \ ’ 0 C 0 . .
"6K IOU narpos Kat 6K IOU UIOU." In Lat1n 1t was written

"ex patre et ex filio" or, more familiarly, "ex patre

filioque."89

The problem was not unknown to the Franks. They

had first dealt with it at a synod at Gentilly in 767 or,
90

 

 

at least, it is likely that it arose at that time. The
89Lot, Pfister and Ganshof, L'empire en occident,
p. 605.
90

Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 767, p. 24: “Tunc
habuit domnus Pippinus rex in supradicta villa (scil.
Gentiliaco) synodum magnum inter Romanos et Graecos

de sancta Trinitate vel de sanctorum imaginibus."

 

 

 

284

problem was discussed in the Libri Carolini as an example
91

 

Of one of the perversions of the Greeks. In addition, it

appears that Paulinus of Aquileia defended the reception
of "filioque" in a synod at Friuli in 796.92 Not until
808, however, did the problem become a serious one.
Frankish monks on the Mount Of Olives near Jerusalem
were accustomed to chanting "filioque" in the profession
of faith. This brought upon them a charge Of heresy from
the Greek monks of St. Sebas. In order to remove this
charge the Frankish monks appealed to Leo III. They pro-
fessed that they believed exactly as the Roman Church and
in their obsequies to Leo they emphasized that if they were
called heretics it would be tantamount to calling Leo him-
self a heretic. They then went on to say that they had
heard "filioque" chanted in Charles' chapel and they in-
vited Leo to seek corroboration of this fact.93 It was in
this way that the Franks became involved in the affair.
Leo forwarded the letter of the Palestinian monks
to Charles along withailetter of his own and a copy of

the symbol of faith that he had sent to the East.94 This

 

91111.1,3,4, pp. 106, 11011, 113.

92MGH, Conc., II.l, pp. 18lff; Epistolae Variorum,

no. 15, M H, Epp., IV, pp. 517-20.

93E . Sel. Pont. Rom., no. 7, MGH, Epp., V,
pp. 64-66; Jaffe, no. 2519.

94LEEQ-o no. 8, pp. 66-67; Jaffe, no. 2520.

 

 

 

 

285

symbol is Of some concern to us. Its key passage read
"Credimus Spiritum sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequa-

liter procedentem . . ."95

Two important points must be
made in connection with this exchange of correspondence.
First, the theology of the papacy, the Franks and the
Frankish monks on the Mount of Olives was the same on the
issue of the procession Of the Holy Spirit. Second, the
monks and the Franks, but not the papacy, had, at some
point, inserted the word "filioque" into their profession
of faith. It may be noted in passing that all parties to
this dispute were of the same mind on the theology of the
issue, and all stood in marked distinction to the theology
of the Greeks. Earlier, and in a more pronounced fashion
later, this caused a substantial rift between the Eastern
and Western Churches. In 808, however, the dispute was
solely Western and concerned language, not theology.
Charles decided to call a synod at Aachen in 809
and, among other things, it took up the question of the

96

procession of the Holy Spirit. The synod affirmed the

orthodox position on the procession and, apparently,

 

95Mansi, Concilia, XIII, 978.

 

96Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 809, p. 129; Ann.
Fuld., SSrG, s.a. 809, p. 17; Ann. Xant., SSrG, p. 4;
Ann. Iuv. Max., MGH, ss, xxx.2TԤ.a. 808 (BIBS, p. 738;
From the synodal-dacumgnts, MGH, Conc., II.l, pp. 236ff,
it is clear that a variety Of matters were discussed, yet
the annalistic sources say only that the synod was held
"de processione Spiritus sancti."

 

 

 

 

 

286

affirmed the use of the word filioque. The synodal docu-
ments, along with a small treatise on the subject written
by Smaragdus,97 were sent to Rome by Charles through Bishop
Bernhar of Worms and Adalhard.98 These men were assigned
the task of holding a disputation with Leo on the introduc-
tion of filioque into the symbols. We are imperfectly
informed about these discussions, which did take place in

early 810,99 but it is known that Leo forbade the addition

of filioque.loo It is also known that the Franks continued
to use it and that the papacy did not receive it until

1014.101

It is not at all difficult to extract the prOper
conclusions from this series of events. Whatever the role
Charles played in all Of this may have been, it was secon-

dary to the roles played by the pope and the Frankish

 

97Lib§llus Smara dus de Processione Sancti Spiritus,
MGH, conC.' 11.1, pp. 23 -39.

 

98Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 809, p. 129. The

conciliar documents, MGH, Conc., 11.1, p. 240, add Jesse Of
Amiens but his presence isddoubted by Hefele-Leclercq,
Histoire des conciles, III.2, p. 1131 and n. 2. Cf.

Jaffe, no. 2520 Who accepts the presence Of Jesse.

 

99Colloquium Romanum, MGH, Conc., II.1, pp. 235-44.

100Jaffe, no. 2521: "Vetat, ne symbolo fidei verba
'filioque' addantur."

101Lot, Pfister and Ganshof, L'empire en occident,
p. 605; von Schubert, Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 3902

 

287

clergy. On the basic theological point, all parties were

in agreement and in this area there was really no role for
Charles to play. On the contested point, which was among
the Westerners an essentially technical one, Charles and

Leo were not Of one mind, but the emperor did not impose

his will on Leo; nor, in any sense, did he threaten to do so.

Let us now, for purposes of comparison, recall the
essential facts Of the case which arose in 824. Louis was
informed of a theological dispute. He requested permission
from the pope to investigate the matter. Permission was
granted, an inquest held by the Frankish bishOps and docu-
ments that met with Louis' approval were produced. Louis
saw that the papacy and the Franks were at odds and he
urged his envoys to Rome to use tact and guile to bring the
pOpe around to the Frankish view. The attempt failed.
Throughout the affair, the theOlOgical side of the problem
was left to the clergy.

Now it is possible to place Louis' conduct in the
second iconoclastic controversy into its proper perSpective.
If Louis' role was vigilant in so far as he urged his
clergy to take a stand on the issue, then it was passive
in that he did not dictate to them what that position was
to be. For his passivity Louis has suffered at the hands
of modern scholars. He has been called cowardly, weak and
not a worthy son to the great Charles. But, this criticism

is entirely unwarranted, for it is based on false

288

assumptions. Basically, it is grounded in the belief that
Charles regularly determined what the true faith was and
then, having reached a determination, imposed his will on
the pope. In 809 the pOpe did not come around to the
Frankish view and in 794 politics allowed for a measure Of
détente but the pope and the Franks remained at Odds on
icons. In the adoptionist controversy Charles and the pOpe
were of one mind so there is no reason to speak of one
party imposing its will on the other. Throughout this
quarrel, however, Charles left the theological debates to
the clergy and then associated himself with their decisions.
Perhaps it is wrong to attempt to understand this
problem in terms Of impositions Of the royal will as
scholars have done in the past. It seems that there was
a certain "Frankish tradition" in dogmatic disputes and
that the first two Frankish emperors adhered to it con-
sistently. In every single case the technical theological
issue was left to experts, that is, to clerics, and after
the clergy had reached a decision the emperor embraced it.
When the problem is viewed from this perspective, it is
clear that Charles and Louis acted in essentially the same
way and it becomes absurd either to praise or to blame
them for their actions. In fact, it is important only to
Observe the role which they played and to understand
thereby a significant aspect of Carolingian ecclesiastical

policy. We should not lose sight of the fact that

289

throughout these controversies the spiritual supremacy Of
the papacy was affirmed by the pOpes themselves, by Frankish
rulers and, at least most of the time, by the Frankish
clergy. This fact alone ought to make us suspicious of any
argument that the Frankish kings possessed some kind of
dogmatic authority. At the same time, the full ramifica-
tions of Franco-papal dogmatic disagreements will not be
understood until the ecclesiological problem of papal
versus episcopal dogmatic primacy is resolved. Given the
state of the sources and the general lack of attention in
the sources to this ecclesiological problem, it is likely
that it cannot be resolved. But, it is important to
realize that kings and pOpes were not the only ones who
were vitally concerned with this issue.

A few final conclusions may be drawn concerning
Eugenius. His determination to hold to the iconodule
position in 825 probably should not be viewed as sheer
obstinacy. He had behind him a powerful and living
tradition which made him, in his capacity as Peter's
successor, the very repository of orthodoxy. If he failed
to show the same flexibility that Hadrian had exhibited,
then there were very good reasons for it. He was con-
fronted with a very real opportunity to expand the
damaged influence and prestige of the papacy in the Byzan-
tine world. This was a matter of no little significance

to a man who styled himself, as his predecessors had done,

290

"universalis papa." The papacy had long since lost any
real political or legal influence in secular affairs in
New Rome, and the great constitutions Of 816 and 824 had
quite effectively put an end to such influences in Old
Rome. However, the papacy was, above all, a spiritual
office, and in a world that regularly conceived itself in
spiritual terms there were still broad and fertile fields
Open to papal cultivation. Whether the papacy would even-
tually expand or eventually lose its political influence
was very much an Open question in the time of Hadrian. By
the time of Eugenius spiritual influence was all that was
left and it is easy to see why he defended it so vigilantly.
There is a certain irony in all of this. Secular
rulers excluded the papacy from secular affairs while
praising highly the spiritual concerns that were the proper
business of the papacy. Then the papacy exploited its

Spiritual leadership of the populus Christianus, the in-

 

 

habitants of a world described as the Imperium Christianum,

 

to rise to the very summit Of that world. It was, of
course, extremely difficult to delineate between secular
and ecclesiastical concerns in a world whose guiding
principles were essentially and fundamentally Christian.
Consequently, the years after 824 provide the first
examples of the ways in which the ever resourceful papacy
exploited its spiritual supremacy in its rise to the

position of leadership in the Christian world, or, at least,

291

the Western half of it. Stated in another way it can be
said that in the ninth century the problem turned on the
fact that all man agreed that the world was, and ought to
have been, organized according to spiritual principles but
that there was no fundamental and commonly shared under-

standing of what "spiritual" meant.

CHAPTER VI

THE ROMAN SYNOD OF 826

The essential subject matter Of the present chapter
is formed by the synod held at Rome by Eugenius II in
826.1 However, before turning to an analysis of the im-
portance and implications of this synod, there are several
relatively minor events which may be studied by way of
placing the Roman gathering into its proper context. In
each of these events the papacy can be seen affirming its
spiritual primacy. Very importantly, though, the diverse
nature of these events provides some insight into the enor-
mous number of areas in which the spiritual authority of
the Bishop of Rome could be put into operation. An attempt
has already been made to show that Eugenius' conduct in 825
in the iconoclastic controversy was a powerful assertion
of papal spiritual primacy. In this chapter it will be
argued that the Roman Synod was a similar, but even more
important, assertion Of that primacy. But the synod is a

major event, indeed a major episode, in papal-imperial

 

1The synod commenced November 15: Jaffe, no. 2561.

292

293

relations, and because major episodes were rather few and
far between during Louis' reign, it is useful to sketch in
the background supplied by a few minor events.

There is another kind of background to the synod
and to the minor events mentioned above which, if it could
be described adequately, would give us additional insights
into papal aspirations in the third decade of the ninth
century. This is the personality and character of Paschal I
and Eugenius II. Unfortunately, the sources say rather
little about them. The Carolingian age saw several pOpes,
Hadrian I, Nicholas I and John VIII, to name but a few, who
emerge from the documents as recognizable and distinctive
personalities. A great deal has been written about each
of these pOpes, and this literature is all the richer for
its appreciation of the complexities and subtleties of the
personalities of these great men. In dealing with the
pontificates Of Paschal and Eugenius, however, it is on the
whole necessary to judge the great affairs in which they
played a part largely on their own merits. The extent to
which these affairs derived from the personalities of Paschal
and Eugenius can hardly be grasped.

The problem is a lack of source material of the
kind which allows judgments about character and personality
to be made. The 31333 Of Paschal and Eugenius in the

Liber Pontificalis are each only slightly longer than one

 

quarto page, less Space for notes. These vitae contain

294

remarkably few facts and focus on the traditional, and
rather formulaic, listing of ancestry, virtues and building
projects in Rome. Letters are always a valuable source
but, again, these are lacking in any substantial quantity.
The few which do survive have been studied in previous
chapters, or will be studied in the present one, but they
do not help much in forming a full and nuanced picture of
either pope. Annalistic and other narrative sources note
papal activities, to be sure, but usually only in connec-

tion with various causes celebres. Seldom if ever do these

 

sources pausetx>reflect on papal activities and, almost
without exception, they say nothing about the character of
Paschal and Eugenius.

Still, a few Observations on these two popes can be
made. It was Observed above that Paschal demonstrated a
certain insolence in his dealings with Louis at the time
of the murders of Theodore and Leo in Rome. He also
raised, as we saw, an egregiously false claim against Farfa
which caused him to lose a case which was argued before
Lothar. In addition, Paschal ventured a couple Of other
bold strokes which will be analyzed presently. All of this
suggests that he was a rather headstrong man, possessed of
a rather lofty conception of the power and importance Of
both himself and his Office. He seems to have lacked an
understanding of the process of compromise which is always

and everywhere so much a part of political interaction.

295

The sources do not justify any Observations beyond these
but one can feel confident in suggesting that if there were
more material touching on Paschal's pontificate, he would
certainly emerge as one of the more interesting popes of
the whole Carolingian age.

Of Eugenius even less can be said. We saw that the
Franks, Wala apparently, expended some effort to get him
elected. Perhaps they regarded him as a man through whom

they could work and his agreement to the Constitutio Romana

 

certainly makes him appear in this light. But he was most
assuredly not a tool in the hands Of his Frankish masters.
This conclusion is already justified on the grounds of his
conduct in the iconoclastic dispute, and it is strengthened
by the offensive which he launched in 826. Perhaps he had
a greater appreciation of the art Of compromise than his
predecessor. Or, maybe, he willingly sacrificed the
political aspirations Of the papacy in order to concentrate
on religious issues which he judged to be more properly
incident to his Office. It is hard to say, and Eugenius
remains, at best, a shadowy figure. After all, he sat

less than three years on the throne of Peter.

If little or nothing can be learned from the per-
sonalities Of these pOpes then, at least, their actions
speak an unmistakable language. The first two such
actions concern Paschal. In neither case can the chronology

be set down preciselysnaattention will be directed first to

296

the one for which there exists the least source material
and about which the least is known.

Sometime between 822 and 8242 Hrabanus Maurus,

Abbot of Fulda, wrote a letter to Paschal concerning the
privilege conferred upon his monastery by Pope Zachary in
751. This privilege had exempted Fulda from the authority
of any and all ecclesiastical powers save the Roman
Church.3 Lamentably, Hrabanus' letter does not survive
and there is no full description Of its contents preserved
anywhere else in the sources. We know only that it con—
cerned Fulda's privilege.

Paschal's response to this letter is what makes it
so regrettable that it has been lost. Paschal incar-
cerated the monks who had brought Hrabanus' letter to Rome
and then, under circumstances about which we are uninformed,
he scolded the Frankish clergy and stated that he almost had
it in mind to excommunicate Hrabanus. In a fragment from
the Fulda epistolary collection, which contains the clear-
est statement of the little that is known about this case.

We are told that Hrabanus described the whole affair in

 

2Jaffe, no. 2557. The basic facts, so far as they

are known, are presented by Simson, JB Ludwig, I, p. 213.

 

3For the privilege: Urkundenbuch des Klosters Fulda,
ed. E. E. Stengel, (Marburg, 1958), I, no. 15, pp. 30-32.
It is dated Nov. 4 and was granted to Boniface. For his
request for the privilege see no. 13, pp. 22-24.

 

297

a letter to BishOp Hatto. Unhappily, this letter does not
survive either.4

Long ago Hauck5 recognized the importance of this
forthright action on the part of Paschal, but neither he
nor any other scholar has ever been able to determine the
cause of Paschal's wrath. Without Hrabanus' letter6 the
puzzle will probably never be solved but a few inferences
can be drawn from the affair. It was well within the
prerogative of the pOpe to use the threat of excommunica-
tiontx>bring any errant Christian into line. What is
important here is that, for virtually the first time, the
pOpe employed the threat of such a sanction against a great
and influential member of the Frankish clergy. For genera-
tions the papacy had left the Carolingians a very free hand

in dealing with the clergy, so it is important to grasp the

significance Of this personal intervention by the pope.7

 

433p. Fuld. Frag., 26, MGH, EBB. v, p. 528:
"Paschalis pontifex eius epistoIEm de privilegio coenobii
Fuldensis molestissime tulit et monachos eam offerentes
incarceravit ipsumque coram episcopis Franciae vituperavit
et parum absit, quin Hrabanum excommunicasset, ut ipse
testatur in epistola ad Hattonem."

 

SKirchengeschichte, II, p. 495.

 

6Whatever the case may be, it is interesting to
note that in 828 Gregory IV confirmed Fulda's privilege on
Hrabanus' request. Jaffe, no. 2568. For the document,
PL, CXXIX, 99lD-993B.

7One will search the sources in vain for a simi-
larly threatening gesture directed against a Frankish
cleric. It may well be that the whole problem Of papal
authority over the Carolingian clergy needs to be studied.

298

Moreover it is difficult to imagine that Hrabanus' Offense
was worse than those of which other Frankish bishOps and
abbots were or could have been accused. Some Of these
clerics, after all, were appreciably less than pure and
holy and had committed acts which were deserving of censure
of some kind. Yet never before had a pope launched such a
threat. It is necessary, therefore, to see in this affair
a very strong assertion by Paschal of the right of the
papacy to oversee and to judge all other members Of the
clergy. This point was driven home particularly forcefully
by the fact that Hrabanus was singled out. He was a friend
and loyal supporter of Louis and abbot of one Of the great
houses Of the empire; in short, no mean personage. It is
perhaps indicative of Paschal's character, but certainly
indicative Of the importance he attached to his Office,
that he threatened so imposing a figure with anathema.

At about the same time that he was contending with
Hrabanus, Paschal asserted his spiritual authority in
another area: he seized control Of the Frankish mission
to the North. Here again Paschal employed a spiritual
prerogative of the papacy; for his actions can be seen as
a consequence Of papal authority in missionary activity.

It goes without saying that whenever any group of Rome's
faithful set out to win new converts they were, in fact,
creating new faithful for Rome and the pope. However, even

if Paschal's tactic involved the use Of a spiritual

299

prerogative, his motives may well have been rather political.
By interfering in a decisive way in a Frankish project,
which the Danish mission unquestionably was, Paschal ex-
plicitly renounced the missionary practices which had
characterized Charles' reign. From the mid 760's the papal
role in missionary activity had been a demonstrably sub-
ordinate one. Military, missionary and political endeavors
had been inextricably tied together during Charles' reign,
and the great king refused to tolerate any interference in
his projects. At the same time, and with great docility,
the papacy acceded to Charles' wishes. In turning now to
an analysis of the activities Of Louis and Paschal in the
northern mission, it will be well to bear in mind Sullivan's
observation that, "at least by implication Paschal was re-
asserting the policy of Gregory II towards missions and
he was again pressing the papacy into missionary affairs."8
Louis had been, almost since his accession, involved
in a complicated diplomacy in the territory of the Danes.
Familial squabbles had Split the area into rival factions
and Louis had sought to increase his own influence in the
area by supporting one faction against the other. Then
about 822 Louis hit upon a means of making his influence

more permanent in the North. He decided to establish a

 

8Richard E. Sullivan, "The Papacy and Missionary
Activity in the Early Middle Ages,” Mediaeval Studies,
XVII, (1955), p. 85.

 

300

mission in what is now Denmark.9 Scholars have long reCOg-
nized that Louis hOped to facilitate the expansion of his
political influence through the conversion of the Danes.
But Hauck noted that Charles had conquered and then
evangelized, whereas Louis sought to do just the Opposite.10
That this view is correct emerges quite clearly from one
of the key sources for the northern mission, Rimbert's life
of the famous missionary Anskar. Rimbert indicates Louis'
feeling that friendlier relations between the two peOples
and a more willing acceptance of his rule would be a conse-
quence of their, that is, Franks and Danes, sharing a

common religion.11 In addition, when the mission really

 

gsimson, JB Ludwig, I, p. 210, believes that this
decision was made at Attigny in August Of 822. It is more
likely that it was taken at Frankfurt in November. The
assembly at Attigny dealt with Louis' reconciliation with
those implicated in Bernard of Italy's revolt, Louis'
public penance and things which he or his father had done
which required emendation: so, Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG,
s.a. 822, p. 158. A capitulary was issued at that time,
MGH, Cap., I, no. 174, pp. 357—58, and judging from it
533 from what the Annales say, it does not seem likely
that a mission was ser1ously mooted. In Frankfurt, we
are told, first, that Louis handled "necessaria quaeque
ad utilitatem orientalium partium regni sui pertinentia"
(which could include the north-east) and, second, that
legates from the Danes appeared: Annales, p. 159. It
is known that Ebbo spent the summer of the following
year in the north with missi sent there by Louis, Annales,
p. 163, and allcfifthis makes it likely that the mission
received its commission in November.

lOKirchengeschichte, 11, p. 692. Cf. Simson, gg
Ludwig, I, p. 210.

llRimbertus, Vita Anskarii, 7, ed. Waitz, MGH,
SSrG, p. 25: "quo scilicet inter eos ita maior familiaritas
esse posset populusque Christianus ipsi ac sui promptiori
voluntati in adiutorium sic veniret, si uterque unum coleret
Deum."

 

 

 

 

 

 

301

got underway in 823 Ebbo, the founder Of the mission, was
sent north with two counts who had been entrusted by Louis
with the reSponsibility of surveying the situation in
Denmark and of reporting back fully to Louis.12 Finally,
and for what it is worth, in 819 Louis had repatriated to
the Wigmodigau a number of Saxons whom his father had
transplanted during his bloody Saxon campaigns. This won
for Louis some firm and lasting friends among the Saxons
but, more importantly, it also safely Opened, for the

first time, the land route to the north.13

This suggests
that Louis had the mission in mind at least as early as 819.
The central point in all of this is that Louis was
the driving force behind the mission. This is even
apparent in his choice of Ebbo to head the mission. Louis

and Ebbo had been friends since youth14

and shortly after
his accession Louis entrusted Ebbo with the great see of
Reims. Moreover, Ebbo was a Saxon and thus more closely

related to the Danes than any Frank.15 Finally, Ebbo was

 

lenn. Reg. Franc., SSrG, s.a. 823, pp. 162-63.

 

 

13BM, no. 696; Simson, JB Ludwig, I, pp. 55-56.
This point-is particularly emphasized’by C. Reuter,
"Ebbo und Ansgar," E5! CV, (1910), p. 256.

 

14Ermoldus Nigellus, vs. l908ff.

15Flodoard, Hist. Rem. Ecc., II.l9, MGH, SS, XIII,

 

 

p. 467.

302

well acquainted with Danes and other Northmen.l6 These

people frequently navigated the Schelde and the Meuse

for mercantile purposes. Both of these rivers penetrated

the church province of Reims and, as a further recommenda-

tion for Ebbo, it would have been from clerics of the

province of Reims that the Northmen had obtained their

first introduction to Christianity, however superficial

it may have been.17
As a prelude to the commencement of the actual

mission Louis sent Ebbo to Rome to get papal approval for

18

it. This must have been in early 823. Ebbo then went

 

16Simson, JB Ludwig, I, p. 209; Werner Trillmich,
"Missionsbewegung im Nordseeraum," Geschichtliche Landes-
kunde und Universalgeschichte, Festschrift ffir Hermann
Aubin, (Hamburg, 1950), pp.’230-31.

 

 

l7Reuter, "Ebbo und Ansgar," pp. 251-54. In view

of the fact that Trillmich, "Missionsbewegung," pp. 231ff,
also notes that missionary routes did not deviate too
much from the trade routes, it appears that the whole
problem of the role played by politico-economic factors

in missions, particularly the economic ones, ought to

be studied in detail.

18Jaffe, no. 2553, and many others following him,
hold for 822. If I am correct that the decision to
send Ebbo was made in November of 822 (supra, n. 9), then
early 823 seems more likely. Ann. Reg. Franc., SSrG,
s.a. 823, p. 162, in narrating the events of November 823,
says that Ebbo had spent the past summer, that is, the
summer of 823, in the North and that he was already equipped
with papal authority at that time. Again, only early 823
may be suggested. Reuter, "Ebbo und Ansgar," p. 255,
raises some doubt that Ebbo went to Home at all. This is
contrary to the language of the papal bull: "ante corpus et
confessionem ipsius apostolorum principis." The authen-
ticity of this document is not to be questioned: Jaffe,
no. 2553.

 

 

303

north "on the plan of the emperor and by the authority of

the Roman Bishop," in the clear and simple language of the

Royal Annals.19 11 the whole affair were judged solely on

 

the basis of these facts, one would not be inclined to
attach much significance to the role played by the papacy.
If, however, the affair is viewed from the perspective of
Paschal's bull, then a very different interpretation
arises. At very least, it becomes clear that Paschal
viewed his role in rather grand terms.

The bull never mentions Louis. It is as though
the whole idea were Paschal's in the first place. The bull
says that by the authority of Peter and Paul Paschal con-

ceded permission to spread the GOSpel in the North.20

21

Then,

Paschal made Ebbo papal legate for the North. There is

not a scrap Of evidence which suggests that Louis had had

this in mind. Finally, Paschal provided Ebbo with a

22

colleague, BishOp Halitgar of Cambrai, whose duty it was

 

19SSrG, s.a. 823, p. 163: "consilio imperatoris

et auctoritate Romani pontificis." Sullivan, "Papacy
and Missionary Activity," p. 85, says, "Christian

society must have placed some value on this aspect of
papal authority; otherwise Louis would not have taken
the trouble to send Ebo on a Special journey to Rome."

 

20Paschal I, 32. no. 4, PL, CXXIX, 938A: "Auctori—
tate beatorum princip1um apostolorum Petri ac Pauli . . .
evangelizandi publica auctoritate liberam tradidimus. . ."

21Ibid.: "Nostra fraterna vice."

22Simson, JB Ludwig, I, p. 210 n. 4, argues that
the Halitgar in question must have been a cleric of the

 

304

to see that the interests of the Holy See were preserved

in the northern mission.23 This was certainly a papal
stroke, in fact, the crowning blow in the papal co-optation
of Louis' mission. Modern authorities such as Hauck24 and
von Schubert25 have interpreted Paschal's action in this
way, and I agree fully with them. Perhaps the mildest con—
clusion that can be drawn is that Paschal put a decidedly

Roman stamp on an essentially Frankish endeavor.26

 

Roman Church. Jaffe, no. 2553, Hauck, Kirchengeschichte,
11, p. 668 and Reuter, "Ebbo und Ansgar,“ p. 255, rightly
consider him to have been the Bishop of Cambrai. Simson,
like the other scholars just mentioned, noticed the close
and friendly relations between Ebbo and Halitgar and de-
cided that Paschal would not have chosen as his "eyes and
ears" a good friend of Ebbo's. This is ingenious but not
convincing. Halitgar was, for many of the same reasons as
Ebbo, a good candidate for the northern mission. Therefore,
one needs to focus on what Paschal expected of him, not
upon who he was. That Halitgar soon became involved in

the Paris synod Of 825 and a legation to ConstantinOple does
not disqualify him either, for at just about this time Ebbo
requested and obtained the services of another man who was
closely tied to him, Gauzbert: Rimbert, Vita Anskarii, 14,
MGH, SSrG, p. 36. This suggests to me that Ebbo and
Halitgar may have been envisioned as dual missionaries

in the first place and that our sources have lost sight

of this fact. There is simply no reason, however,

to invent an otherwise unattested Halitgar.

 

 

23Paschal I, ep. no. 4, PL, CXXIX, 983B-C:

"Collegam denique huic divinae administrationis legationi
ei providentes, Halitgarium . . . constituimus, quatenus ad
sedem apostolicam Opportuno valeat tempore de credito
negotio facilius, praestante Domino, intimare, et nun-

quam se in qualibet parte huius nostrae auctoritas
ministerio commisso negligere."

24Kirchengeschichte, 11, pp. 691-92.

 

25Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, pp. 398, 504.

 

26Reuter, "Ebbo und Ansgar," p. 255.

305

It may also be noted that Eugenius II and Gregory
IV each renewed papal authority for the mission.27
Gregory IV, in particular, whose confirmation came in

834, followed fully in Paschal's footsteps. Some years
before Louis had decided to send Anskar to the North28 and
then, after Ebbo was discredited in 833, Gregory named

29 It also

Anskar papal legate for the northern mission.
appears that Louis desired the swift erection of an arch-
bishOpric in the North at Hamburg and that Gregory tem-
porarily thwarted him in his plans.30
As in the case of its attack on Hrabanus, the papacy
had employed its spiritual authority, only this time it
had the result Of interfering in a Frankish project. Papal
authority in missionary ventures had never really been
questioned but in past times the popes and the Carolingians
had worked hand in hand while, of course, initiative had
been solely in the hands of Charles. Missionary endeavors

had long served the interests Of the Frankish kings but now

Paschal was making it clear that his interests were to be

 

27Jaffe, nos. 2564 and 2574 respectively.

28Rimbert, Vita Anskarii, 7, MGH, SSrG, pp. 26—27.

 

 

29I did not have access to Lappenberg's edition
of Gregory's bull. However, Reuter, "Ebbo und Ansgar,"
pp. 260-61 reproduces the key portions Of three re-
censions of it. The pertinent words from the genuine
recension read "Ansgarium legatum . . . delegamus."

3OIbid., pp. 267-68, again form the bull.

306

served first. This is certainly the thrust of Paschal's
bull and if one compares that bull to Hadrian's rather
docile missives to Charles concerning, for example, the
Saxon or Slavic missions, then it will be seen that a new,
or, at least renascent, papal attitude had emerged.31

There is one additional isolated incident which
may be studied alongvdxfllthe preceding ones. It actually
occurred several years after the Roman synod but it is
enough like the events just described to warrant discussion
with them.

During the revolt of 830 the rebels against Louis
seized his wife Judith and forced her to enter a monastery.
Among other things, the rebels had complained that she was

32

exerting an evil influence on Louis. When the rebellion

had run its course, and Louis had regained power, his wife
was restored to him at Aachen. What is interesting is that
Thegan tells us that Louis received his wife honorably "on

the order of the Roman Bishop, Gregory."33

34

Ullmann lays

considerable emphasis on this event, as does Hauck, who

 

31Hadrian's letters to Charles are cited and dis-
cussed by Sullivan, "Papacy and Missionary Activity,"
pp. 82-84.

32Thegan, Vita Hlud., 37, MGH, gg, 11, p. 597.

 

33

pontifice.

Ibid., p. 598: "Iubente Gregorio Romano

34Papal Government, p. 167 n. 2.

 

307

notes that it marked the first time that a pope had ordered
an emperor to do something.35
These scholars assign too much practical signi-
ficance to Gregory's order. In the first place, Gregory
seems to have made a virtue of necessity. It is senseless
to assume that without a papal order Louis would not have
taken his wife back. Moreover, there are no grounds for
arguing that Louis needed a papal order to retrieve his
wife from a monastery. In Frankish law it was illegal for

36

anyone to force another to enter the religious life and

in the Roman synod Of 826 itself this same prohibition had

been taken over.37

Quite simply, Judith had to be restored
to Louis, papal order or no.

The real importance of Gregory's order is that it
is yet another example of the increasing willingness on
the part of the papacy to expand and to exercise its
spiritual authority in all sorts of cases. Taken by them-
selves, these relatively minor cases are suggestive of
this new attitude on the part of the papacy, but they are
not really conclusive. When, however, they are viewed as

events peripheral to the great synod which met in Rome in

826, and when that synod itself is properly interpreted,

 

35Kirchengeschichte, II, p. 513.

 

36MGH, Cap., 1, no. 138, c. 20, p. 278.

37Infra, Appendix E, c. 32.

308

then the whole thrust of papal policy from the pontificate
of Paschal takes on an unmistakable clarity and coherence.

In November of 826 Eugenius convened at Rome a synod
of sixty-two bishops drawn from the Roman church province

and from parts of Lombard Italy.38

For the first time
since the Carolingians had become the major force in the
West, a great synod met which they had not called and at
which they were not represented. In addressing the Opening
session Of the synod Eugenius consistently emphasized two
themes. First, he noted that there were many problems in
the Church which were in need of reform. Second, and this
is crucial, he laid emphasis on the duty of the papacy to
undertake this reform. Closely related to this is the
fact that Eugenius repeatedly stressed that the reforms
were to be accomplished in accordance with the precepts Of

his predecessors.39

It had been a long time since a Roman
synod undertook Church reform on a scale as massive as that
undertaken by Eugenius in 826. The thirty-eight canons of
this synod are all, in one way or another, reform canons
and most Of them dealt with abuses that had long existed
and against which reform measures had already been directed.

The earlier reforms, whose provisions the Roman

synod frequently adOpted, had not, however, been

 

38For a list of the participants see MGH, Conc.,
II.2, pp. 560-63.

 

39Ibid., pp. 554—58.

309

accomplished by the papacy. Since at least the time of
Carloman and Pepin, the Frankish monarchy had taken over
leadership Of a massive reform of the Western Church. Men—
tion may be made oftflmagreat reform synods held in 742 and
743, of the numerous reform measures scattered throughout
Charles' legislation and of the huge body of reforms under-
taken by Charles and Louis from 813 to 819. In the vast
majority of these cases, the Franks had worked with the
papacy. For example, in liturgy and canon law Charles had
made a genuine effort to bring the Frankish Church into
line with Roman practice. In the rest of the reform pro-
gram, which was so broad in SCOpe that it cannot be charac-
terized in a few words, the Franks professed themselves to
be bringing their Church into harmony with the teachings of
the Fathers, the dictates of Church law and the precepts of
the papacy. There was, thus, little that was new or original
in the individual measures adOpted by the Franks. What was
novel was that the reform was sustained over three genera-
tions and that kings were almost always its driving force.
SO too there was little that was new or original in
the canons Of the Roman synod. What is striking about these
canons is that thirty-three of them have direct models in
earlier Frankish legislation. Even more interesting is the
fact that about thirty of them have models in the legisla—
tion of Louis himself. When the Roman canons are viewed

alongside their Frankish counterparts, there is only one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

310

possible conclusion that can be drawn. The papacy, in the
person of Eugenius, was attempting to take up the leader-
ship Of the Church reform so long before begun and so
carefully nurtured by the Carolingians.4O Eugenius' action
in calling the synod may be seen in either or both Of two
ways. Perhaps he was implicitly commenting on the successes,
or lack Of them,<xfthe Carolingian reform effort. Or, and
this seems more likely, he may have been saying that it was
more fitting and proper for the papacy to take the lead in
Church reform.

Because the canons Of the synod range so widely
over various areas Of reform, I have summarized them, along
with the Frankish models in the thirty-three cases where
they exist, in an appendix.41 It would be superfluous to
repeat here the points which emerge SO clearly from
Appendix E, but it is worthwhile to reflect a little on
the general character of the thirty-eight Roman canons and
their Frankish models.

The most striking point about these canons is the
wide range of tOpics covered by them: epiSCOpal elections,
clerical education, the daily life Of cathedral clergy,

secular activities of clerics, duties of priests, monastic

 

40As far as I know only Seppelt, Geschichte der

Papste, II, p. 211, has interpreted the synod’in this way.

 

41Appendix E: "An Analysis of the Roman Synod of
826 Compared with Earlier Frankish Legislation."

311

Observances, prohibitions against servile work on Sundays
and marriage regulations are only a few Of the issues con-
sidered. This certainly indicates the comprehensive nature
of the reform undertaken by Eugenius. Equally striking,
however, is the fact that virtually every one of the topics
enumerated above had been dealt with by a previous Frankish
reform measure. This serves to demonstrate the comprehen—
sive character Of the long Carolingian effort at reform
but, most importantly, the parallels between Eugenius'

reform canons and the Frankish canons or capitula suggest

 

that one reform was being superimposed on another. That is,
what the Carolingians had long been doing in general and in
particular, Eugenius was now going to do in general and
particular. One need not conclude from the parallels that
Eugenius had become exasperated with the failure of the
Carolingian reform in just the thirty-three cases where he
duplicated their measures. The Carolingian record was by
no means one Of total failure in these areas. Rather, one
ought to focus on the fact that Eugenius launched a reform
that was directed Specifically to problems on which the
Carolingians had long been applying themselves with some
success. This points to Eugenius' desire to be not only
the leader of the reform but also the definer of what
matters stood in need of reform.

This is a very important point, for the definition

of conditions in need of reform, as well as leadership of

312

the reform itself, conferred enormous influence in a world
such as the Carolingian where Church and society were so
inextricably bound up with one another. The Carolingians
had long used the Church as an organizing and civilizing
influence in their realm, and it boded ill for the future
of the Carolingians that Eugenius decided to take over the
vigorous leadership of the Church. This deprived, or
threatened to deprive, the Carolingians of one of the key
prOps in the system they had fashioned to govern the

populus Christianus. However, as in the other cases

 

studied in this chapter, it was perfectly and undeniably
within Eugenius' prerogative to take over the reform Of
the Church. After all, he was its highest spiritual
officer and Church reform, however construed, is essen-
tially spiritual business. Since taking measures on
behalf of the Church had long been so important in the
social, political and even institutional life Of the
Carolingian world, it is easy to see how, by a rather
simple but effective extension of his Spiritual preroga-
tive, Eugenius threatened to interpose himself between
the Carolingian sovereigns and the world over which they
ruled.

The case cannot be pushed too far, however. If
the implications of Eugenius' actions are quite clear, then
their legal consequences are less so. Certainly a Roman

synod had more prestige than any other synod, but the

313

evidence seems to suggest that it did not possess any
legal pre-eminence.42 In the Carolingian period, at least
until the death of Louis in 840, the king or emperor still
called the synods and royal or imperial acceptance Of the
canons was still necessary. There were several kinds of
synods, of course, ranging from the ecumenical through
national, provincial and diocesan. Each of these had a
different legal significance. The ecumenical council was
generally recognized as the greatest organ of Church
government, but these met rather seldom. In fact, there
were none in our period. Diocesan synods were usually
called by a local bishop to deal with specific problems
concerning his diocese. Provincial synods were, in the
Carolingian period, frequently called by kings so that
pressing problems could be dealt with efficiently within
reasonably confined areas. The several synods Of 813 and
829 are examples. Finally, there were the national synods
such as those frequently held at Aachen. During the
Carolingian era these were, as a matter of fact, the most
important.43
The Roman synod of 826 was, basically, a provincial

synod. It is a little hard to characterize though because

Italian bishops from outside the Roman church province

 

42Ullmann, Papal Government, p. 138.

 

43Barion, Synodalrecht, pp. 254ff and passim.

 

314

attended. In reality then, the Roman synod was less im-
portant legally than the great national synods, some of
whose canons it adOpted. Prestige it did possess, and
this is important, as is the general tendency which the
synod represents. But in interpreting the synod it is
necessary to avoid a juristic line of reasoning and to be
satisfied with an appreciation of the spiritual strivings
Of the papacy.

One juristic point may be made. Hinschius44 has
observed that Roman synods may be likened to patriarchal
synods in the East but that, unlike their Eastern counter-
points, they did not rise early to become a regular organ
of Church government. Roman synods became more frequent in
the ninth century, and John VIII used them to affirm papal
leadership in all of Italy. It was not until the tenth
century that Roman synods became regular organs of Church
government in the West. In view Of these facts it is
necessary to emphasize again that Eugenius' synod had no
legal pre-eminence. But, is it not, by the same token,
reasonable to ask whether the synod of 826 set in motion
the chain of events, that is, the rise in juristic signi-
ficance of Roman synods, which Hinschius describes?

There is only one group of canons in the Roman

synod which call for separate comment beyond the general

 

44Kirchenrecht, III, pp. 508-10.

 

315

analysis provided already and also in Appendix E. These
canons can be placed under the heading "proprietary church
legislation." Several canons could be studied under this
heading, but there are three particularly important ones.
Canon 21 allowed laymen to institute priests in churches
constructed on their lands but required such priests to be
subject to their diocesan bishops. Canon 7 required that
all baptismal churches be supplied with priests and, finally,
canon 19 required all clergy to have advocates. It has long
been recognized that these canons gave ecclesiastical sanc—
tion to the proprietary church system45 for the first time
at the papal level.46 There are some very interesting and
important implications to be drawn from this.

Von Schubert believed that the recognition Of the

proprietary church system in 826 marked the completion of

the Constitutio Romana Of 824. His idea was that the Franks

 

had imposed their own idea of Church law on the papacy after

having imposed Frankish law on the papacy in some other

 

45The best general introduction to the proprietary
church system remains Ulrich Stutz, "The Proprietary
Church as an Element of Mediaeval Germanic Ecclesiastical
Law," in Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. and trans., Mediaeval
Germany, 2 vols., (Oxford, 1938), I, pp. 35-70.

 

46Originally by Stutz, Geschichte des kirchliche
Benefizialwesens, 3rd. ed. by H. E. Feine, (Aalen, 1972),
pp.’258ff. In the tradition of Stutz see H. E. Feine,
Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, (Weimar, 1950), p. 138 and
7fUrsprung, Wesen und Bedeutung des Eigenkirchentums,"
MIOG, LVIII, (1950). pp. 195-208, esp. pp. 205-206. See
also Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, p. 432.

 

 

 

 

316

important respects.47 The problem is a bit more subtle than
that. The Frankish rulers had long used the prOprietary
church system, in one form or another, as the basis of much
of their dealings with the Church. Indeed, many of their
paternalistic attitudes towards the Church derived from
this system. Not until 813 and 819, however, had the
Franks set down a clear set of laws on proprietary churches.
This had the effect of giving to a system that had long
been in an amorphous existence a clear and precise legal
standing.48 It is not surprising that, shortly after 819,
the first major attacks on lay use of Church lands

appeared.49 It must, therefore, be argued that the papacy

had resigned itself to a fait accompli in recOgnizing pro-

 

prietary churches. The papacy recognized the enormous
extent to which Germanic law had penetrated the law of the
Church.50 Ullmann notes, quite perceptively, that it must

have been an act of considerable statesmanship on the part

of Eugenius to reCOgnize and approve explicitly a system

 

47Kirche im Frfihmittelalter, p. 399.

 

48Stutz, Benefizialwesen, pp. 236-39, 248f.

 

49The most vitriolic of all these writings is
Agobard, Liber de Dispensatione Rerum Ecclesiasticarum,
PL, CIV, 227ff.

 

SOStutz, Benefizialwesen, pp. 260-61. Very inter-
esting is the title of the section in Feine's Kirchliche
Rechtheschichte dealing with the early Middle Ages: "D
germanisch geprSgte Kirchenrecht."

 

 

as

 

317

which was so inherently inimical to the interests of the
Church.51

Perhaps Eugenius' action should be seen as an
attempt to hold the line. By sanctioning the proprietary
church system he at least gave the Church the possibility
of controlling it and, possibly, of checking its spread.
Eugenius' decision must have been that it was better to
admit legally to the existence Of a system against which
the papacy was fighting a losing battle. Proprietary
churches could never be reconciled with a free and inde—
pendent Church, however, and by the time of Nicholas I
the papacy returned to its older position Of unrelenting
disapproval of the system.

If we ask why it was Eugenius who called the Roman
synod or why he convened it when he did, we cannot Obtain
a fully persuasive answer. The synod fits well chrono-
logically with the minor events described already in this
chapter and this establishes possibility but little more.
Louis' attitude towards Church reform and ecclesiastical
legislation may have been a factor, but his clearest
statement came in 819, seven years before the synod. He
said:

If we should discover anything in ecclesiastical
affairs or in the condition of the republic which

 

51Papal Government, p. 138.

 

318

merits emendation, we shall zealously make the

necessary changes, in so far as the Lord Shall

give us the ability.52
It has already been stated that the Roman synod was
directed against just this sort of self-sufficient and
self-righteous attitude on the part of the Franks. Still,
Louis' remarks, and the attitudes which they represent,
would have been no less alarming to the papacy in 819
than in 826.

In the previous chapter the nascent conciliarism
of the Frankish clergy was mentioned. Agobard is one of
the best representatives of this point Of view. In one
of his letters he wrote the following:

Indeed there are those who say that Gallican canons
or others are not to be received because Roman or
imperial legates were not involved in their consti—
tution. This is like saying that the doctrines,
teachings and diverse treatises of the sacred and
distinguished fathers such as Cyprian, Athanasius,
Hilary, Hieronymus and Augustine are not to be re-
ceived because when they were contemplating and ex-
pounding there were no Roman or imperial legates
present.
This makes Agobard's position on papal supervision quite
clear. In another place in the same letter he detailed
his belief that the position of the pOpe was no greater
than that of any other "rector" of the Church:
It seems more fitting to me to Speak with the words
of the Lord: "Wherever two or three have come
together in the name of the Lord, it is not to be

doubted that the Lord is there present with them"
. . . Wherever Catholic governors (rectores) of

 

 

52MGH, Cap., I, no. 137, "Prooemium," p. 274.

319

churches convene with fear of the lord and in his
name to handle ecclesiastical business, then what-
ever they establish that is in consonance with the
scriptures is absolutel not to be despised, rather,
deeply honored by all.5§
This line of reasoning might have impelled the papacy
to affirm its leadership of the Church but, again, Ago-
bard's letter was written in the early 820's so anytime
after, say, 822, would have been possible for the calling
of the Roman synod, if that act was a response to this
set Of ideas.

In the end there do not seem to be any compelling
reasons why it was Eugenius who called the synod, or why
it was called in 826. Its individual canons are easy
enough to understand and the broader implications of the
synod--a wide affirmation of papal leadership within the
Church—-are plainly to be seen. It is upon these implica-
tions, therefore, that it is necessary to focus. Recourse
cannot be had to personal motivations or chronological con-
siderations in interpreting this synod. It must be seen,
simply, as the largest step yet taken along the road which
led to papal spiritual primacy in the West.

The assertion of papal primacy in dogma, the co-
Optation of a Frankish mission, the assumption of leader-

ship in Church reform, the disciplining of a great Frankish

cleric, the issuance of an order to an emperor: all Of

 

53Agobard, 3p. no. 5, c. 20, MGH, Epp., v, p. 174.

320

these were highly important acts. In each case, the

pOpe acted on the basis of spiritual prerogatives which
were undeniably his. At the same time, each of these
cases, whether viewed symbolically or practically, carried
with it the possibility Of a diminution of the social and
political power Of the Carolingian Empire because Church
and state were so deeply interwoven within it. Neither
theory nor praxis had yet been put to the acid test by

826 but the interested parties did not have long to wait.
Scarcely seven years after the Roman synodists had com-
pleted their work Gregory IV appeared in Francia. He met
Louis, quite literally, on a battlefield whose fronts were

both theoretical and practical.

CHAPTER VII

EMPIRE AND PAPACY ON THE 'FIELD OF LIES'

The last significant interaction between the
emperor and the pOpe in the age of Louis occurred in the
midst Of the most troubled moment of Louis' reign. It
involved a face to face encounter at a crucial moment
during the great rebellion of 833-834. The tensions of
that situation generated results that had broad-ranging
implications for both emperor and pope.

It is not an easy task to describe the causes and
consequences of the meeting of Louis and Gregory in 833.
The sources are reasonably clear and this is not the prob-
lem. Difficulty arises because the meeting Of pope and
emperor took place amidst a great rebellion of Louis' sons.
Much of the Frankish clergy also participated in this
revolt, some as rebels, some as loyalists. Moreover,
Louis, the pope, the rebels and the clergy all had very
different Objectives which they sought to serve in the
events of 833, and this makes it somewhat difficult to gain
a clear perspective on the papal-imperial problem itself

in 833. The latter problem is, of course, the one on which

321

322

our attention must be focused, but it is impossible to
describe it without some comment on the larger affair of
which it formed only a part.

The questions posed by the meeting of pOpe and
emperor in 833 are further compounded by the fact that the
meeting gave rise to some significant theorizing about the
nature of government in a Christian society. In large
measure, the theories which emanated from the Franks,
whether from Louis' friends or foes, were not very original.
Themes which have already been met in this study, indeed
some of the most familiar themes of Carolingian political
thought, were expressed. From Gregory, however, there
came some Old as well as some new ideas. Basically,
Gregory's theorizing provided the conceptual justification
for the primacy of the papacy in a Western, Christian
society. In this reSpect his ideas look very much like a
programmatic statement of the "whys" and "wherefores" of
the papal actions described in the two preceding chapters
of this study.

There were also some very practical secular con-
cerns that had to be addressed on the field at Colmar.
This means that the meeting there provides a real Oppor-
tunity to test the relationship between theory and praxis.
The theories expressed in 833 seem to indicate clearly that
the ecclesiastical order, and the papacy as its head, had

risen to the premier position in Western society. The

323

political facts Of the case, however, urge a very different
interpretation. This disjunction affords an Opportunity to
comment on the dangers of assuming that political theories
are truly reflective of political praxis in the Carolingian
age.

In order to gain a full understanding of the events
of 833 it is necessary to describe how the meeting of pOpe
and emperor came about. In 830 Louis' sons and many other
influential persons, both clerical and lay, had risen
against Louis. The excesses Of Louis' wife, Judith, and
of his chief courtier, Bernard Of Septimania, seem to have
been the major causes for the revolt.1 The rebellion itself
was put down fairly quickly and Louis was fully restored to
power. However, the embers of sedition were left smoldering
throughout the empire. By early 833 Louis had learned that
a massive revolt was imminent in which his sons, a portion

of his clergy, and POpe Gregory were all playing a part.2

 

1The basics are to be found in Simson, JB Ludwi , I,
pp. 342ff, and Halphen, L'empire carolingien, pp. 235-37.

 

2Louis received this information between January 31
and February 26: BM, no. 919a. It is most unfortunate
that the chronology—Of the next few months cannot be set
down precisely. These months were filled with negotia-
tions, rumors, charges and counter-charges but it is im-
possible to form an idea of how quickly one event followed
upon another. For all that follows, the only chronological
information that can be given is this: Louis, having
learned of the imminent revolt, moved from Aachen to
Worms, arriving there before February 26, BM, no. 919b;
sometime after, probably very Shortly after, June 10,

Louis convened his army and clergy at Worms, BM, no.

925a; by June 24 Louis' army stood over against that Of his
sons at Colamr, BM, no. 925C; on June 30, his position
having become unEEnable, Louis was taken prisoner, BM,

no. 925d. ' f '—

324

Some attempt must be made to sort out the roles played by
the various participants in this revolt.

Let us turn first to Louis' sons. There have been
two principal lines of interpretation for their actions.
According to one,3 the sons were displeased with what had
happened after the revolt of 830. They did not like the
fact that Lothar had been packed Off to Italy as a sub-king,
nor did they like the new Divisio of 831 which gave to
Louis' fourth son, Charles, a considerable portion Of the
empire. Pepin of Aquitaine, who remained in revolt through—
out the years 830 to 833, had been declared deposed, and
Louis the German felt that he had not been sufficiently
rewarded for his help in restoring his father in 830.4 In
sum, worldly grievances were their sole motivation to rebel
in 833.

The other view5 holds that the sons were bonafide
members of the imperial unity party and that their com-

plaints arose from the destruction Of the principles im-

plicit in the Ordinatio Imperii of 817. For them, then,

 

rebellion was genuinely a matter Of principle. What God

 

3In general this view is represented by Hauck,
Kirchengeschichte, II, pp. 513-14; Dumas, "serment de
fidelité,“ p. 292; Weinrich, Wala, p. 79.

 

4On these points see Eiten, UnterkOnigtum,
pp. 85ff, 12311.

 

5The leading proponent of this view is Mohr, Karol.
Reichsidee, pp. 9lff and "EinheitSpartei," pp. 30ff, 37.

 

325

had ordained in 817, Louis had destroyed through the new
division in 831, and his sons saw it as their Christian
duty to effect a correction.

The sources definitely support the former view.
Even Agobard, who was himself the most radical member of
the unity party, wrote a treatise in defense of Louis'
sons. In other places Agobard stated the theoretical
foundations for the revolt, namely, that the destruction
of the unitary empire was the same thing as destroying the
unity of the Church and to be avoided at all costs. In
the treatise in question, however, he defended the conduct
of Louis' sons on the grounds of injustices done to them.
Agobard first described the grievances which had led to
the revolt of 830. He alleged factions in the palace,
crimes by Louis' entourage, defamation of Louis' sons by
persons who hated them, lascivious conduct by Judith and
tarnishing the good name of the Franks as reasons why that
revolt had been just. He then continued by arguing that
nearly all of those intolerable conditions still existed
in 833 but, above all, he expressed his anger and hatred
for Judith, whom he saw as responsible for the injustices
done to Louis' sons. Principally those injustices stemmed
from the preferments which Judith was continually seeking
for her own son Charles. In this work there is scant hint
of anything but very practical concerns, though it might

be argued that Agobard's interpretations were a bit

326

exaggerated.6 A virtually identical position, it may be
noted, is advanced by Paschasius Radbertus in his Life of
W333. Like Agobard, Radbertus hated Judith and felt that
she was reSponsible for Lothar's demotion in power and in—
fluence. He also complained of the claims that Judith kept
raising on behalf Of Charles.7

Lothar himself was, no doubt, displeased at his
treatment in 831 but he defended his conduct in 833 by
saying that he was taking up the claims of his brothers who
had been persecuted.8 Lothar also claimed that he was
interceding for many persecuted exiles who had fled to him
and to his brothers.9 This must be a reference to the mag-
nates who had been involved in the disturbances in 830.
Other sources lay some emphasis on their role as instigators
of the uprising of 833, usually in connection with Lothar.lo
As for Pepin, the sources suggest clearly that his dis-

. . ll
pleasure stemmed, first, from his treatment 1n 831, and,

 

6Libri Duo pro Filiis, MGH, 33} XV.1, pp. 274-79.

711.16, 33, cxx, 1635B-C.

8Ibid., 11.17, l638A-B.

 

9Ibid., l638B-C.

 

lONithard, Hist., 1.4, ed. Rau, p. 392: "Walanum
[this is highly quest1onab1e], Elisichar, Matfridum
ceterosque, qui in exilium retrusi fuerant, custod1a
emittunt; Lodharium, ut rem publicam invadat, com-
pellunt." Cf. Ann. Xant., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 8.

 

llThegan, Vita Hlud., 41, MGH, 33, 11, p. 598.

 

327

second, from the concession of Aquitaine to Charles.12 The

sources which apply to Louis the German say only that his
concerns were his vassals and their properties as well as
his own possessions.l3 It is, therefore, quite impossible
to argue that Louis' sons and the magnates were out for
anything but their own selfish ends. Indeed, one of the
sources, which is partisan to the rebels, laments that
everyone looked out only for himself.14
The clergy was divided into two more or less dis-
tinct groups. The smaller but more troublesome group con-
sisted of the radicals of the unitary party. These men
will be met again several times in the following pages so
it is necessary to set the tone of their position. Agobard
was their principal spokesman; in fact he was almost their
only spokesman. At some point in early 833 he wrote to
Louis about his treatment of Lothar. His letter began with

an admonition to Louis to be mindful of his soul, whose loss

Agobard considered to be imminent because Of the overturning

 

12Nithard, Hist., I.4, ed. Rau, p. 392.

l3BM, no. 919a citing evidence from a Richenau
formulary.-_For the document: MGH, Formulae, no. 7,
p. 367. Heinz Zatschekx "Die Reichsteilung unter Kaiser
Ludwig dem Frommen," MIOG, XLIX, (1935), pp. 185-224, has
studied the conduct of Louis the German during the years
829 to 843 and concludes that his sole motivation was to
improve the quality of his possessions.

 

 

l4Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 11.18, PE, CXX, l640D:
"Gaudent verO pro eis de honoribus avidius, et exsultant:
quia sua omnes quaerent, pauci quae Dei sunt, et utilia."

 

328

of the Ordinatio. This document, which had been issued in

 

817, was the ultimate manifesto of the unitary imperial
ideal. It provided that the empire would always—-or so
everyone had thought-—remain a whole under one emperor.
The unitarians believed that it was God's will that there
be one empire and one ruler on earth which comprised the
society of Christians. It was the thinking of the members
of the unitary party that led to the increasing identifi-
cation of empire and ecclesia in the 820's. The urgency
of the issues as Agobard saw them is clear throughout his
letter. Phrases such as "tanta mala, tanta scelera" are
met over and over again.15

Certainly Agobard was in favor of a rebellion whose
goal he perceived to be the restoration Of imperial unity.
At the same time, this made Agobard, and those like him,

supporters Of Lothar, whom they saw as the saviour Of the

Ordinatio. Now, Lothar was seeking to regain his co-

 

regency but his reasons were, as already noted, not at all

 

15Agobard, e .no. 15, MGH, E ., V, pp. 224ff.
C. 2, p. 224, sets t e tone Of-the etter: "Testor omni-
potentem Deum, qui scrutator est cordium et verum, quia
nulla alia extat causa, pro qua hec scribere praesumo,
nisi quia doleo, quantum dicere non possum, de periculis,
que vobis imminere videntur, et maxime anime." Cf. c. 4,
p. 225: "postea . . . mutate voluntate . . . ecce Sine
ulla ratione et consilio quam cum Deo eligistis, sine
Deo repudiatis."

329

the same as those of the radical clergy. Their alliance
was a marriage of convenience if ever there was one.16
As we shall see, Gregory's greatest difficulty, and
Louis' greatest support, came from the loyalist clergy.17
These men were no less convinced than Agobard of the sanc-
tity of the imperial office, the holiness of the empire and
the divine inspiration of worldly government, and they too
frequently admonished Louis to hold to the path of salva-
tion.18 For these men, however, kings were to be obeyed

and not attacked. Particularly, they argued, sons should

 

16It is interesting to note that some of the radicals
improved a bit on this relationship. Ebbo of Reims sold
out Louis, it seems, for the Abbacy of St. Vaast. This does
not mean that he didrunzagree with Agobard but it certainly
suggests that virtue and rectitude were not sufficient wages
for him. Flodoard, Hist. 533. Egg., II.20, M93, 33, XIII,
p. 471.

17It is important to note that there was a large
number of very important clerics among the loyalists.
MS 1 of the Ann. Bert. (Brussels, nos. 6439-51) notes
Drogo of Metz, Modoin of Autun, Willerich of Bremen,
Aldric of Le Mans "cum nonnullis episcopis aliis, ab-
batibus . . . cum illo remanserunt." Trans. S. Severini,
2, MGH, SS, xv.1, p. 292, adds Otgar of Mainz-and HiIti
of VEfduHT Einhard is hard to place. In 830 he severely
reproached Lothar for his rebellion, 32, no. 11, M33, _pp,,
V, pp. 114-15, but by late 833 he appears to have recon-
ciled himself to the new regime, e . nos. 29, 30, MGH,
EBB}! V, p. 124. Simson, JB LudW1g, II, pp. 50-51,-Ehd
Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, pp.’515-l6, add Bernald
of Strasbourg, Verendarius of Chur, Heriricus of
St. Laumer de Blois and Christian of St. Germain d'Auxerre.
Of course, Hrabanus remained loyal (infra), as did Jonas
of Orléans (infra, n. 19).

 

 

 

18This is clearest in Jonas of Orléans, 23 Inst.
Re ia, 3d ed. Reviron, p. 138. Cf. Thegan, Vita Hlud.,
44, MGH, 33, II, p. 599.

 

330

strive to show the prOper respect to their fathers. In
their view, God simply would not tolerate sons who rose
against their fathers.19 Hrabanus noted that there can be
evil kings but that even these kings are to be honored and
obeyed by all. He Observed that all power, even the power
of an evil king, comes from God and, as such, is worthy of
human reSpect.20 For these thinkers, support for Louis was
no less a matter of principle that attacking him was for
Agobard and his kind. They were, it must be added, willing
to sustain Louis' cause against all comers, including the
pOpe.

Louis' position in 833 is easy to guess at but
difficult to describe in detail. Naturally, his most
pressing desire was tokxadone with a revolt which, by all

indications, he had not intended to incite. Louis would

 

19Jonas Of Orléans, Epistola ad Pippinem, Epistolae
Variorum, no. 31, MEM, Epp., V, pp.'349-53; Hrabanus
Maurus, 32, no. 15, MGH, Epp., V, pp. 403-15. Hrabanus'
letter remains the cIEEsic statement Of the position Of
the loyalists. Cf. Einhard, 32. no. 11, M33, EBB}! V,

p. 115.

 

203p. no. 16, MGH, Epp., v, pp. 416-20, esp. p. 417:

"Similiter et alii prophgtae atque sancti viri aliquoties
leguntur non solum bonis, sed etiam impiis ac perfidis
regibus exhibuisse honore, et non tantum verbo, immo etiam
facto . . . quia sciebant potestatem non esse nisi a Deo."
Jonas of Orleans was of the same opinion, De Inst. Regia,
ed. Reviron, p. 156: "Multi namque munere divino, multi
etaim Dei permissu regnent. Qui pie et iuste et miseri-
corditer regnant, sine dubio per Deum regnant; qui vero
secus, non eius munere, sed permissu tantum regnant."

Cf. Thegan, Vita Hlud., 44, M93, 33, II, p. 599: "Non est
enim potestas nisi a Deo."

 

 

331

no doubt have desired a refutation, perhaps a silencing,
of those who were complaining about his conduct in Office.
These are mere surmises, however. It is difficult to rise
above the level of conjecture because no source records
Louis' precise feelings or goals in 833. We know well
enough what those who supported Louis thought, but it
would be a mistake to assume that Louis thought all and
only the same things. Indeed, the stake of the loyalist
clergy was rather different from Louis' in 833.

The positions of each of the preceding persons
and groups have been passed quickly under review because
each of them played a role in the dealings between Louis
and Gregory. Had Louis' sons not revolted, Gregory would
never have appeared on the scene. Had the radical clergy
not been suspicious of the reasons for Gregory's coming,
his task would have been an easier one. Had the loyalists
not taken the stand they did, his position would have been
a good deal less precarious. Finally, Gregory's appearance
itself is not very easy to understand because Louis' sons
envisioned one role for him to play, while he himself seems
to have had a different one in mind.

The sources make it very clear that Lothar and his

brothers were responsible for bringing Gregory from Rome/21

 

21Ann. Bert., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 6: "Hlotharius
de Italia GEEgor1um apostolicum secum adducens"; 323.
Xant., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 8: "adducentes secum
Gregorium.

332

This is a key point, for it makes it impossible to argue
that Gregory came on his own initiative. Two sources indi-
cate that the journey was undertaken because Louis' sons
convinced Gregory that only he could restore peace and
order. However, both of these sources remark that this

was only a pretext.22 It also appears that a rumor was
rife that the sons had brought Gregory along only to ex-

23

communicate their father. All of this suggests that the

sons saw the pope only as a useful tool in the accomplish—
ment Of their own selfish ends.24 Agobard and the radicals,
who were allied to the brothers, assented to Gregory's

participation only if he would agree unconditionally to the

restoration of the Ordinatio. Otherwise, they were not at
25

 

all pleased at the intervention of the pOpe. This serves

 

22Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, ss, 11, p. 635:

"sub ornatu quasi qui patri solus fiIiOs-Eeconciliare de-
beret et posset"; Nithard, Hist., I.4, ed. Rau, p. 392:
"insuper autem et Gregorium Romane summe sedis pontificem,
ut sua auctoritate liberius quOd cupiebent perficere
possent, sub eadem specie magnis precibus in supplementum
suae voluntatis assumunt."

 

23Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, ss, 11, p. 635;
Gregory IV, epistola, MGH, Epp., v, p. 229.

 

 

24Ullmann, Papal Government, p. 167, argues that

there is no reason to see Gregory‘s role in this way.
I agree that this is not what Gregory had in mind, but
fail to see how it can be argued otherwise for Louis'
sons.

 

25E . no. 16, c. 4, MGH, E ., V, p. 227: "Certe,

clementiss1me domine (scil. HIudowice), si nunc Gre-
gorius papa inrationabiliter et ad pugnandum venit, merito
et pugnatus et repulsus recedet; Si autem pro quietate

333

to show that even the clerical supporters of Louis' sons
viewed the pOpe as a useful tool.

Gregory did provide an explanation for his inter-
vention. His views were set forth in a letter to the
loyalist bishops written after he had crossed the Alps.
The occasion for this letter was the commencement of real
negotiations between Louis and his men and Lothar, his ‘
brothers and Gregory. The letter was not a systematic
treatise but an angry response to a highly provocative
letter which the loyalists had sent to him. This letter
contains several points which are Of interest. Gregory
stated that he had in mind, first, the restoration of

26

peace in the Christian world. He also desired the

restitution of the Ordinatio,27 but in setting down his

 

 

et pace pOpuli et vestra laborare nititur bene et ration-
abiliter, Obtemperandum est illi, non repugnandum; Si enim
quod vestra voluntate et potestate cum consensu totius
imperii vestri factum est et postea in apostolica sede
roboratum, hoc vultixxpristinum reducere statum, satis
racionabilis et Opportunis est eius adventus." It is
interesting to note that in CO. 2 and 3, pp. 226-27, of
this letter Agobard listed a number of arguments that the
Petrine commission had been handed equally to all bishops.
From this, too, it may be concluded that he regarded the
pope's presence as auxiliary.

26Even a hostile source admitted this: Pasc. Rad. ,
Vita Walae, 11.14, PL, cxx, 1630D-l631A. Cf. Hauck,
Kirchengeschichte, II, p. 516; Ullmann, Papal Government,
p. 168; Halphen, L'empire carolingien, p. 242.

 

 

 

 

27Gregory IV, epistola, MGH, Epp., V, p. 230.
Gregory said that he had come to tell Louis about ”Omnia
quae contra unitatem et pacem Ecclesiae et regni committit."
Later he called the new Divisio of 831 "causa et origo
conturbationis, commotionis et depraedationis et omnium
malorum."

 

334

reasons for this he laid out the real Objectives which he

was seeking. In overturning the Ordinatio Louis had

 

sinned. His sins were the cause of the disturbances which
were then upsetting the peace of the empire. It is inter-
esting to note that Gregory called Louis sinful in an in-
direct way. He spoke of the sinfulness Of the new Divisio
and then called the loyalist bishOps sinners for defending
both the Divisio and Louis for issuing it. He also told
the loyalists that when they had sworn loyalty to Louis
they had taken upon themselves the responsibility for
caring for his soul. Then, after the loyalists had seen
Louis destroy the peace and unity Of the empire, Gregory
said, the bishops saw him "tumble into mortal danger" and
yet they did nothing. Thus Gregory, the highest priest,

had the duty of intervening, ratione pgccati, to restore

 

peace and to recall Louis and his advocates from their
sinful ways.28
This is Of enormous significance. The problems of
833 were essentially secular. To be sure neither Agobard
and the radicals nor Gregory saw them that way, but this
does not change the fact of the secular, political roots
of the rebellion. Gregory, by placing the events of 833

into a religious context, and by using that context--

determination and remission of sin--as a pretext for his

 

28Ibid., pp. 230-31: "precipitari in perniciem."
The passage 13 too longtx>merit quotation in full. It may
be noted that Gregory also spoke of Louis' "malignancy."

335

own intervention, took a giant step towards papal political
hegemony in the West. He followed in the footsteps of
his predecessors and worked from a spiritual prerogative of
the papacy, the right to judge sinners, but he surpassed
them in his definition of what constituted a sin. Distur-
bance of the peace in the Christian world was defined as a
sin and restoration of that peace was seen as sufficient
grounds for intervention into whatever problems had con-
tributed to the discord. On the basis of this pretext, a
day would come when virtually anything a king did would be
subjected to scrutiny by the papacy.

When the consequences of Gregory's step are under-
stood it becomes easier to comprehend the high and mighty

interventions, ratione peccati, of a pOpe like Innocent

 

III. Usually, Innocent is seen as a product of the radical
Gregorian papacy and of the jurisprudential activity of

the twelfth century. Certainly, these forces exerted some
influence on him, but he was equally the child of an oft-
forgotten ninth century father.29 In other words, while

scholars have long recognized the contributions of Caro-

lingian age pOpes such as Nicholas I and John VIII to the

 

29As far as I know only H. X. Arquilliere, "Sur la
formation de la theocratie pontificale," Mélan es 3. 333,
(Paris, 1925), pp. 1-24, has prOperly understood Gregory
IV. By the time that he wrote his classic L'aggustinisme
politigue in 1934, esp. pp. 184-89, he had come to beIieve
that interventions ratione peccati were traditional. It
seems that his earlier position was the sounder, for it is
difficult to find examples before 833 upon which a
tradition had been built.

 

 

336

on-going traditions of the papacy, the contributions of
Gregory IV have been sadly neglected.

Gregory's letter contains the articulation of
another important idea. Gregory chastised the loyalists
for hOping that he would show himself obedient to Louis in
all things. He went on to say that the imperial will was
in no way superior to his own, for his was pontifical,
that is, he held the charge of souls which was more im-
portant than the temporal authority of emperors.30 In
saying these things, Gregory was merely putting into
slightly, but significantly, different terms the reasons
he had already presented for his intervention. First,
Gregory stressed his priestly power but now he was empha-

sizing his powers as chief priest and summus pontifex of

 

the Christian world. This idea was not at all original,
but it had not been expressed in several centuries with
such clarity. Again, it is important to note that spiri-
tual prerogatives were adduced. There is, perhaps, some-
thing tacitly political in Gregory's statements but they

are not, in themselves, political. His reasoning was

 

30Gregory IV, epistola, MGH, EEER' V, p. 228: "Ad-
ventu eius conperto, laetari vos dicit1s, credentes omnibus
principi scilicet subiectis profuturum, et optasse; occursum
vestrum nobis non negandum, nisi sacra iussio imperialis
preveniret. Que verbe reprehensibilia sunt: uno quidem
modo, quia iussio apostolice sedis non minus vobis sacra
videri debuerat, quam illa quam dicitis imperialem; deinde
quia veritate caret, quod dicitis illam prevenisse; non
enim illa prevenit, sed nostra, id est pontificalis. Ne-
que ignorare debueratis maius esse regimen animarum, quod
est pontificale, quam imperiale, quod est temporale."

 

337

grounded in Christian ethics. The soul is Of greater
importance than the body, hence the governance of souls
is a weightier responsibility than rule over bodies.

These ideas are, seemingly, Of great importance.
The papacy had clearly posited its theoretical primacy in
Western society. It may have done so in spiritual terms
but the Spectre of political domination was not far below
the surface of the papacy's pronouncements. But theoretical
is all that that primacy was in 833. This is the only
possible interpretation of the actual events involved in
the resolution of the revolt of 833.

31

On June 10, 833, Louis convened his army and

clergy at Worms. He then sent BishOp Bernhard to the

32 It seems that Bernhard carried on three sets of

rebels.
negotiations simultaneously. An analysis of these nego-
tiations, and of their outcome, will Show the true state
of affairs in this crucial year in Carolingian history.
Bernhard relayed to Louis' sons a number of
specific charges that Louis was raising against them.

Paschasius Radbertus has preserved the only account of

these charges and several scholars have passed varying

 

31
Supra, n. 2.

32Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, ss, 11, p. 635. 11
seems impossible to identify Bernhafd? Simson, JB Ludwig,
II, p. 37 n. 5, notes that Bernhard of Vienne is unlikely
since he was among the rebels and that an identification
with Bernald of Strasbourg is difficult because the dif-
ference in names is too great.

 

 

338

judgments on the reliability Of his statements.33 It seems

safest to say that Radbertus does preserve the gist of
what was said, but that his account is not a literal re-
statement of the actual negotiations. According to
Radbertus, Louis charged that his sons were refusing to
honor him as their father and that they were his vassals
and betraying the oaths they had sworn to him. He then
said that he was the defender of the Holy See and that they
were using it against him and that, in addition, they were
forbidding the pOpe to come to him. Then Louis reproached
Lothar in particular for restraining and misleading his
brothers. Louis concluded by saying that his sons had un-
lawfully been receiving his vassals. It should be noted
that there is nothing theoretical or conceptual in Louis'
charges.

The sons, of course, responded. Radbertus relates
that they said they were proud to be Louis' sons but that
they felt a duty to rise against those around their father

who hated them and him. They claimed that they had never

 

33Vita Walae, 11.17, 91., cxx, 1636A-l638C. y,
no. 925a, believes the accounh_to be substantially accurate,
if overdrawn in some respects. Simson, JB Ludwig, II,

p. 38, considers the account a fabrication. Halphen,
L'empire carolingien, p. 242, considers it accurate, as
does Faulhaber, Reichseinheitsgedanke, p. 69, who, however,
sees Agobard behind the account as we have it. There is
absolutely no proof for this idea. Weinrich, Wala, p. 81,
feels that it is hard to say one way or the other because
Radbertus was writing about Wala whose position in 833 was
.a rather ambivalent one.

 

 

 

 

339

betrayed their oaths to their father and that they were re-
ceiving only persecuted exiles, not imperial vassals.

These exculpations, however, are of only marginal
significance to the subject of Louis' dealings with
Gregory. More important in this connection are the re-
sponses the sons made to Louis' charges that they were

misusing the papacy. Lothar claimed that he was equally

the defender of the Roman See and that he was doing his
duty in defending the pOpe from ambushes which had been
laid for him. To the charge that they were forbidding the
pope from coming to Louis, the sons responded that Louis
himself was the problem since he had tried to block the
Alps. They had brought the pope along only to intercede,
they said.

It is clear from Radbertus' account that neither
Louis nor his sons raised broad, conceptual charges. It is
also evident that the sons did not quite respond candidly
to Louis' charges concerning the pope. Louis had said
that his sons were misusing the pope in bringing him from
Rome and that they were preventing the pOpe from coming
to him. Lothar and his brothers responded that Louis, who
had tried to block the Alpine passes, was himself the re-
strainer and that they had brought the pOpe only to inter-
cede. They also said that they had brought Gregory along

to protect him from ambushes. This was absurd. Gregory

340

was perfectly safe in Rome but altOgether likely to be
ambushed, in one way or another, in Francia.

All of this apparent diplomatic double-talk does
bear on the relations between Louis and Gregory, but to
see how and why it is necessary to look at the second side
of Bishop Bernhard's negotiations, namely, his message
from Louis to Gregory. Bernhard asked Gregory why "if he
had come after the fashion of his predecessors, he was
contriving such great delays in appearing before the
emperor?" He went on to say that a rumor was afoot on
all sides that the pope had come only to excommunicate
Louis and the loyalist bishops.34

That Louis had this question asked of Gregory
appears to contradict his earlier charge, recorded by
Radbertus, that Lothar and his brothers were restraining
Gregory. They may well have been restraining him, but
if Louis knew this why did he ask Gregory the reasons
for his reluctance to appear? That is, why did he
accuse Gregory of contriving delays? It is certainly
possible, perhaps probable, that Louis' sons did not
want Gregory to meet with their father except on their
own terms, whatever those terms may have been. But

Louis' questions make it clear that he, and probably

 

34Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, ss, 11, p. 635.
Bernhard's question is tohbe taken IiEerEIly. At the
same time that these negotiations were taking place
Agobard also learned that Louis desired a meeting with
Gregory: 32. no. 16, M33, _pp,, V, p. 226.

 

341

others, were aware of some reservations that were wholly
Gregory's own. This is borne out by a source which says
that the pope was "terrified by the emperor and by all

the people, even by the bishops."35

To discover the cause of Gregory's reluctance, it
is necessary to look at the third aSpect of Bernhard's
negotiations. Bernhard apparently told Gregory that if
it were true that he had come to excommunicate Louis and
the loyalists, then he had better realize that he himself
would return home excommunicated.36 This helps to explain
Gregory's apprehension, but more instructive in this
regard is the fairly lengthy letter written by the loyalist
bishOps which Bernhard took to Gregory.

The Frankish letter no longer survives but its
contents can easily be reconstructed from the response of
the pope.37 It was in this letter that Gregory set down
the ideas on papal intervention and primacy which were
described above. As mentioned already, Gregory's letter
was not a systematic treatise. This is proved by the form
of the letter. It contains several sections beginning
"Deinde . . . dicitis." These range widely over a number

of topics which were, presumably, the ones raised by the

 

35Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, II.l6, PL, CXX, 1634D.

 

36Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, 33, 11, p. 635.

 

3752181212: 14.94: 5122.. v. pp. 228-32.

342

loyalist bishops. The letter is Simply a response to a
series of charges which were, in all probability, raised
more by the bishops than by Louis.

The gravity of the charges and threats in the
letter of the loyalists make Gregory's reluctance to
appear before Louis quite understandable. It is clear
from Gregory's letter that he had been charged with
meddling in Frankish affairs and of dishonoring the
emperor and himself. Moreover, the loyalists had indeed
threatened Gregory with excommunication. Finally, and
this particularly annoyed Gregory, the loyalists had
addressed him as "brother." Among all these other serious
charges, then, Gregory had also been brought face to face
with the conciliarism in which so many of the Frankish
bishOps, loyalist and rebel alike, believed.

It may be useful to recapitulate the points which
have been established. Louis and his clergy were ex-
tremely angry at Gregory for appearing in Francia in the
camp of the rebels. Louis was certainly not pleased that
the pope had entered into relations with his sons and he
cannot have been happy at the challenges to his authority
issued by Gregory. Louis' grievance with his sons is easy
enough to eXplain. He wanted to be rid of the rebellion
they were leading. The loyalist bishops, partly out of
loyalty to Louis and partly because of the conciliarist

ecclesiology they threw at Gregory, were displeased at the

343

appearance of the pope. The bishOps were angry with
Louis' sons partly, again, because of their loyalty to
Louis and partly as a matter of principle. They thought
it scandalous that peOple would rise against a divinely
appointed king and reprehensible that sons would attack
their father. The radical clergy, who were among the
rebels, were the great theoreticians of the rebellion.
They saw it as a defense of the principles established in
817 and destroyed in 831. They were willing to let
Gregory participate in the revolt only in so far as he

had come to seek the restoration of the Ordinatio Imperii.

 

Otherwise, because they were infected by the same con-
ciliarism as the loyalists, they did not relish the
spectacle of Gregory becoming involved in their affairs.
Louis' sons, quite simply, were seeking to redress what
they judged to be legitimate grievances stemming out of
Louis' conduct towards them in the years after 829. They
totally ignored the fact that they themselves had been
responsible for whatever grief they had met. They impli-
cated the pOpe in their sedition in order, no doubt, to
give it a greater prOSpect of success. Gregory saw the
rebellion of 833 as an Opportunity to express himself on
worldly government and on the place Of the pope in that
government. Gregory met widespread disapproval among the
loyalist clergy and, quite likely, from Louis himself.

From the radical, rebellious clergy Gregory got only

344

condescending approbation. Lothar and his brothers re-
garded the pOpe as a useful tool more than an intercessor.
Finally, the rebellion itself was a familial squabble

among the Carolingians and not a great contest of con-
cepts and world-views. That ideas, indeed rather grandiose
ones, were articulated during the course of the rebellion
was due more to the beliefs of some Of the persons who got
involved in it, than to the actual causes of the rebellion
itself.

The period from 10 to 24 June was filled with the
negotiations which provide the basis for the points which
were just described and summarized. By June 24 two armies
stood Opposed to one another at Colmar. Negotiations had
broken down completely and finally Louis learned Of the
approach of Gregory, who had been sent by the brothers,

38 Louis did not receive the

39

allegedly, to intercede.
pOpe with the honors customarily due to him and no
source relates the precise nature Of the discussions which

ensued. It has long been assumed that some sort of an

 

38pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 11.17, g;, cxx, 1638D:
"Haec siquidem alt erna altercatio, haec querelae ad
invicem: haec prOpositio paterna, et reSponsiO filiorum.
Cum nec sic ullum assensum obtinere quivissent veniae,
mittitur sanctus at summus pontifex intercessor . . ."
Cf. Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, M33, 33, II, p. 636.

 

 

39Ibid. Thegan's remark, Vita Hlud., 42, MGH, 33,
II, p. 598, that Gregory was received honorably and that
he and Louis exchanged gifts is an error.

 

345

understanding was reached between Louis and Gregory40

and,
after a few days, the pOpe was sent back to Louis' sons,
probably to inform them of the agreement. It has never
been determined what the precise nature of the agreement
was.

There is another way of looking at this. What
possible grounds for an understanding existed between
Louis and Gregory? Gregory had come to proclaim his
primacy in the Christian world and to pass judgment on
Louis' sinfulness. Louis was certainly not about to admit
papal primacy and it is doubtful that he considered himself

a sinner. Presumably Gregory would have told Louis of his

sin in overturning the Ordinatio. Louis would probably

 

have responded to this in either or both of two ways.
He might have said that he had not in fact set aside the

Ordinatio, that is, he had never formally deprived Lothar

 

of sole imperial succession. We should note that it is
not at all clear that Louis did sack Lothar in 831. His
name did disappear from imperial documents but, then, it
had not been until several years after the issuance of the

Ordinatio that Lothar's name appeared on diplomas in the

 

first place. Beyond the disappearance of his name from
documents we know only that Louis told Lothar to go to
Italy in 831 and not to leave without permission. Thus,

Louis might have argued that he had never sinned at all

 

402E: no. 925C; Simson, JB Ludwig, II, pp. 46-48.

 

346

because he had never violated the Ordinatio. Or, Louis

 

might have told the pOpe much the same thing that his
bishOps had already told him, namely, to stay out of
affairs that were none of his business. In this same

vein Louis might have told the pOpe that he had absolutely
no right to attempt to judge an emperor. The scholarly
tradition holds for an agreement but an agreement suggests
a compromise and it is difficult to see what grounds for
compromise existed.

The brothers had sent Gregory, allegedly, to inter-
cede. Again, on what basis was he to intercede? It is
far more likely that they expected Gregory to get their
father to capitulate fully and unconditionally to whatever
demands they planned to make of him. In fact, it is not
impossible that they wanted Gregory to get Louis to
abdicate. After all, they had tried unsuccessfully to
get their father to abdicate in the rebellion of 830.

Now, let us ask, can it be a mere coincidence that
while Louis and Gregory were meeting the brothers, "by
evil persuasions,"41 "by various enticements,"42 and

"by plots,"43 persuaded the greater part of Louis' army

 

41Ann. Bert., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 6.

 

42Nithard, Hist., I.4, ed. Rau, p. 392.

43Ann. Xant., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 8.

 

347

to desert him?44 The scene of these events has been known

ever since as the "field of Lies" because "those who had

promised fidelity to the emperor lied."45

Louis' position
became so hOpeless that by June 30 he was a prisoner of
his son Lothar.

No, this wretched affair must have been a result
of Lothar and his brothers learning that Louis and Gregory
were not about to come to any sort of an understanding.
Moreover, it is clear that Louis never backed down in the
face of this adversity and that it was this which caused
his sons to try to destroy him by other means than the
good offices of the pope. Finally, Gregory must have
come to the painful realization that he and Lothar had
very different understandings of what it meant to intercede.

By his participation in this affair Gregory had
ventured much but had gained nothing. He had been used
and abused by Louis' sons and his right to judge Louis
had been denied by the old emperor. Gregory was ignored
in the resolution of the matter as well. At any rate, it
is hard to believe that he had had anything to do with

Louis' humiliating capture, except in so far as he had

been an unwitting party to it. There are reports that

 

44The report of Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, II.18,

PL, CXX, 1640A, that the switch of allegiance occurred
1"Sine ullius, quantum rescire potui, persuasione aut
exhortatione" is patently false.

 

45Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, §_s_, 11, p. 635,
In Latin: "Campus-Mentitus."

 

348

Gregory was profoundly saddened by the whole affair46 and

the Liber Pontificalis passes over the whole trip to

 

Francia in silence, doubtless out of awareness Of the
ignominy that it had brought upon the papacy.47 Gregory
had claimed papal superiority over temporal powers but

he had been treated like a puppet by Louis' sons and like
an adversary by Louis himself. Gregory claimed the right

to go anywhere to judge Christians, ratione pgccati, but

 

his right to do this had been ignored by secular powers--
Lothar and his brothers did not let Gregory pass final
judgment on Louis--and rejected by a significant portion
Of the Frankish clergy. Finally, Gregory's presence had
been suspected by the radical clergy and tolerated only
when it became clear that he had come, at least in part,

to restore the Ordinatio. But even here neither the

 

radicals nor the pOpe gained a thing. Neither Of them
ever mooted Louis' deposition for this was assuredly no

48 Indeed, there is evidence that

means to imperial unity.
one of the elder statesmen Of the age, and a member of the

unitary party, Wala, was also saddened at the outcome of

 

46Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, SS, II, p. 636:
"Cum maximo moerore Romam regredituf"? Nihhard, Hist.,
I.4, ed. Rau, p. 392: "Gregorius siquidem papa itineris
penitudine correptus . . . Romam revertitur."

 

47Vita Grgg. IV, Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, II,

 

p. 73.

48Marcel Pacaut, La theocratie, (Paris, 1957),
pp. 51-52; Congar, EcclésioIOgie, pp. 302-303.

 

 

349

events. Wala believed that it had been wrong for Lothar to
overthrow his father and that the future was likely to be
full of turmoil and sadness.49 It is good to have this
piece of evidence because Agobard, who was the principal
spokesman for the radicals before the revolt, has not left
on record his thinking after the events of June 30.

The whole affair left a sorry legacy. Lothar
quickly sent Gregory back to Rome,50 and one can well
imagine the abject feelings which Gregory must have
carried with him. Louis' humiliation did not cease when
he was taken prisoner. His men had renounced their loyalty

51

to him and had sworn fidelity to Lothar. This had the

result of causing Louis to fall from rule but it was not,

in the strictest legal sense, a deposition Of the emperor.52

 

49Pasc. Rad., Vita Walae, 11.18, 3i, CXX, l640C-D.

 

50Ann. Bert., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 6. Simson, 33

Ludwig, II, p. 61, argues that Gregory was sent home
shortly after June 30. But, Gregory was still in Francia
as late as June 8, at which time he took a loyalist
bishOp, Aldric of Le Mans, under his protection. This
suggests his disillusionment with Lothar. It may be
presumed that the pOpe was sent back to Rome soon after
June 8. Cf. Walter Goffart, "Gregory IV for Aldric

of Le Mans: A Genuine or Spurious Decretal?" Mediaeval
Studies, XXVIII, (1966), pp. 22, 27 n. 24.

 

 

SlClearest in Ann. Xant., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 8.

52Kern, Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im

frfiheren Mittelalter, 2d ed. by R. Buchner, (Mfinster,
1954), Appendices, 24, 25.

 

 

350

So, because Lothar feared that there was still substantial
support for his father, he forced him to undergo a public
penance and humiliation at St. Médard at Soissons.53
Halphen long ago proved that those proceedings were not
only illegal but also outrageous.S4 It actually seems as
though the humiliation Louis underwent won him a good deal
of support. The Astronomer says that during the winter

of 833-834 forces began to be raised in Francia, Burgundy,
Germany and Aquitaine.55 The rebels had succeeded only

in humiliating the pope and the emperor and in making
continued civil strife a certainty.

Meanwhile, Lothar made a mockery of the unitary
imperial ideal on behalf of which such great paeans had
emitted from those in his entourage. The sources say,
rather simplistically, that Louis lost his rule and Lothar

56 This could have been accommodated to the

took it up.
unitary ideal despite the very questionable legality of

Lothar's actions. He could have restored the act of 817,

 

53Astron., Vita Hlud., 49, MGH, 33, II, p. 637.

 

54"La pénitence de Louis 1e Pieux a Saint Médard
de Soissons," in his A travers l'histoire du moyen age,
(Paris, 1950), pp. 58-66.

 

55Vita Hlud., 49, MGH, 33, 11, p. 637.

 

56Ann. Sanc. Columb. Senon., MGH, SS, 1, p. 103:
"Hludowicus regnum amisit, et HIotharihh'iIIud suscepit";
Ann. Hildes., SSrG, s.a. 833, p. 16: "Regnum Francorum
ad Lothafium imperatorem conversum est"; with almost
identical language, Ann. Altahen. Maior, SSrG, s.a. 833,
p. 5.

 

 

 

351

substituting himself for his father. But the young emperor
proceeded to a division of the empire in three parts, very
much like the division of 831 which had, in large part,
precipitated the revolt. Naturally, Louis was excluded,

as was Charles.57 Moreover, Lothar collected a clique
around himself which began struggling for favors, and to
determine vflua was to become second to himself in the

empire.58

It had been, presumably, against just these
kinds of things that Lothar and his brothers had taken the
field, that Agobard had written so violently and so much,
and that Gregory had crossed the Alps. It ought now to be
perfectly clear that all parties to the events of 833 were
forced to become mere tools in the hands of Louis' greedy
and self-seeking progeny.

Gregory had been the most greatly abused, but this
is not the aSpect of his role in 833 which merits greatest
attention. He had, in fact, raised lofty claims, but they
had fallen on deaf ears. He stood in the tradition Of his
predecessors going back to Leo I, and very much more
recently, to Paschal I. The import of that tradition is
unmistakable but its real, practical effect was almost

meaningless. The time had not yet come when the pOpe

could be a genuine force in trans-Alpine politics. The

 

57Astron., Vita Hlud., 48, MGH, 33, 11, p. 636.

 

58Pasc. Rad.,Vita Walae, II.l9, EM, CXX, 1641C;
Nithard, Hist., I.4, ed. Rau, p. 392, mentioning
particularIy Hugo, Matfrid and Lambert.

 

II

 

 

 

352

real world was pOpulated by hard headed men who paid
little heed to theoretical claims and lofty idealism.
Indeed, what a different picture we get of the year 833
when we view it from Gregory's polemical letter and the
actual course of events.

This marks the end of the important dealings
between Louis and the papacy.59 It ought now to be clear
that the papacy, which had been trying since at least
822 to assert its Spiritual primacy, had not yet succeeded
in translating that primacy into genuine and effective
influence in the traditionally political and secular

aspects of the life of the Imperium Christianum. In other

 

words, there were still political and social problems Of
great importance and urgency into which the papacy could
intrude only at its peril. A firm foundation, indeed
precedents, for the interventions which would become so
common three centuries later, had been set. Thus, if the
Short term legacy of the papal strivings in the early
ninth century was a sorry one, the long term heritage

was of world-historical significance.

 

59Actually Louis and Gregory corresponded in 834
on some of the details of Anskar's mission. This was
part of a series of events set in motion in 822 so it
is, in a sense, true to say that the affair of 833
marked the last significant interaction of papacy and
empire during Louis' life.

CHAPTER VIII

EPILEGOMENA

In order to explain more fully why Gregory went
home sorry in 833 and to suggest some of the reasons why
Henry IV would sorrily go to Canossa in 1077, it is
necessary to turn, by way of conclusion, to a few prob-
lems which have not been sufficiently highlighted up to
this point. An attempt will be made to summarize or to
emphasize certain themes which have already been discussed
in connection with specific problems. In addition, the
broad conceptual framework within which papal-imperial
relations Operated during Louis' reign will be summarized.
In particular, some attention will be directed towards
the most important ecclesiologies Of the early ninth
century in order to show their strengths and weaknesses
and the problems which they pose for the modern scholar.
Finally, a few tentative Observations will be Offered on
the reasons why the Franks' dealings with the papacy
changed so drastically after 840.

As far as we know, Louis' meeting with Gregory

in 833, and their correspondence in 834, were the last

353

354

interactions between the two men. In 837, however, Louis
resolved to go to Rome to defend the Roman Church and to
pray there.1 Louis felt that the Roman Church was in
need of protection from his son Lothar, who along with
many Of his followers who had also fled from Francia in
834, was then ravaging Italy. For several reasons, which
are of no importance to this study, Louis was unable to
undertake the journey. The fact that he desired to go to
Rome, however, is of some importance.

It was suggested to me2 that Louis' plan to go to
Rome should be understood as a desire on the part of the
old emperor to demonstrate that he was still master in
his empire and, even more importantly, of Rome and its
bishop. Louis had, between 816 and 824, worked long and
hard to affirm his control of Rome and to define the
position of the papacy in the Carolingian Empire. On
several occasions after 825 Louis' authority had been
challenged by the papacy and it is, therefore, Signifi-
cant to note that, when he was old and beset with more
urgent problems, Louis still took thought for the pope.
Equally significant is the fact that Louis seems to have
been unwilling to back down from his firm stance of
earlier years. Louis' papal policy was, during the

entirety of his reign, consistent.

 

1Ann. Bert., SSrG, s.a. 837, p. 13.

28y F. L. Ganshof in conversation, June, 1973.

355

Can anything about Louis' idea of empire be in-
ferred from this? Probably not, for there is very little
in the sources after about 817 which, at least in so far
as the papacy is concerned, provides any insight into
Louis' idea of empire. Louis' prOposed action in 837,
like his earlier actions, indicate something very prac-
tical, not theoretical. Louis considered the pope to
be a man who ruled over an important portion Of the
empire, and it was principally with this man that Louis
dealt. Louis never denied that the pope was the highest
ecclesiastical official and he had, and Often showed,
the greatest respect for the papacy. Witness the fact
that he associated the papacy in both his own and his
son's coronations. But it had not been with the Spiritual
side of the papacy that Louis had worked while integrating
the papacy into the empire. Consequently, Louis did not
define his idea of empire, even though it was surely a
deeply Spiritual one, with particular reference to the
papacy. Or, if he did, the sources do not say so.

This is a negative conclusion. Nevertheless, it
is a meaningful one. It serves as a warning against the
tendency to interpret the theoretical foundations of
medieval imperial policy in connection with the emperors'
most obvious adversary, the popes. There are times when
the idea of empire must be studied as an element of

papal-imperial relations. The second half of the

356

eleventh century is a splendid example of just such a time.
But during Louis' reign it is necessary to look elsewhere
for the principles upon which imperial policy was built.
The Frankish clergy and Louis himself were far more im-
portant than the pOpe in setting forth the conceptual
foundations of the empire.

It is not possible to say very much about the
papacy's idea of empire in the early ninth century. The

pope sanctioned the Ordinatio Imperii of 817 and, at

 

least to some extent, fought for it in 833. Presumably,
then, the papacy was a devotée of imperial unity and of
the principles implicit in it. However, the unitary
imperial ideal to which the papacy subscribed was a
Frankish amalgam of biblical and patristic thought. More-
over, the fact that the papacy accepted this idea has
nothing necessarily to do with its relations with Louis.
No one has ever argued that the unitary ideal was papal
and, whether or not it was Louis' idea, no one has ever
argued that he forced it on the pope. SO beyond the mere
fact that the papacy was unitarian, little can be said.
To gain an understanding of the idea of empire
in the early ninth century, and of the places of pOpe and
emperor within the empire, it is necessary to turn first
to the Frankish clergy. Throughout Louis' reign Frankish
clerics consistently articulated a theory that held the

world to be identical with the Church, inside of which

357

there existed two orders, one clerical, one lay. Many
scholars have noted that this was a significant alteration
of the old Gelasian notion that the world and the Church
were distinct spheres, each having its own functions and
competencies.3 The new ecclesia was considered to be the
totality of all Christians. It was not a legal or national
concept but, rather, an attempt to express the reality of
the ninth century. All men were Christians, at least all
men who counted. It was Christianity, more than anything
else, which bound them together.4 Since the rise of the
Carolingian Empire, however, men were no longer members
only of the same ecclesia but also of the same imperium.
Thus, thinkers decided that it would be a scandal to
divide the empire because to have done so would have been
the same thing as dividing the Church. This line of

thinking culminated in the Ordinatio Imperii of 817 which

 

required that the empire never again be split up on the
decrease of the ruling emperor. SO, deSpite the fact that

both Louis and the papacy believed deeply in this set of

 

3Congar, Ecclésiologie, pp. 257ff (with sources);
Mohr, Karol. Reichsidee, pp. 88ff; Faulhaber, Reichs-
einheitsgedanke, pp.’42ff; Knabe, Gelasianische Zwe1-
gewaltenlehre, pp. 53ff.

 

 

 

 

 

4Congar, EcclésiolOgie, p. 64: "On n'emploie par
'ecclesia' pour designer ce que nous appelons 1e hierarchie
. . . jamais l'église n'est identifiée a une institution
en soi; elle est toujours vue comme rassemblement ou
union de personnes; elle est le 'nous' des chrétiens:
de fait, ecclesia est souvent remplacé par Christiani,
fideles, ou autres mots semblables."

 

358

ideas it must be said that these ideas were not a factor
in papal-imperial relations.

It cannot be stressed overmuch that this empire
was less a political and legal notion than a moral one.

Within the imperium-ecclesia all Christians, and particu-

 

larly their leaders, were to struggle to bring about the
reign of Christian morality. This can be seen in the
emphasis which the sources lay on such terms as pax,

iustitia, aequitas, humilitas, and the like. In short,

 

 

the early ninth century saw the elaboration of a funda-
mentally moral definition Of society based on wholly
Christian principles.5 As noted several times in this
study, Louis' empire was considered to be exactly coter-

minous with the Church. It was the imperium Christianum

 

inhabited by the pOpulus Christianus. Louis, no less than

 

his clergy, set down the moral principles which were at
the roots of this society.

On all of these points, thinkers in the early
ninth century would have been in broad agreement. But the
increasing identification of the imperium with the
ecclesia gave rise to some enormously difficult theoretical
problems which had been avoided by traditional Gelasian

doctrines. Chief among these problems was who was supreme

 

5Anton, Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, pp. 208-
210; Pacaut, La theocratie, p. 43; Arquilliere, L'augus-
tinisme politique, pp. 124ff, 130ff. On pax see R.
Bonnaud-Delamare, L'idée de_paix a l'époque carolingienne,
(Paris, 1939), pp. 209ff, 218-27.

 

 

 

 

359

in the imperium-ecclesia? No one really doubted that it

 

was Christ himself. The ecclesia itself was often compared
to a body of which Christ was the head.6 But it was
further argued that this body had two additional compo-
nents, the lay and clerical orders. This distinction
between orders appears over and over again in the sources
after the middle of the third decade of the ninth century7
and it led to two sets of problems. One concerned the
relationship between the lay and clerical orders. The
other concerned the structure and ordering of the clerical
order itself. Together these problems gave rise to the
profound ecclesiological tensions of the ninth century.
Let us begin by looking at the way Carolingian
thinkers described the relations between the lay and
clerical orders. Jonas of Orléans was the first to pro-
vide a clear articulation of the idea that clerics were
more important than laymen, and Agobard soon after him

wrote in defense of the same thesis.8 A functional dis-

tinction came to be expressed. Clerics had the power of

 

6Agobard, Adv. Legem Gundobadi, MGH, E ., V,
pp. 158-59; Jonas of Orléans, De Inst. Regia, , ed.
Reviron, p. 134.

 

 

7Episcoporum Relatio, c. 3, MGH, Ca ., II, p. 29;
ibid., c. 2, p. 114; MGH, Conc., II.2T_no. 6, c. 3,
p. 723; Jonas of Orléans, De Inst. Regia, 1, ed. Reviron,
p. 134; Agobard, 3p. no. 16, M33, E ., V, p. 226; Pasc.
Rad., Vita Walae, 11.2, 23, CXX, l B-l6lOA.

 

 

 

8De Inst. Regia, 2d ed. Reviron, p. 136. His
term is "praestantior.1r Agobard, De Comp. Regimini, 2i,
CIV, pp. 291-98.

 

 

360

"binding and loosing"; the direct care for souls. Since
the soul was judged to be of infinitely greater conse-
quence than the body, it followed that clerics were more
important than laymen, who could only rule bodies.
Gregory IV was, of course, of exactly the same Opinion.9
This suggests that within the ecclesia, that is, within
the imperium, a subordinate position had fallen to the
emperor.

In fact this was not the case for several reasons.
First, and foremost, the clergy never succeeded in bringing
the imperial office fully within the Church. That is,
they were unable to effect a genuine identification of
ecclesia and imperium. Therefore, they never really took
control of the imperial office. Then, too, imperial
reSponsibilities always, in fact, extended beyond the
purely moral order, and the theories which made the im-
perial office subordinate were essentially moral in tone.

Thinkers in the age of Louis were not yet legal-
istic in their reasoning as, for example, Hincmar would be
in the next generation. Their arguments were grounded in

Christian morality, not in law.10 No attempt was made to

 

9Epistola, MGH, Epp., V, p. 228; cf., supra, p. 304.

10Etienne Delaruelle, "Jonas d'Orléans et le moral-
isme carolingien," Bulletin de literature ecclésiastique,
III, (1954), p. 134: ’“On a donc affaire iciia toute une
école, ou plutot, a toute une époque, a toute une civilisa—
tion." Cf., idem., "En rélisant le 'De Inst. Regia' de
Jonas d'Orléans," Mélanges Louis Halphen, (Paris, 1951),
pp. 185-92.

 

 

361

argue that a bishop was in some way legally superior to a
king, although ecclesiastical thought held bishops to be
of far greater moral significance. This had, perhaps,
the result of leaving a very unclear situation in the

imperium-ecclesia, but it also meant that the actual power

 

of kings was not called into question. In other words,
kings were always superior in fact, even if, in theory,
they were becoming increasingly inferior, at least in the
moral order.ll

Finally, there were many voices raised in support
of kings during Louis' reign.12 Some of these, such as
Hrabanus and Thegan, have already been discussed and need
not detain us here. Jonas of Orleans has also been dis-
cussed in this connection but his case is interesting and
merits a little reflection. He was both a vigorous sup-
porter of Louis and of the sanctity of kingship and one
of the earliest defenders of the thesis that clerics were
functionally superior to kings. Wala may have experienced
this same ambivalence and there were probably others torn

by these conflicting loyalties who are hidden from us by

a lack of source material.

 

llAnton, FfirstensPiegel und Herrscherethos,
pp. 217-18; Morrison, Two Kingdoms, p. 36; Halphen, "L'idée
de l'état sous les carolingiens7w—A travers l'histoire
du moyen age, pp. 92-104; Schieffer, "Krisefdes karOIT

Imperiums, pp. 9-10.

12Thegan, Vita Hlud., 44, MGH, 55, II, p. 599;
Hrabanus, ep. no. 16, MGH, E ., V, pp.-116-20; Jonas of
Orleans, De Inst. Regia, 3, , ed. Reviron, pp. 138, 157.

 

 

 

 

 

 

362

What all of this means is that during Louis' reign
no hard and fast, doctrinaire positions had been reached.
Men were moving toward definition, but few conclusive ones
had been obtained. Moreover, because these men thought
and wrote as moralists, and not as lawyers, their extant
writings often appear confusing and contradictory when
an attempt is made to apply them to the real world of the
ninth century. Later in the ninth century a more hier-
archical type of thought emerged in Rome and among the
Frankish clergy. When this happened, the theoretical

position of kingship within the ecclesia-imperium began

 

to deteriorate even further, for clerics began to reason
and write with the attitudes and language of jurists. It
must be remembered that the political, social and economic
bases of kingship were also on the decline after mid-
century. This made it much easier to posit a subordinate
position for kings and it gave a certain air of reality to
such a line of thought.

During Louis' reign the profoundest ecclesiological
tensions were not between the lay and clerical poles of

the ecclesia-imperium, but within the clerical order it-

 

self. The lively and well publicized conciliarist ten-

dencies among the Frankish clergy initiated a real struggle
for right order in the whole clergy. In an ironic way this
proved to be the saving grace for the theoretical position

of kingship. Truly hierarchical thought could not arise

363

in the clergy so long as the episcopate regarded the pope

as primus inter pares. The whole clergy could agree that

 

the world, or the empire, and the Church, were one and the
same thing. Likewise, there was consensus among clerics
that, owing to their functions, they were more significant
than laymen, even including kings. If the clergy had been
able to resolve its own theoretical problems, a pyramidal
ordering of society would have been possible with the pOpe
at the t0p, followed by the higher and then the lower
clergy and then kings and, finally, the rest of the peOple.
Instead, the picture was rather trapezoidal, with the whole
higher clergy, including the pope, at the top. Conse-
quently, during Louis' life and for some years after,
ecclesiastical writers devoted the greatest portion of
their attention to defining the relative positions of the
various orders within the clergy. They really did not
Spend much time integrating kingship into their world-view.
Of course, they proceeded from the assumption that they
were in some way superior to kings but their greatest
energies were not spent on develOping this thesis. Rather,
the clerical writers directed their colorful, and some-
times venomous, productions against one another.

In the end, the papacy was successful in gaining
recognition of its pre-eminence. The several cases during
Louis' reign in which the papacy affirmed its control

over both the Frankish clergy and Louis were the beginning

364

of the process by which papal superiority was accom-
plished. By the time of Nicholas I (858-867) the papacy
began to state the theoretical justifications for its
supreme position in Western society in clear and cogent
terms. Little by little, then, the hierarchical supremacy
of the papacy was develOped until it was given a virtually
full theoretical expression in the eleventh century and
incorporated into canon law in the twelfth and
thirteenth.l3
Scholars have long had difficulty with the reign
of Louis because they have always noted that it was during
his reign that the clerical order seemed to gain supremacy
over the worldly. They argue that this was a bad thing
and that Louis, due to his excessive piety and weakness
before the Church, was responsible for it. This view
is inaccurate in so far as it argues that the clerical

order gained the upper hand and, in any case, it gets the

problem out of perspective.

 

l3The beginnings of the papacy's attack on the
attitudes of the Frankish clergy is usually placed in the
age of Nicholas. I would emphasize Paschal's censure of
Hrabanus and the letter which Gregory IV sent to the
loyalists as precursors to Nicholas' policy. There
exists another letter which argued papal superiority over
the episc0pate so forcefully that it is very important.
Gregory IV, ep. no. 14, MGH, Epp., V, pp. 73-81. It has
almost always been regarHEH as a forgery. For some of the
older Opinions see Jaffe, no. 2579. Lot summarized the
thinking of his own day in "La prétendue lettre de
Gregoire IV aux évéques de Gaule et de Germanie en faveur
d'Aldric," Récueil F. Lot, I, pp. 582-86. Recently
Goffart has all but proved the authenticity of the
letter, "Gregory IV for Aldric," p. 38 and passim.

 

——————'—~, ,
M
I

 

 

365

Louis constricted the papacy as no earlier and few
later Western emperors did. But this constriction, as it
were, was applied to the secular person of the pope. The
pOpe was in this sense very clearly made a subject, that
is, a subordinate of the emperor. Later, to be sure,
ecclesiastical.manifestos placed the papacy at the head of
Western society just as the whole clergy had been placed
in that position during Louis' reign. Moreover, it was
during Louis' reign that the papacy began to use the
spiritual prerogatives which paved the way for its rise
to the tOp. Louis helped this along, perhaps, by defining
his empire, and his tasks, in essentially Christian and
moralistic terms. Kings and pOpes and clergy all had
essentially the same view of society and of its prOper
ends, but this does not mean that kings were truly subject
to pOpes or to clerics, even if much of the ecclesiastical
literature of the age suggests this. Society was, in
reality, built upon more important things than complex
ecclesiological principles. In other words, the Lugg-

vicianum and the Constitutio Romana are of much greater

 

importance in understanding papal relations during Louis'
reign than, for example, Gregory's letter to the loyalist
bishops. The former dealt with realities, the latter with
ideas or, perhaps, possibilities and potentialities.
Likewise, Louis used his coronation in 816 to give clear

expression to his idea of empire and it is difficult, if

366

not impossible, to argue that the papacy was considered
superior by Louis on that occasion. Where ideas are con—
cerned, it is certainly fair to argue that Louis' were of
greater immediate consequence than the papacy's. Simi-
larly, although everyone defined society in Christian
terms, and this tended to leave to the clergy a pre-
ponderant role, society was not a mass of moral principles
but a mass of genuine secular responsibilities. Thus, if
Louis is to be blamed for anything it is that he did not
define the modern secular state. But it would be perverse
to blame him for this since it was not until centuries
after his death that anyone thought of what may seem like
the obvious answer to us today.

Also Louis' papal system--if it may be called
that-~has not been sufficiently appreciated because it
collapsed so soon after his death. Louis had tried to
build a well ordered, well governed empire and he even
tried to provide a conceptual foundation for that empire.
For all of Louis' efforts, however, it was a frail polit-
ical creation and its credo was not given adequate or,
perhaps, relevant, precision. Two or three generations
of rule like that of Louis' might have made things turn
out very differently. But there was no continuity.

Civil war and petty squabbling tore the empire
apart from within and nearly a century of invasions by

Vikings, Magyars and Muslims destroyed it from without.

367

A new political order arose which thought little of loyalty
to empires or to emperors. The empire broke down into
smaller political and geographical collectivities which
had legitimate interests of their own. In short, the
world in the year 900 would have been barely rec0gnizable
to Louis.

The new order was not without influence on the
papacy. The Roman bishOp returned to the political life
from which Louis had excluded him because the firm im-
perial presence which Louis had created in Rome dis-
appeared as a result of more pressing northern concerns
taking precedence over Roman ones. New political and
factional strife arose in Rome--witness the brutal murder
of John VIII four decades after Louis' death-~and the
papacy could not remain aloof. Also, someone had to
organize the defense of Rome against the Muslims. De-
prived of effective imperial protection by force of
circumstances over which it had no control, the papacy
undertook this role which was so fraught with political
consequences.

By the year 900 the papacy was, in a sense, freer
of royal and imperial control than it had ever been,
whereas only two generations earlier the papacy had been
made a subject of the Carolingian state. This turnabout
was not due to any failing of Louis', but to the dis—

appearance of the Carolingian state itself. Louis' papal

368

system failed, but not because the system was a bad one

or because Louis did not administer it well. It failed,
like the empire, because after three generations of genius
the Carolingian world had to endure several generations of
mediocrity, and because the infant Carolingian synthesis
of Roman, German and ecclesiastical elements was ill
equipped to grapple with the problems that faced it after
Louis' death. Louis' presumably excessive piety had little
or nothing to do with the failure of this state, and
neither did some inexorable rise of the papacy to the
summit of Western society.

In a larger sense, the failure of the Carolingians
during their golden age to build a lasting state was the
ultimate success of the papacy. From 768 until 840 there
were two powers that could raise universalist claims in
the West: the reigning Carolingian and the pope. Their
universalist claims were rooted in the fact that each of
them exerted some influence over the society of Western
Christians. But, no matter what theories were expressed
during these years, there can be no doubt as to the
actual pre-eminence of Charles and Louis. Then, after
840, there was no secular ruler who could claim anything
like universal rule. However, with the sword and the
GOSpel, Western EurOpe had been made Christian and,
after 840, the pope remained as chief-priest of all those

faithful who lacked a political hegemon. Much of the

369

history of the next five hundred years concerned a struggle
over the universalist claims of the papacy. These strug-
gles arose in part because there was no longer a Charles

or a Louis to confront the papacy not only with a rival

claim, but with a more substantial one.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ERMOLDUS NIGELLUS VS. 942-1031

APPENDIX A

ERMOLDUS NIGELLUS VS. 942-1031

Audite haec, proceres, et tu, sanctissime praesul,
Hoc commune bonum suscipite unanimes.

Et mihi cunctipotens miseratus regna paterna
Cessit habere Deus et decus omne simul:

Non meritis, ut credo, meis, sed patris honorem
Hunc miserans Christus cessit habere mihi.

Ergo precor fidos et te, praeclare sacerdos,
Ut mihi consilii rite feratis opem.

Et ferte auxilium, qui mecum regimina nostra
Servatis, famuli, tuque, beate sacer,

Quo clerus populusque meus, pauperque potensque
Jura paterna sequi me faciente queant.

Regula sancta patrum constringat in ordine clerum,
Et populum societ lex veneranda patrum;

Et monachorum ordo Benedicti dogmate crescat,
Moribus et vita pascua sancta petat;

Dives agat legem, pauper teneat eadem,
Nec personarum sit locus atque modus:

Munera saeva locum nullis redimita metallis
Haud teneant, cedant dona maligna procul.

Si quoque jure gregem Domini nos pascimus almum,
Quem mihi sive tibi, pastor amate, dedit,

Corrigimus provos, donamus munere justos,
Et facimus populum jura paterna sequi.

Tum Deus excelsis nobis populoque sequaci
Praestabit miserans regna beata poli

Atque in praesenti nostrum servabit honorem:
Infestos hostes hinc procul ire facit.

Nos simus clero exemplum seu norma popelli,
Justitiam doceat praesul uterque suos.

Israel ille Dei populus dilectus amore,
Qui pedibus siccis per maris ivit iter,

Cui Deus in heremo tantis labentibus annis
Manna cibum tribuit, rupe volucre dapes,

Cui fuit arma Deus, gladius, scutumque viator,
Ad repromissum vexit honore locum;

Quo praecepta Dei servavit adusque docentis,
Justitiam coluit judiciumque dedit,

370

945

950

955

960

965

970

975

371

Dumque in amore pio Dominum dilexit eundem
Non aliena sequens, sed pia dicta Dei,

Adversas illi prostravit numine gentes,
Prospera cuncta dedit, atque inimica tulit.

O felix semper, Domini si jussa secutus
Adofret! Aeterna regna teneret ovans.

Divitiis incaute ut primo indulsit Opimis,
Justitiam liquit, et simul omne bonum,

Deseruitque Deum, coluit mox idola vana,
Idcirco passus tot mala rite fuit.

Sed pater architenens plagis variisque flagellis
Correxit, docuit, pristina jura dedit;

Ut miser afflictus Domini meminisse volebat,
Mox pius altor enim suscipiebat eum.

Haec gens sola Deum norat, partimque Tonantis
Parebat dictis, atque colebat eum.

Caetera turba quidem servabat jussa Celidri,
Factorem ignorans, daemonis orsa sequens:

Hic per triquadrum regnabat, pro dolor, orbem,
Et genus humanum in sua regna dabat;

Jamque sacerdotes, reges solymitica jura
Cessabant prorsus hostia sive sacra.

Tum pius indoluit genitor verbumque salutis
Transmisit mundo, ut nos pius erueret.

Ille lavit proprio miserans de sanguine mundum,
Dogmata clara dedit, justitiam docuit,

Infernique potens confregit numine valvas,
Eruit electos, daemonis arma tulit;

Inde superna petens conscendit in aethera victor
Christicolum nobis nomen habere dedit:

Quisque cupit Christi nunc nomen habere, necesse est,
Quo caput abcessit, prendere certet iter.

Quamvis, dante Deo, totus nunc mundus habundet
Christicolum turbis ecclesiaeque fide,

Nec sit opus Domini famulos pro nomine caedi,
Cum passim Christo nomen in orbe boet,

Et male fida cohors, Domini quae dogma refutat,
Cuspide christicolo jam procul acta fugit,

Quamvis Ecclesiae patres nostrosque priores
Mors tulit atra quidem, nunc tenet aula Dei:

Morte licet nequeamus, eos certemus ovantes
Corde sequi puro, justitiaque fide.
Diligat omnis homo fratrem, monitante Johanne,
Quem videt, ut Christum cernere mente queat.
Hic ait ad Petrum: 'Simon, me diligis an non?‘
Ter cui Petrus ait: 'Scis quia temet amo.‘
'81 me, Christus ait, hortor, tu diligis, agnos
Pasce meos, Petre, cum pietatis ope.‘

Ergo sacer plebem nostri est curare subactam,
Nobis quam Dominus pascere constituit;

Tu sacer antestis; Ego rex sum christicolarum:
Servemus populum dogmate, lege, fide.

980

985

990

995

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025

1030

APPENDIX B

BENEDICTIO AD ORDINANDUM IMPERATOREM

SECUNDUM OCCIDENTALES

APPENDIX B

BENEDICTIO AD ORDINANDUM IMPERATOREM

SECUNDUM OCCIDENTALES

l) Exaudi, Domine, preces nostras, et famulum tuum N. ad
regendum ill. imperium constitue, ut per te regere inci-
piat, et per te fideliter regnum custodiat. Per.

2) Consecratio:

Prospice, omnipotens Deus, serenis obtutibus hunc
gloriosum famulum tuum N., et, sicut benedixisti Abraham
Isaac et Iacob, sic illi largiaris benedictiones spir-
itualis gratiae, eumque omni plenitudine tuae potentiae
irrigare atque perfundere digneris, ut tribuas ei de rore
caeli et de pinguitudine terrae abundantiam frumenti et
vim et olei, et omnium frugum opulemtiam, ex largitate
divini muneris longa per tempora, ut illo regnante sit
sanitas corporis in patria, pax inviolata sit in regno, et
dignitas gloriosa regalis palatii maximo coruscare atque
splendescere qua splendidissimi fulguris maximo perfusa
lumine videatur. Tribue ei, omnipotens Deus, ut sit
fortissimus protector patriae et consolator ecclesiarum
atque coenobiorum sanctorum, maxima pietate regalis
munificentiae; atque ut sit fortissimus regum, trium-
phator hostium, ad opprimendas rebelles et paganas nationes.
Sitque suis inimicis satis terribilis, proxima fortitudine
regalis potentiae, optimatibus quoque atque praecelsis
proceribus ac fidelibus sui regni sit munificus et ama-
bilis et pius et ab omnibus timeatur atque diligatur.
Reges quoque de lumbis eius per successiones temporum
futorum egrediantur regnum regere ill., et post gloriosa
tempora atque felicia praesentis ritae gaudia in per-
petua beatitudine habitare mereatur. Per.

3) Et mittat pontifex coronam auream super cuput eius
his verbis:

Accipe coronam a Domino Deo tibi praedestinatam;
habeas, teneas, atque possideas, et filiis tuis post te
in futurum ad honorem Deo auxiliante derelinquas.

372

373

4) Sequitur oratio:

Deus pater aeternae gloriae sit adiutor tuus, et
omnipotens benedicat tibi; preces tuas in cunctis
exaudiat, et vitam tuam longitudine dierum adimpleat;
thronum regni tui iugiter firmet, et gentem populumque
tuum in aeternum conservet; inimicos tuos confusione
induat, et super te Christi sanctificatio floreat, ut qui
tibi tribuit in terris imperium, ipse in caelis conferat
praemium. Qui vivit.

5) Missa pro imperatore:

APPENDIX C

PACTUM LUDOVICIANUM

APPENDIX C

PACTUM LUDOVICIANUM

This text is a reproduction of the MGH edition. The
original pagination is retained and notEdT I have kept
the paragraph divisions of the text but numbered them to
facilitate reference. p. 353:

1. In nomine Dei omnipotentis, patris et filii et
spiritus sancti.

2. Ego Hludowicus, imperator augustus, statuo et
concedo per hoc pactum confirmationis nostrae tibi beato
Petro principi apostolorum, et per te vicario tuo domno
Paschali summo pontifici et universali papae et succes-
soribus eius in perpetuum, sicut a predecessoribus vestris
usque nunc in vestra potestate et ditione tenuistis et
disposuistis, civitatem Romanam cum ducatu suo et
suburbanis atque viculis omnibus et territoriis eius
montanis ac maritimis, littoribus ac portubus seu
cunctis civitatibus, castellis, oppidis ac viculis in
Tusciae partibus, id est Portum, Centumcellas, Chere,
Bledam, Manturanum, Sutrium, Nepe, castellum Gallisem,
Hortem, Polimartium, Ameriam, Todem, Perusium cum tribus
insulis suis, id est maiorem et minorem, Pulvensim,
Narniam, Utriculum, cum omnibus finibus ac territoriis
ad suprascriptas civitates pertinentibus.

3. Simili modo in partibus Campaniae Segniam, Anagniam,
Ferentinum, Alatrum, Patricum, Frisilunam, cum omnibus
finibus Campaniae, necnon et Tiburim cum omnibus finibus
ac territoriis ad easdem civitates pertinentibus.

4. Necnon et exarchatum Ravennatem sub integritate
cum urbibus, civitatibus, oppidis et castellis quae pie
recordationis domnus Pipinus rex ac bone memoriae genitor
noster Karolus imperator beato Petro apostolo et pre-
decessoribus vestris iamdudum dudum per donationis paginam
restituerunt, hoc est civitatem Ravennam et Emiliam:
Bobium, Cesenam, Forumpopuli, Forumlivii, Faventiam,
Immolam, Bononiam, Ferrariam, Comiaclum et Adrianis

374

375

quae et Gabelum, cum omnibus finibus, territoriis atque
insulis terra marique ad suprascriptas civitates per-
tinentibus. Simul et Pentapolim, videlicet Ariminium,
Pisaurum, Fanum, Senogalliam, Anconam, Ausimum, Humanam,
Hesim, Forumsimpronii, Montemfetetri, Urbinum et terri-
torium Valvense, Callem, Luceolis, Egubium cum omnibus
finibus ac terris ad easdem civitates pertinentibus.
Eodem modo territorium Sabinense, sicut a genitore nostro
Karolo imperatore beato Petro apostolo per donationis
scriptum concessum est sub integritate, quemadmodum ab
Itherio et Maginario abbatibus, missis illius, inter
idem territorium Sabinense atque Reatinum definitum est.

5. Item in partibus Tusciae Langobardorum castellum
Felicitatis, Urbivetum, Balneum regis, Ferenti, castrum
Viterbum, Orclas, Martam, Tuscanam, Suanam, Populonium,
Rosellas et insulas Corsicam, Sardiniam, et Siciliam sub
intergritate cum omnibus adiacentibus ac territoriis
maritimis, litoribus, portubus ad suprascriptas civitates
et insulas pertinentibus.

6. Item in partibus Campaniae Soram, Arces, Aquinum,
Arpinum, Theanum et Capuam et patrimonia ad potestatem
et ditionem vestram pertinentia, sicut est patrimonium
Beneventanum et Salernitanum et Patrimonium Calabriae
inferioris et superioris et patrimonium Neopolitanum et
ubicumque in partibus regni atque imperii a Deo nobis
commissi patrimonia vestra esse noscuntur. p. 354:

7. Has omnes suprascriptas provincias, urbes et
civitates, Oppida atque castella, viculos ac territoria
similique et patrimonia iamdictae ecclesiae tuae, beate
Petre apostole, et per te vicario tuo spirituali patri
nostro, domno Paschali summo pontifici et universali
papae eiusque successoribus usque in finem seculi eo
modo confirmamus, ut in suo detineant iure, principatu
ac ditione.

8. Simili modo per hoc nostrae confirmationis decre-
tum firmamus donationes, quas pie recordationis domnus
Pipinus rex avus noster, et postea domnus et genitor
noster Karolus imperator beato Petro apostolo spontanea
voluntate contulerunt, necnon et censum et pensionem
seu ceteras dationes, quae annuatim in palatium regis
Longobardorum inferri solebant, sive de Tuscia Longobar-
dorum, sive de ducatu Spoletino, sicut in suprascriptas
donationibus continetur, et inter sanctae memoriae
Adrianum papam et domnum ac genitorem nostrum Karolum
imperatorem convenit, quando idem pontifex eidem de
suprascriptas ducatibus, id est Tuscano et Spoletino,
suae auctoritatis preceptum confirmavit, e0 scilicet
modo, ut annis singulis predictus census ecclesiae

376

beati Petri apostoli persolvatur, salva super eosdem
ducatus nostra in omnibus dominatione et illorum ad
nostram partem subiectione.

9. Ceterum, sicut diximus, omnia superius nominata
ita ad vestram partem per hoc nostrae confirmationis
decretum roboramus, ut in vestro vestrorumque succes-
sorum permaneant iure, principatu atque ditione, ut
neque a nobis neque a filiis vel successoribus nostris
per quodlibet argumentum sive machinationem in quacumque
parte minuatur vestra potestas, aut vobis de supra-
scriptis omnibus vel successoribus vestris inde aliquid
subtrahatur, de suprascriptis videlicet provinciis,
urbibus, civitatibus, Oppidis, castris, viculis, insulis,
territoriis atque patrimoniis, necnon et pensionibus
atque censibus, ita ut neque nos ea subtrahamus, neque
quislibet subtrahere volentibus consentiamus, sed potius
omnia que superius leguntur, id est provincias, civitates,
urbes, Oppida, castella, territoria et patrimonia atque
insulas, censusque et pensiones ecclesiae beati Petri
apostoli et pontificibus in sacratissima illius sede in
perpetuum residentibus, in quantum possumus, nos defen-
dere promittimus ad hoc, ut omnia ea in illius ditione
ad utendum fruendum atque disponendum firmiter valeant
optineri; nullamque in eis nobis partem aut potestatem
disponendi vel iudicandi subtrahendive aut minorandi
vendicamus, nisi quando ab illo qui eo tempore huius
sanctae ecclesiae regimen tenuerit rogati fuerimus. Et
si quilibet homo de supradictis civitatibus ad vestram
ecclesiam pertinentibus ad nos venerit, subtrahere se
volens de vestra ditione et potestate, vel aliam quamlibet
iniquam machinationem metuens aut culpam commissam fugiens,
nullo modo eum aliter recipiemus nisi ad iustam pro eo
faciendam intercessionem, ita dumtaxat si culpa quam
commisit venialis fuerit inventa; sin aliter, compre-
hensum vestre potestati eum remittamus: exceptis his
qui violentiam vel oppressionem potentiorum passi ideo
ad nos venerint, ut per nostram intercessionem iustitiam
accipere mereantur; quorum altera conditio est et a
superioribus est valde disiuncta.

10. Et quando divina vocatione huius sacratissimae
sedis pontifex de hoc mundo migraverit, nullus ex regno
nostro, aut Francus aut Longobardus aut de qualibet
gente homo sub nostra potestate constitutus, licentiam
habeat contra Romanos aut publice aut private veniendi
vel electionem faciendi; nullusque in civitatibus vel
territoriis ad ecclesiae beati Petri apostoli potestatem
pertinentibus aliquod malum propter hoc facere presumat.
Sed liceat Romanis cum omni veneratione et sine qualibet
perturbatione honorificam suo pontifici exhibere sepul-
turam, et eum quem divine inspiratione et beati Petri

377

intercessione omnes Romani uno consilio atque concordia
sine aliqua promissione ad pontificatus ordinem elegerint
sine qualibet ambiguitate vel contradictione more
canonico consecrari. Et dum consecratus fuerit, legati
ad nos vel ad successores nostros /p.355/ reges Francorum
dirigantur, qui inter nos et illos amicitiam et caritatem
ac pacem socient, sicut temporibus pie recordationis
domni Karoli attavi nostri, seu domni Pippini avi nostri
vel etiam domni Karoli imperatoris genitoris nostri
consuetudo erat faciendi.

ll. Hoc autem ut ab omnibus fidelibus sanctae Dei
ecclesiae et nostris firmum esse credatur, firmiusque
per futuras generationes ac secula ventura custodiatur,
propriae manus signaculo, et venerabilium episc0porum
atque abbatum vel etiam optimatum nostrorum sub iureiur-
ando, promissionibus et subscriptionibus pactum istud
nostrae confirmationis roboravimus et per legatum
sanctae Romanae ecclesiae Theodorum nomenculatorem domno
Paschali papae direximus.

12. Ego Hludowicus, misericordia Dei imperator,
subscripsi.

l3. Et subscripserunt tres filii eius, et episcopi X
et abbates VIII, et comites XV, et bibliothecarius unus
et mansionarius et hostiarius unus.

APPENDIX D

THE CONSTITUTIO ROMANA

 

APPENDIX D

THE CONSTITUTIO ROMANA

 

This text is a reproduction of the MGH edition.
The paragraph numeration is due to the editor.

p. 323

Constitutum habemus, ut omnes qui sub speciali
defensione domni apostolici seu nostra fuerunt suscepti
impetrata inviolabiliter iusta utantur defensione; quod
si quis in quocumque hoc contemptive violare presump-
serit, sciat se periculum vitae suae esse incursurum.
Nam et hoc decernimus, ut domno apostolico in omnibus
ipsi iustam observent oboedientiam seu ducibus seu
iudicibus suis ad iustitiam faciendam. In hoc capitulo
fiat commemoratum de viduis et orfanis Theodori,
Floronis et Sergii.

2. Ut depraedationes quae hactenus fieri solebantur
prohibemus ne fiant, neque vivente pontifice neque
defuncto; si quis vero ulterius hoc fecerit, sciat se
legali sententia esse condemnandum. Quae autem retro
actae sunt, placet nobis ut per dispositionem nostram
fiant legaliter emendatae.

3. Volumus ut in electione pontificis nullus prae-
sumat venire, neque liber neque servus, qui aliquod
impedimentum faciat illis solummodo Romanis, quibus
antiquitus fuit consuetudo concessa per constitutionem
sanctorum patrum elegendi pontificem. Quod si quis
contra hanc iussionem nostram facere praesumpserit, exilio
tradatur.

4. Volumnus ut missi constituantur de parte domni
apostolici et nostra, qui annuatim nobis renuntiare
valent, qualiter singuli duces et iudices iustitiam
faciant populo et quomodo nostram constitutionem
observent. Qui missi, decernimus, ut primum cunctos
clamores qui per neglegentiam ducum aut iudicum fuerint
inventi ad notitiam domni apostolici deferant, et ipse
unum e duobis eligat: aut statim per eosdem missos

378

379

fiant ipsae necessitates emendatae aut si non, per
nostrum missum fiat nobis notum, ut per nostros missos
a nobis directos iterum emendentur.

5. Volumus ut cunctus populus Romanus interrogetur,
qua lege vult vivere, ut tali qua se professi fuerint
vivere velle vivant; illisque denuntietur, quod hoc
unusquisque sciat, tam duces quam et iudices vel reliquus
populus, quod si in offensione sua contra eandem legem
fecerint, eidem legi quam profitentur per dispositionem
pontificis ac nostram subiacebunt.

6. De rebus ecclesiarum iniuste invasis sub
occasione quasi licentia accepta a pontifice, et de his
quae necdum redditae sunt et tamen fuerunt iniuste a
potestate pontificum invasae, volumus ut per missos
nostros fiat emendatum.

p. 324.

7. Prohibemus ut depraedationes inter confinia
nostra ultra non fiant, secundem legem de utrisque par-
tibus ordinemus ut emendatur. Similiter volumus, ut
ceterae iniustitiae de utrisque partibus emendatae.

8. Placuit nobis, ut cuncti iudices sive hi qui
cunctis praeesse debent, per quos iudicaria potestas
in hac urbe Roma agi debent, in praesentia nostra veniant;
volentes numerum et nomina eorum scire et singulos de
ministerio sibi credito admonitionem facere.

9. Novissime admoneatur, ut omnis homo, sicut
gratiam Dei et nostram habere desiderat, ita praestet
in omnibus oboedientiam atque reverentiam huic pontifici.

********

Promitto ego ille per Deum omnipotentem et per ista
sacra quattuor evangelia et per hanc crucem domini nostri
Iesu Christi et per corpus beatissimi Petri principis
apostolorum, quod ab hac die in futurum fidelis ero
dominis nostris imperatoribus Hludowico et Hlothario
diebus vitae meae, iuxta vires et intellectum meum,
sine fraude et malo ingenio, salva fide quam repromisi
domino apostolico; et quod non consentiam ut aliter in
hac sede Romana fiat electio pontificis nisi canonice
et iuste, secundum vires et intellectum meum; et ille
qui electus fuerit me consentiente consecratus pontifex
non fiat, priusquam tale sacramentum faciat in praesentia
missi domini imperatoris et pOpuli, cum iuramento, quale
dominus Eugenius papa sponte pro conservatione omnium
factum habet per scriptum.

APPENDIX E

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CANONS OF THE ROMAN SYNOD

OF 826 COMPARED WITH EARLIER

FRANKISH LEGISLATION

APPENDIX E

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CANONS OF THE ROMAN SYNOD
OF 826 COMPARED WITH EARLIER

FRANKISH LEGISLATION

In this appendix I have provided a very brief
summary of each of the canons of the Roman Synod followed
by representative examples of identical or similar
measures adopted by the Carolingians. In some cases
the parallels are not too precise but wherever there is
a considerable discrepancy I have noted it in a footnote.
In most cases these discrepancies concern cases where
several pieces of Frankish legislation had to be cited
to cover the pertinent Roman canon. In a few rather
obvious cases there are so many Frankish models for a
particular Roman canon that I have cited only a few of
them. Generally, I have confined myself to models found
in the legislation of Louis so as to give greater
immediacy to the arguments presented in Chapter VI. I
have made no attempt to be exhaustive, for this would

have been superfluous.

380

381

1. Only worthy bishops should be elected. MGH, Conc.,
II.2, pp. 566-67.
MGH, Cap., I, no. 138, c. 2, p. 276.

 

2. Prohibition against simony. Ibid., p. 567.
MGH, Cap. I, no. 138, c. 2, p. 276; no. 174,

*

C. 6, p. 358.

3. BishOps should do good works, watch over their
flocks and attentively teach the word of God.
Ibid., p. 568.

MGH, 922- I, no. 138, c. 2, p. 276, c. 28,

p. 279; no. 150, c. 4, p. 303.

4. MetrOpolitans should see to it that their clergy are
not illiterate. Where illiterate clerics are found
they should be educated and, in the meantime, sus-
pended from duties. Ibid., p. 568.

MGH, £32. I, no. 174, c. 2, p. 357.

 

5. BishOps should not delay outside their dioceses and
should not stay away from their churches more than
three weeks except by order of their metropolitan
or prince. Ibid., p. 569.

MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 39, c. 43, p. 361, c. 44,
p. 361.1

 

6. Churches should have a common refectory and dormitory
and Cloisters should be established. Persons of
good character should be elected to supervise.
Ibid., pp. 569-70.
MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 39, c. 117, p. 398.
MEH, 932. I, no. 163, c. 7, p. 327.
MGH, Ca . I, no. 170, c. 41, p. 346, c. 52,

p. 347.

 

 

1This may be an oblique reference to the large
number of bishops employed in secular concerns by the
Carolingians. Numerous similar references preventing
priests and monks from tarrying away from their churches
or monasteries can be cited. Priests: MGH, Cap. I,
no. 177, c. 13, p. 364, c. 18, pp. 364-667-noT—I78,
c. 4, p. 367. Monks: no. 170, c. 26, p. 345, c. 80,
p. 348.

2Required bishops to provide prOper dwellings
for clergy.

3

capitula.

Refectories are taken for granted in these

382

MGH, Cap. I, no. 170, c. 58, p. 347.4

7. Bishops should see that baptismal churches have
priests when there is need. Ibid., p. 570.

MGH, Cap. I, no. 138, c. 9, p. 277; no. 164,

C. l, p. 328.

8. No more clerics than necessary should be ordained
and no more than revenues will provide for. Ibid.,
p. 570. 5
MGH, 932. I, no. 149, c. 7, p. 302.

9. Priests should live in churches or monasteries and
bishops should see that they do and that they fulfill
their duties. No women are to be allowed in. Ibid.,
p. 571.

MEH, 93p. I, no. 138, c. 17, p. 278; no. 150,
c. 5, p. 304; no. 164, c. 5, p. 328; no. 168,
c. 7, p. 336.

10. Canonical rules are to be observed in electing
bishops. Bishops not requested by the clergy and
people should not be consecrated. Ibid., p. 572.

MGH, Cap. I, no. 138, c. 2, p. 276.

ll. Bishops should see to it that their clergy avoid
idle activity and if they will not, they are to be
judged. Ibid., p. 572.

M95, 922, I, cc. 3,4, p. 369.

 

12. Priests should engage in clerical duties and not
engage in hunting or similar activity. They should
not appear in public without clerical garb. Ibid.,
p. 573.

Egg, Conc. 11.1, no. 22, c. 7, p. 199.6

l3. Priests should not be asked to appear as witnesses
or to confirm documents. They may do so only when
a suitable layman is not present. Ibid., p. 573.
No model found.

 

4Reference only to dormitory.

5This is not a general measure. It refers only
to the monastery of St. Croix at Poitiers.

6This measure was issued under Charles but
Friedrich Prinz, Klerus und Krieg im frfiheren Mittelalter,
(Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 81ff, proves thatCit remained in
force.

 

 

 

 

383

14. Clerics who have been deposed should be handed to
their bishOps who will have disposition of them.
Ibid., pp. 573-74.

No model found.

15. Clerics suspected of fornication should be thrice
warned and if found again with a woman canonically
judged. Ibid., p. 574.

MGH, Cap, I, no. 138, c. 17, p. 278; no. 166,

c. 2, p. 332.7

 

l6. Bishops should not allow the alienation of the
immovable goods of churches. Ibid., p. 574.
MGH, Cap. I, no. 154, c. 15, p. 314; no. 163,

c. 10, p. 327.8

17. Priests should not receive oblations for penance.
Ibid., p. 575.
MGH, Cap. I, c. 7, p. 277.

 

l8. Bishops should not make dimissoriae9 unless asked to
do so. Then a papal, metropolitan or imperial seal
shall confirm. Ibid., p. 575.
MGH, 932. I, no. 93, c. 2, p. 196; no. 94,
c. 3, p. 198.10

 

 

l9. BishOps and all clergy are to have advocates. Ibid.,
p. 575.
MGH, Cap. I, no. 158, c. 7, p. 319; no. 163,
c. 4, p. 326.

 

71 could find no reference to the provision
requiring three warnings.

8These are general prohibitions against the
alienation of immovable prOperty, with no particular
reference to bishops.

9De qua, DuCange, Glossarium, III,,p. 861:\
"Litterae, quas Synodus in TrulIo can. 17 anolUTIKaé
vocat, et Clerici ab Episcopos impetrabant, ut in
alienam diocesim transirent, in ea manerent, aut ab
aliis Episcopis ordinarentur."

 

10These measures are from Italian capitularies of
Pepin. The only other reference I could find to dimis-
soriae is MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 3, c. 9, p. 17, a Roman
Synod of 743. Pefhaps it was a peculiarly Italian
problem.

 

‘4'

 

 

 

9—

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

384

Bishops should call before themselves those who
cannot find advocates and investigate the reason why.
Ibid., pp. 575-76.

No model found.

Laymen may institute priests but they are to be sub-
ject to their diocesan bishOps. Ibid., p. 576.

MQH, 932. I, no. 138, c. 9, p. 277; no. 166,

c. 4, p. 332.

Persons who invade the prOperty of churches should
make restitution, or their heirs. Ibid., p. 576.
No model found.

BishOps should see to it that hospitals and the like
are put to the uses for which they were intended.
Ibid., pp. 576-77.
MGH, Cap. I, no. 157, c. l, p. 316; no. 164,
6777.735. 328-29; no. 166, c. 3, p. 332; no. 179,
c. 6, p. 369.

Holy places without priests are to be supplied with

such within three months. These priests are to be

ordained by their diocesan bishop. Ibid., p. 577.
£4.93: gag. I, no. 138, c. 11, p. 277—11

Churches and holy places which have been destroyed
should be restored. Congregations should help when
sufficient funds are lacking. Ibid., pp. 577-78.
MGH, 9gp. I, no. 138, c. 28, p. 279; no. 140,
c. 5, pp. 287-88; no. 141, c. 10, p. 290;

no. 150, c. 24, p. 307; no. 163, c. 8, p. 327.

Bishops should not demand donations from the clergy
subject to them. Ibid., p. 578. 12
MGH, Cap. I, no. I38, c. 16, p. 278.

Only competent, educated abbots, capable of ful-
filling their ministry, are to be chosen. They
should watch over their monks and see that the rule
is observed. Ibid., p. 578.

MGH, Cap. I no. 179, cc. 9, 10, p. 369.

 

11No reference to three-month time limit.

12This refers particularly to the Lombard Kingdom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

385

28. Bishops should see to it that monks observe the
rule, their vows, tonsure, refectory, dormitory,
etc. Ibid., p. 579.
MEH, ESE- I, no. 138, c. 3, p. 276; no. 150,
c. 4, pp. 303-04; no. 160, cc. 1- -4, pp. 321-22;
no. 170, c. 1, p. 344.13

29. Bishops should see that nuns observe their vows and
never associate with men. Ibid., p. 579.
MGH, C_p. I, no. 158, c. 6, p. 319; no. 179, 1
c. _12, p. 369. I

30. Persons should not engage in mercantile or other
labors on Sunday. Ibid., p. 580.
MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 21, c. 13, p. 194. '

 

31. Courts should not sit in judgment of crimes on
Sunday. Ibid., p. 580.
MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 34, c. 16, p. 252; no. 35,
c. 35, p. 256; no. 36, c. 37, p. 270; no. 38,
c. 40, p. 292.

 

 

32. Persons sent into a monastery by force are not to
be kept there. Ibid., p. 580.
MGH, £22, I, no. #138, c. 20, p. 278; no. 149,
c. _21, p. 285.

33. Laymen should not enter the presbyterium during
mass. Ibid., p. 581.
No model found.14

34. In every bishopric schools are to be established for
the study of letters, liberal arts and dogma. Ibid.,
p. 581.
MGH, Conc. II.2, c. 3, p. 471.
MGH, gap. I, no. 150, c. 6, p. 304; no. 163,
c. 6, p. 327.

 

 

l3The cited models do not refer to episcopal
supervision. This is required in MGH,C I, no. 169,
"Epistolae ad archiepiscopos," pp. 338-

l4Ullmann, Papal Government, p. 128 (wrongly refer-
ring to canon 23) opines that this may have been an attempt
to emphasize the special character of priests.

 

35.

36.

37.

38.

386

Persons, especially women, should observe feast days
of the saints in the proper way and not in imitation
of pagan rituals. Ibid., pp. 581-82. 15

MGH, Conc. 11.1, no. 3, c. 9, p. 15.

No man should be permitted to leave his wife and
take another except in case of fornication. Divorce
is to be allowed only to enter religion. Ibid.,
p. 582.

MGH, Cap. I, no. 138, c. 24, p. 279.

No man should have two wives or concubines. Ibid.,
p. 582.
MGH, Cap. I, no. 142, c. 4, p. 292; no. 177,

c. 21, p. 365.

Incestuous marriages should not be tolerated. If
found they should be dissolved or the parties
excommunicated. Ibid., pp. 582-83.
Conc. Aquis., 819, c. l, p. 18, ed. Emil Seckel,
Neues Archiv, XLIV, (1922).

 

 

 

151 found twelve such references in early legis-

lation stemming from Pepin and Charles but none from
Louis. I could not find another prohibition referring
especially to women.

 

 

 

   

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

It is rather difficult to write a bibliographical
essay for the work undertaken here. Louis' reign has
been the subject of comparatively few studies and only
a minority of such studies as do exist bear directly
on the subject of Louis' papal relations. Then, too,
the Carolingian world did not draw very firm distinc-
tions between secular and ecclesiastical concerns1 and

this means that the student of Louis' reign must often

 

1The study by Suzanne F. Wemple, "Claudius of
Turin's Organic Metaphor or the Carolingian Doctrine of
Corporations," S eculum, XLIX, (1974), pp. 222-37,
appeared when this work was virtually completed. She
argues, unconvincingly it must be noted, that Claudius,
Hrabanus and to a lesser degree, Hincmar upheld the
separation of Church and state. She also brings in
Atto of Vercelli who is really post-Carolingian. The
main weaknesses in her argument are three: she does
not tie these men closely enough to the sources which
she claims were their inspiration; she does not prove
that they exerted any influence--on each other or on
others; she hedges in dealing with all but Claudius and
of him she says (p. 224) "The bare facts of Claudius'
life do not suggest that his thoughts had much impact
upon his contemporaries." Her argument is interesting
but requires further precision. Her conclusions are
dangerously close to those of the long discredited study
by Lilienfein, Die Anschauungen von Staat und Kirche im
Reich der Karolinger, (Heidelberger Abhandlungen, I,
1902).

 

 

 

387

 

 

   

388

reach far and wide for insights into Louis' dealings
with the very summit of the Church. Therefore, an
attempt will be made here to emphasize certain char-
acteristics of the existing literature, and to point
to certain characteristic pieces of literature. By way
of conclusion, a few remarks will be directed towards
the source material. The sources will receive summary
treatment here because, on several occasions, specific
problems raised by the sources have been discussed in
detail already.

There are several useful narrative treatments of

Louis' reign. By far the best is the Jahrbficher by

 

Simson. He probably knew the sources for Louis' reign
as well as anyone ever has and most of his judgments
have stood the test of time. Unfortunately, his work
is not interpretive. The relevant chapters in the
survey of the Early Middle Ages by Lot, Pfister and
Ganshof are useful as are the pertinent chapters in

Lot's Naissance de France. Louis Halphen's classic

 

Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien contains much of

 

value and many thoughtful interpretations.
Surveys of Church history are legion. By far the

best is Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands.

 

Emile Amman, L'époque carolingienne is valuable. Both

 

of these works are indispensable because of the length

and depth of their treatments but their interpretations

389

are outmoded in some respects. Shorter, but important,

is the treatment by Hans von Schubert, Geschichte der

 

christlichen Kirche im Frfihmittelalter. Recent, but

 

disappointing, are the chapters by Ewig in Jedin's

Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Ewig's pages are sound

 

but raise no new questions and draw no new conclusions.
This is a shame, for Ewig has shown himself, in other
works, to be a scholar of enormous and insightful talent.
The Carolingian Church remains in dire need of a modern
and comprehensive treatment. Etienne Delaruelle, in
many short studies, has, in my judgment, pointed out
some new directions that research might take.

The treatment of the early ninth century papacy
in the standard manuals of papal history is entirely
unsatisfactory. It is a great misfortune that Caspar
did not live to bring his papal history beyond 800.
Haller is fairly sound as far as he goes, but he does
not go very far. His account lacks nuance and ignores
some key developments. Seppelt's treatment, although
it is a pOpular one, deserves to be read, for it con-
tains a few fresh ideas. Not a single pope in the age
of Louis has been treated in a separate study.

Where institutions are concerned, there are a
large number of extremely valuable studies. The hand-
books by Waitz and Brunner are models of precise

scholarship. Ganshof's essay on Frankish institutions,

390

and his many separate studies, help to round out the
picture. Even the old work of Fustel des Coulanges may
be read with profit. Walter Schlesinger and his school
have been pointing the way to some new approaches in
institutional history, though much of their work con-
cerns the period after Louis' death.

Our understanding of ecclesiastical institutions
still rests on the firm foundations laid by Hinschius,
Stutz, Imbart de la Tour, Lesne, DeClercq and a few
others. Papal institutions are fairly well understood
due to fine studies by Halphen, Hirschfeld and, above
all, Duchesne. The latter's book on the papal states,
as well as the c0pious notes to his monumental edition

of the Liber Pontificalis, are goldmines of information.

 

Partner's new book adds few new facts but raises some
fresh interpretations. Given the state of the sources
it is doubtful that much more work can, or need, be done
on papal institutions. Fritze's new book is rich in
bibliography and a fine survey of most of what is known.
His interpretations are usually sound, sometimes fresh
and occasionally venturesome. Monastic institutions

are reasonably well treated in the standard Church
histories and in works like Schmitz's, Histoire de

l'ordre de St. Benoit and Butler's Benedictine Monachism.

 

 

It has been many years since Benedict of Aniane has

been studied and it seems to me that a new study of him

 

 

   

391

is warranted. Semmler has recently published a number
of penetrating studies and it is hoped that more will
come from his pen.

Political theories in the ninth century have
long excited the interest of scholars. Among the older
literature, the works of Kern, Knabe and Faulhaber remain
fundamental. In my opinion, Delaruelle, Morrison and
Anton are the best recent workers in the field. Schramm
was, and Mohr and Ullmann always are, stimulating; but
occasionally these authors are remarkably venturesome.
Nevertheless, they possess what Ganshof described to me
as the "capacité de rénouvellement" and for this reason,
if for none other, it is hoped that more of their kind
of work will appear.

There is little point in characterizing the
numerous special studies cited in this work. Perhaps
it will suffice, instead, to suggest a few special
problems that are in need of further work. Reuter,
Trillmich and the very few others who have worked on
missions can, it seems, be superceded where economic and
strategic factors are concerned. A study on these
matters would supplement Sullivan's excellent treatment
of the role of the papacy in missionary affairs. It
seems that there is a need to get beyond Haendler in
all that concerns the papacy, the clergy and theology.

Morrison's Tradition and Authority might serve as one

392

point of departure for such a study and Congar's

Ecclésiologie might serve as another. The extent to

 

which the Byzantines were a factor in Frankish, papal
and Franco-papal history after 800 is badly in need

of a new study. Gasquet is no longer sufficient.
Ohnsorge, Schramm and Erdmann, among others, have had
something to say on this subject but their works are
sometimes rooted more in assumptions than in the sources.
A few other problems could be mentioned, but these seem
to me to be the key ones as far as this study is con-
cerned.

Little need be said at this point about the
sources upon which this study is based. Attention has
already been directed, on many occasions, to strengths,
weaknesses and problems of these sources. A few

desiderata may be mentioned, however.

 

The lack of a critical edition of Louis' charters
and diplomas is still a stumbling block to most kinds
of research into his reign. The letters of all the
popes from Leo III to Sergius II should be collected
and edited in one readily accessible place. Presently,
they are scattered throughout MGH and PL and a few
still do not exist in genuine critical editions. The

Libri Carolini are still in need of systematic indices

 

and the Capitularia, if they cannot now be re-edited,

 

should at least be equipped with up-to-date information

393

on chronology and new manuscript finds. Also, a new
edition of Jaffe, incorporating the findings of research

over the last several decades, should be produced.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

Agnellus. Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis.

Agobard

 

ed. 0. Holder-Egger. 1878. MGH. SSrL,
pp. 265-391.

of Lyons. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1895.
MGH. £22., ‘7' pp. ISO-239.

 

. Libri Duo pro Filiis et contra Judith Uxorem

 

Ludovici Pii. ed. G. Waitz. 1887. MGH. TEE,
xv.1, pp. 274-79.

 

. De Comparatione Regiminis Ecclesiastici et

 

 

Politici. EL. CIV, 291-98.

 

. Liber de Dispensatione Ecclesiasticarum Rerum.

 

Andreae

at. CIV, 227-50.

Bergomatis Historia. ed. G. Waitz. 1878. MGH.

 

Annales

Altahenses Maiores. ed. E. Oefele. 1891. MGH.

 

Annales

SSrG.

 

Bertiniani. ed. G. Waitz. 1883. MGH. SSrG.

 

Annales

Farfenses. ed. L. C. Bethmann. 1854. MGH.

 

Annales

Fuldenses. ed. F. Kurze. 1891. MGH. SSrG.

 

 

Annales

Guelferbytani. ed. Pertz. 1826. MGH. gg, I,

 

Annales

pp. 40‘46.

Hildesheimenses. ed. G. Waitz. 1878. MGH.

 

Annales

SSrG.

Iuvavenses Maximi. ed. H. Bresslau. 1934.

 

MGH. .S_§’ XXX.7' pp. 732-44.

394

395

Annales Iuvavenses Maiores. ed. H. Bresslau. 1934.
MGH. E, XXX.2, pp. 732-40.

 

Annales Laurissenses Minores. ed. Pertz. 1826. MGH.
fig, I, pp. 114-23.

 

Annales Lobienses. ed. Waitz. 1881. MGH. §§, XIII,
pp. 224-35.

 

Annales Mettenses Priores. ed. B. Simson. 1905. MGH.
SSrG.

Annales Regni Francorum. ed. F. Kurze. 1895. MGH.
SSrG.

 

 

Annales Sanctae Columbae Senonensis. ed. Pertz. 1826.
MGH. SS, I, pp. 102-09.

Annales Sancti Emmerammi Ratisponensis Maiores. ed.
Pertz. 1826. MGH. SS, I, pp. 92393. Idem.

ed. H. Bresslau. 1934:. MGH. fig, XXX.2, pp. 732-
41.

 

Annales Sithienses. ed. G. Waitz. 1881. MGH. §§,
XIII, pp. 35-38.

 

Annales Xantenses. ed. B. Simson. 1909. MGH. SSrG.

 

 

Ardo. Vita Benedicti Abbatis Anianensis et Indensis.
ed. G. Waitz. 1887. MGH. SS, XV.1, pp. 198-220.

 

Benedicti Sancti Andreae Monachi Chronicon. MGH. §§,

Candidus. Vita Eigilis Abbatis Fuldenses. ed. G. Waitz.
1887. MGH. SS, XV.1, pp.’221-33.

 

Capitularia Regum Francorum. eds. A. Boretius and V.
Krause. 72 vols. 1883. MGH. Legum, Sectio II.

 

Chronicon Farfense. ed. U. Balzini. 2 vols. 1903.
FSI, no. 33.

 

Chronicon Moissacense. ed. Pertz. 1826. MGH. §§,I,

 

Chronicon Vedastinum. ed. Waitz. 1881. MGH. gg,
XIII, pp. 677-709.

 

Claudius of Turin. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1895.
MGH. Epp., IV, pp. 586-613.

 

396

Codex Carolinus. ed. W. Grundlach. 1892. MGH. Epp.,
III, pp. 469-657.

 

Codice DipIomatico Longobardo. ed. L. Schiaparelli.
’2lvols. 1929, 1933. FSI, no. 34.

 

Concilia Aevi Karolini. ed. A. Werminghof. 3 vols. in 2.
1906. MGH. Legum Sectio III.

 

 

Constitutum Constantini. ed. H. Ffihrmann. 1968. MGH.
FIGA, X.

 

Diplomata Karolinorum III. Lotharii I_piplomata. ed. T.
Schieffer. ‘1966. MGH. Dip. Kar.

 

 

 

Diplomata Ludovici Pii Imperatoris. Bouguet. VI,
pp. 455-632.

 

Dungal Scottus. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1895. MGH.
Epp., IV, pp. 568-85.

 

Einhard. Vita Karoli Magni. ed. L. Halphen. 1938.
(Les classiques de l'histoire de France.)

 

 

. Epistolae. ed. K. Hampe. 1895. MGH. Epp.,
V] pp. 109;ZS.

 

 

Epistolarum Fuldensium Fragmenta. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1895.
MGH. Epp., V, pp. 517:33.

Epistolae Selectae Pontificum Romanorum Carolo Magno
et Hludowico Pio Regnantibus Scriptae. ed. K.
Hampe. 18972 MGH. Epp., V, pp. 1-104.

 

Epistolae Variorum inde a Morte Caroli Magni usque ad
Divisionem ImperiI'CoIlectae. ed. E. Dummler.
1897. MGH. EEE."V' pp. 299-360.

 

 

Ermoldus Nigellus. Carmen in Honorem Hludowici Chris-
tianissimi Caesaris Augusti. ed. E. Faral.
1932. (Les classiques de l'histoire de France.)

 

 

 

. Carmen Ermoldi Nigelli Exulis in Honorem
GloriossIsimi Pippini Regis Duo. ed} Faral.
1932. (Ibid.)

 

 

 

 

Ex Adrevaldi Floriacensis Miraculis Sancti Benedicti.
ed. 0. Holder-Egger. 1887. MGH. gg, XV.1,
pp. 474-97.

 

Flodoard. Historia Remensis Ecclesiae. eds. G. Waitz
and Heller. 1881. MGH. §§, XIII, pp. 409-599.

 

397

Formulae Imperiales. ed. K. Zeumer. 1886. MGH.
Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi.

 

Gregory IV. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1897. MGH.
EPE" V, pp. 71-84, and, BE. CXXIX, 991- 8.

 

Historia Translationis Sancti Viti. MGH. gg, II,
pp. 576-85.

Hrabanus Maurus. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1897.
MGH. £22., V, pp. 379-516.

 

I Placiti del 'Regnum Italiae.‘ ed. C. Manaresi. 1955.
Vol. I. FSI, no. 92.

Jonas of Orléans. De Institutione Regia. ed. Reviron.
1930.

. Translatio Sancti Hucberti. ed. L. De
Heinemann. 1887. MGH. §§, XV.1, pp. 234-37.

 

. De Cultu Imaginum. £2. CVI, 305-88.

 

 

. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. MGH. Epp., V,
pp. 345-35.

 

Leo III. Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1897. MGH.
EEE., V, pp. 59-67.

 

Leonis Papae Epistolae X. ed. E. Dfimmler. 1897. MGH.
EBB.' V, pp. 85-104.

 

Libellus de Imperia Potestate in Urbe Roma. ed. Pertz.
1836. MGH. §§J III, pp. 71942:.

Liber Pontificalis. ed. L. Duchesne. 2 vols. 1955.

 

Libri Carolini. ed. H. Bastgen. 1924. MGH. Conc.,
II. Supplementum.

 

 

Louis II. Epistola ad Basilium. MGH. Epp., VII,
pp. 385-94.

Nithard. Historiarum Libri IIII. ed. R. Rau. Quellen
zur karolingISChen ReIoHsgeschichte. I, pp. 385-
461.

Notitia de Servitio Monasteriorum. ed. E. Lesne. Révue
de l'histo1re de l'ééliée de France. 1920.
pp. 489-93.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

398

Notker Balbulus. De Carolo Magno. MGH. gg, II,
pp. 726-63.

 

Odilo. Ex Translatione Sancti Sebastiani. ed. 0. Holder-
Egger. #1887. MGH. .§§j XV.1, pp. 377-91.

 

Ordines Coronationis Imperialis. ed. R. Elze. 1960.
MGH. FIGA, IX.

 

Paschal I. Epistolae. MGH. E22,, V, pp. 68-71; BL,
CXXIX, 977-86.

 

Paschasius Radbertus. Vita Sancti Adalhardi. EL. CXX,

 

 

Pauli Continuatio Romana. ed. G. Waitz. 1878. MGH.
SSrL. pp. 200-03.

 

Poeta Saxo. Annalium de Gesgis Caroli Magni Imperatoris.
ed. Pertz. 1826. MGH. fig, I, pp. 227-79.

 

Rimbertus. Vita Anskarii. ed. G. Waitz. 1884. MGH.
SSrG.

 

Rudolfus. Miracula Sanctorum in Fuldenses Ecclesias
Translatorum. ed. G. Waitz. 1887. MGH.
-S_S., XV.1, pp. 328-41.

 

 

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. ed.
J. D. Mansi. 53 vols. 1796-.

 

Smaragdus. Via Regia. EL. CII, 931-70.

 

Thegan. Vita Hludowici Imperatoris. ed. Pertz. 1829.
MGH. §§, II, pp. 396-604.

 

 

Theodore of Studion. EHIZTQAAI. 4gg. XCIX, 904-1607.

Theodulf. Carmina. ed. E. Dfimmler. MGH. Poet. Lat.,
I.

 

Translatio Sancti Severini. MGH. gg, XV.1, p. 292.

 

Translatio Sancti Tiburtii, Marcellini et Petri ad
Sanctum Medardum. ed. 0. HOTder-Egger. 1887.
MGH. §§_, XV.1, pp. 391-'95.

 

 

 

Urkundenbuch des Klosters Fulda. ed. E. E. Stengel.

 

1958. Vol. I.

 

399

Vita Hludowici Pii ab Anonymo (Astronomer). ed. Pertz.
1829. MGH. SS, II, pp. 607-48.

 

II. Modern Literature

Abel, Sigurd, and Simson, Bernhard. Jahrbficher des
frankischen Reichs unter Karl dem Grossen.
2 vols. Leipzig, 1883-88.

 

 

Adelson, Howard, and Baker, Robert. "The Oath of Pur-
gation of Pope Leo III in 800." Traditio, VIII,
(1952). pp. 35-80.

Amann, Emile. L'époque carolingienne. Vol. VI, His-
toire de I‘église. eds. Fliche and Martin.
Paris, 1947.

 

 

Anton, Hans Hubert. Ffirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos
in der Karolingerzeit. Bonner historische
Forschungen, XXXII. Bonn, 1968}

 

 

 

 

Arquilliere, H. X. "Sur la formation de la théocratie
pontificale." Mélanges Ferdinand Lot. Paris,
1925.

 

. L'augustinisme politique. 2d ed. Paris, 1955.

 

Barion, Hans. Das frankisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des
Frfihmittelalters. Kanonistisohe Studien und
Texte, V—VI. Bonn-COIogne, 1931.

 

 

 

Bayet, C. "Les éléctions pontificales sous les Carolin-
giens." Révue Historigue, XXIV, (1884), pp. 49-91.

 

Bertolini, Ottorino. "Osservazione sulla 'Constitutio
Romana' e sul 'Sacramentum Cleri et Populi
Romani' de11'824." Studi Medievali in Onore
A. de Stefano. Palermo, 1956.

 

 

 

Beumann, Helmut. "Romkaiser und frankisches Reichsvolk."
Festschrift E. E. Stengel. Munster-Cologne,
1952.

"Nomen Imperatoris: Studien zur Kaiseridee
Karls des Grossen." fig, CLXXXV, (1958), pp. 515-
49.

Bohmer, J. F., and Mfihlbacher, E. Regesta Imperii I:
Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter dem Karo-
lingern. 2d ed. Hildesheim, 1966.

 

 

400

Bonnaud-Delamare, Roger. L'idée de paix a l'epoque
carolingienne. Paris, 1939.

 

 

 

Borst, Arno. "Kaisertum und Namentheorie im Jahre 800."
Festschrift P. E. Schramm. 2 vols. Weisbaden,
1964.

Boshof, Egon. Erzbischof Agobard von Lyon. Kolner
historische Abhandlungen, XVII. Cologne, 1969.

 

 

Boumann, C. Sacring and Crowning. Groningen, 1957.

 

Brfihl, Carlrichard. "Frankischer Kronungsgebrauch und
das Problem der 'Festkronungen.'" HE, CXCIV,
(1962), pp. 265-326.

Brunner, Heinrich. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. 2 vols.
Vol. II ed. C. von Schwerin. Leipzig, 1906, 1928.

 

Bfittner, Heinrich. "Aus den Anfangen des abendlandis-
chen Staatsgedankens." Das Konigtum. ed. T.
Mayer. Konstanz, 1956.

 

Caspar, Erich. "Das Papsttum unter frankischer Herr-
schaft." ZKG, LIV, (1935), pp. 132-264.

Classen, Peter. "Romanum gubernans imperium: zur Vor-
geschichte der Kaisertitular Karls des Grossen."
2’1, IX, (1951) I pp. 103-21.

. "Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz."
Karl der Grosse. Vol. I. ed. W. Braunfels.
Dusseldorf, 1965.

 

Congar, Ives. L'ecclésiologie du haut moyen age. Paris,
1968.

 

Dannenbauer, Heinz. "Zum Kaisertum Karls des Grossen
und seine Nachfolger." ZKG, XLIX, (1930),
Pp. 301-’06.

De Clercq, Carlo. La legislation réligieuse frangue.
2 vols. Louvain, 1936, 1958.

 

Déer, Josef. "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom, 772-
800." Schweizer Beitrage zur allgemeinen
Geschichte, XV, (1957), pp. 5-63.

 

 

Delaruelle, Etienne. ”En rélisant 1e 'De Inst. Regia'
de Jonas d'Orléans, l'éntree en scene de 1'épis-
copat carolingien." Mélanges Louis Halphen.
Paris, 1951.

 

401

Delaruelle, Etienne. "Jonas d'Orléans et le moralisme
carolingien." Bulletin de literature ecclési-
astique, LV, (1954f) pp.?129-43, 221429.

 

Dhondt, Jean. "Election et hérédité sous les carolin-
giens et les premiers Capétiens." RB, XVIII,
(1939), pp. 913-53.

Duchesne, Louis. Les_premiers temps de l'état pontifical.
3d ed. Paris, 1911.

 

Dulcy, Suzanne. Le r§gle de Saint Benoit d'Aniane et la
reforme monastigue a l'époque carolingienne.
Nimes, 1935.

 

 

Dumas, Auguste. "Le serment de fidelité et la conception
du pouvoir du Ier au IXe siecle." Révue his-
torique du droit francais et étranger, (1931),
pp. 30-51, 289-321.

 

 

. "Le serment de fidelité a l'époque franque."
53, XIV, (1935), pp. 405-26.

Eckhardt, W. A. "Die Capitularia missorum specialia von
802." DA, XII, (1956), pp. 498-516.

Eichmann, Edouard. "Konigs- und Bischofsweihe."
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften,’PhiI.-Hist. Klasse, 1927-28,
fasc. 6.

 

 

. Die Kaiserkronung im Abendland. 2 vols.
Wurzburg, 1943.

Eiten, Gustav. Das Unterkonigtum im Reich der Merowinger
und Karolinger. Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur
mittleren und neueren GeschiCHte, XVIII.
Heidelberg, 1907.

 

 

 

 

Ellard, Gerald. Ordination Anointings in the Western
Church before 1000 A.D. Mediaeval Academy of
America Publications, XVI. Cambridge, Mass.,
1933.

 

 

 

 

Erdmann, Karl. Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt
des Frfihmittelalters. Berlin, 1951.

 

 

Ewig, Eugen. "Das Bild Constantins des Grossen in den
ersten Jahrhunderten des abendlandischen Mittel-
alters." HJB, LXXV, (1956), pp. 1-46.

 

 

 

   

402

Ewig, Eugen. "Zum christlichen Konigsgedanken im Frfih-
mittelalters." Das Konigtum. ed. T. Mayer.
2d ed. Darmstadt, 1963.

 

. "Das Zeitalter Karls des Grossen, 768-814."
"Kulmination und Wende der Karolingerzeit." in
Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. ed. H. Jedin.
Vol. III.1. Freiburg,91966.

 

Faulhaber, Roland. Der Reichseinheitsgedanke in der
Literatur der Karolingerzeit bis zum Vertrag von
Verdun. HSt, CCIV. Berlin, 1934.

 

Feine, Hans E. "Ursprung, Wesen und Bedeutung des
Eigenkirchentums." MIOG, LVIII, (1950), pp. 195-
208.

. Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte. Weimar, 1950.

 

Fichtenau, Heinrich. Das karolingische Imperium.
Zurich, 1949.

. The Carolingian Empire. trans. Peter Munz.
New York, 1964.

 

. "Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum." MIDG,
LXI, (1953). pp. 257-334.

Ficker, Julius. Forschungen zur Reichs— und Rechts-
geschichte Italiens. '2 vols. InnSbruék, 1869.

 

Fischer, Joachim. Konigtum, Adel und Kirche im Konig-
reich Italien. Tfibingen Phil. Diss., 1965.

 

Fleckenstein, Josef. Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Konige.
I Teil: Grundlegung. Die karolingische Hof-
kapeII . Schriften der MGH, XVI.1. Stuttgart,

5 .

 

Folz, Robert. Le souvenir et la legende de Charle-
magne dans l'empire germanique. Paris, 1950.

. Etudes sur le culte liturgique de Charle-
magne dans 1es églises de’1Tempire. Paris, 1951.

 

. The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from
the Fifth to the Fourteenth Century. trans.
S. A. Ogilvie. New York, 1969.

403

Fritze, Wolfgang. Papst und Frankenkonig: Studien zu
denkpapstlich-frankischen Rechtsbeziehungen von
7S4ibis 824. Vortrage und Forschungen, Sonder-
band, X. Sigmaringen, 1973.

 

 

 

 

 

. "Die frankische Schwurfruendschaft der
Merowingerzeit." ZRG, LXXI, g.a., LXXI, (1954),
pp. 74-125.

Fuhrmann, Horst. "Konstantinische Schenkung und abend-
landisches Kaisertum. Ein Beitrag zur Uberlief-
erungsgeschichte." DA, XXII, (1966), pp. 63-178.

Fustel des Coulanges. La monarchie franque. Histoire
des institutions politiques dengancienne france.
V01. III. Paris, 1888.

 

 

 

. Les transformations de la royautépendant
l'épogue carolingienne. Histoire des institutions
politiques de l’ancienne france. Vol. VI.

Paris, 1892.

 

 

 

 

 

Ganshof, Francois-Louis. "Observations sur le synode
de Francfort de 794." Miscellanea Historica A.
de Meyer. Louvain, 1946.

 

 

"Notes sur les origines byzantines du titre
'Patricius Romanorum.'" Annuaire de l'institut de
philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves,

X, (1950), pp. 261-82.

 

 

"Over het idee van het keizerschap bij Lodewijk
de Vrome tijdens het eerste deel van zijn reger-
ing." Mededelingen van de koninklijke Vlaamse
Akademie voor wettenschappen, letteren en schone
kunsten van Belgie, KIasse derfiletteren, XV,

195?, no. 9.

 

 

 

 

 

. "Récherches sur les capitulaires.” Révue
historigue du droit francais et etranger,
(1957): PP. 33-87} 196-246.

 

. "L'immunité dans la monarchie franque."
Récueil de la société Jean Bodin, I, 2d ed.
Brussels,’1958.

 

 

. Feudalism. trans. P. Grierson. 3d ed.
New York, 1964.

 

 

. "Charlemagne: sa personnalité, son héri-
tage." Société royale d'archaeology de
Bruxelles. 1965. (Pamphlet.)

 

 

 

404

Ganshof, Francois-Louis. "Een kijk op het regerings-
beleid van Lodewijk de Vrome tijdens de jaren 814
tot 830." Mededelingen van de koninklijke
Vlaamse Akademie voor wettenschappen, letteren
en schone kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der
letteren, XXIX,41967, no. 2.

 

 

"A propos de la politique de Louis 1e Pieux
avant la crise de 830." Révue belge d'archaeo—
logie et d'histoire de l'art, XXXII, (1968),
pp. 37-48.

 

. "The Treaties of the Carolingians." Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, VII, (1968), pp. :3-52.

. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne.
trans. Bryce Lyon. New York, 1970.

. "The Frankish Monarchy and Its External Re-
lations from Pepin III to Louis the Pious."
CaFM. trans. J. Sondheimer. Ithaca, 1971.

. "The Church and Royal Power under Pepin III
and Charlemagne." CaFM.

"The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne:
Theories and Facts." CaFM.

. "Charlemagne.” CaFM.

. "Charlemagne's Programme of Imperial Govern-
ment." CaFM.

. "The Last Period of Charlemagne's Reign: A
Study in Decomposition." CaFM.

. "Charlemagne's Failure.” CaFM.

 

"Some Observations on the Ordinatio Imperii
of 817." CaFM.

. "Louis the Pious Reconsidered." CaFM.
. "Am Vorabend der ersten Krise der Regierung

Ludwigs des Frommen." Frfihmittelalterliche
Studien, VI, (1972), pp. 39-54.

 

Gasquet, A. L'empire byzantine et la monarchie franque.
Paris,’1888.

 

 

   

 

405

Goffart, Walter. The Le Mans Forgeries. Cambridge,
Mass., 1966.

. "Gregory IV for Aldric of Le Mans: A Genuine
or Spurious Decretal?" Mediaeval Studies, XXVIII,

 

Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Geschichte der Stadt Rom im

J

Mittelalter. Vols. II, III.7 ed. Stuttgart
1922.

 

Grierson, P. "Election and Inheritance in Early Germanic
Kingship." Cambridge Historical Journal, VII,

Haendler, Gert. Epochen karolingischer Theologie.
Berlin, 1958.

Haller, Johannes. Das Papsttum. Vols. I, II. Basel,
1951.

 

Halphen, Louis. Etudes sur l'administration de Rome au
moyen age. BEHE, CLXVI. Paris, 1907.

 

. Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien. Paris,
1947.

"L'idée de 1'état sous les carolingiens."
A travers l'histoire du moyen age. Paris, 1950.

. "La penitence de Louis 1e Pieux a Saint
Médard de Soissons." A travers l'histoire du
moyen age. Paris, 1950.

 

Hampe, Karl. "Die Berufung Ottos des Grossen nach Rom
durch Papst Johann XIII." Historische Aufsatze
Karl Zeumer dargebracht. Weimar,_1910}

Hartmann, Ludo Moritz. Geschichte Italiens im Mittelal-
ter. 3 vols. in 5. Gotha, 1897-1911.

. "Grundherrschaft und Bureaukratie im Kirchen-
staat vom 8 bis 10 Jahrhundert." Vierteljah-
rschrift fur social- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,
VII, (1909), pp. 142458.

Hauck, Albert. Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands.
Vol. II. 5 ed. Leipzig, 1935.

Hefele, Charles Joseph, and Leclercq, Henri. .Histoire
des conciles. Vols. III.2, IV.l. ’Paris,'1907-
13.

 

406

Heldmann, Karl. Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen.
Weimar, 1928.

 

Hinschius, Paul. System des katholischen Kirchenrechts.
7 vols. Berlin, 1869-97.

Hirschfeld, Theodor. "Das Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom
vom 8 bis 12 Jahrhundert wesentlich nach stadtro-
mischen Urkunden." AUF, IV, (1912), pp. 419-562.

Hlawitschka, Eduard. Franken, Bayern, Alemannen und
Burgunder in Oberitalien 774-962. Forschungen
zur oberrheiniSChen Landesgeschichte, VIII.
Fréiburg im Breisgau, 1960.

 

 

 

 

Imbart de la Tour, Pierre. Les éléctions épiscopales
dans l'église de France du IXe au XIIe siecle.
Paris, 1891.

 

Jaffe, Phillip. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. Vol. I.
2d ed. Leipzig, 1895.

 

Kantorowicz, Ernst H. Laudes Regiae: A Study in Litur-
gical Acclamations and’Medieval Ruler Worship.
University of California Publications in History,
XXXIII. Berkely, 1946.

 

Kehr, Paul. Review of: T. Lindner. Die sogennanten
Schenkungen Pippins, Karls des Grossen und Ottos
I an die Papste. GotEingische gelehrte Anzeigen,
CLVIII, 11896), pp. 128-39.

 

 

Kern, Fritz. Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im
frfiheren Mittelalter. 2d ed. *by R. Buchner.
Munster, 1954.

 

. Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages. trans.
S. B. Chrimes. New York, 1970.

 

Kleinclausz, Arthur. L'empire carolingien: ses origines
et ses transformations. Paris, 1902.

 

 

Klewitz, Hans-Walter. "Die Festkronung der deutschen
K5nige." ZRG, LIX, k.a., XXVIII, (1939),
pp. 48-96.

Knabe, Lotte. Die gelasianische Zweigewaltenlehre bis
zum Ende des Investiturstreits. HSt., CCXCII.
Berlin,’1936.

 

Krause, Victor. "Geschichte des Instituts der missi do-
minici." MIOG, XI, (1890), pp. 193-300.

 

 

   

407

Kroell, Maurice. L'immunité frangue. Paris, 1910.

Laistner, M. L. W. Thought and Letters in Western
Europe, A. D. 500 to 900. Ithaca, 1957.

Lapétre, A. L'EurOpe et 1e saint-siege a l'epoque
carolingien. Paris, 1895.

Leicht, P. S. Storia del diritto italiano. Vol. III.
11 diritto privato. Milan, 1948.

Lesne, Emile. La hierarchie épiscopale, 742-882.
Memoires et travaux des facultes catholiques de
Lille, fasc. Iii Lille, 1905i,

. L'origine des menses. Paris, 1910.

 

. "Les ordonnances monastiques de Louis 1e
Pieux." RHEF, II, (1920), pp. 161-75, 321-38,

 

 

. "Evéche et abbaye: les origines du bénéfice
ecclésiastique." RHEF, II, (1920), pp. 15-50.

 

. Histoire de la prOpriété ecclésiastigue en
France. Vol. II. La propriéteiecclésiastigue et
les droits regaliens a l‘epoque carolingienne.
Memoires et travaux des facultes catholiques de
Lille, fascs. XIX, XX. Lille, 1922, 1926.

Lévillain, Leon. "L'avenement de 1a’dynastie carolin-
gienne et les origines de l'etat pontifical."

Levy-Bruhl, Henri. Les éléctions abbatiales en France.
Paris, 1913.

Lilienfein, Heinrich. Die Anschauungen von Staat und
Kirche im Reich der Karolinger. Heideiberger
Abhandlungen, I. Heidelberg, 1902.

Lot, Ferdinand. "Le serment de fidelité a l'epoque
franque." RB, XII, (1933), pp. 569-82.

; Ganshof, F. L.; and Pfister, C. Les destinées

de l'empire en occident de 395 a 888. Paris,
1941.

 

. La ngissance de France. 2d ed. by J. Bous-
sard. Paris, 1970.

 

 

 

   

408

Lot, Ferdinand. "Le concept d'empire a l'epoque carolin-
gienne." Recueil des travaux historigges de
Ferdinand Lot. Vol. I. Paris, 1968.

 

. "La prétendue lettre de Gregoire IV aux évéques
de Gaule et de Germanie en faveur d'Aldric."
Recueil des travaux historiques de Ferdinand Lot.
Vol. I. Paris, 1968.

Lowe, Heinz. Die karolingische Reichsgrfindung und die
Sfidosten. Stuttgart,il937.

. "Von den Grenzen des Kaisersgedanken in der
Karolingerzeit." DA, XIV, (1958), pp. 345-74.

MacDonald, A. J. Authority and Reason in the Early
Middle Ages. Oxford, 1933.

 

 

Manitius, Max. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur
des Mittelalters. ’3 vols. Munich{il911.

 

Mayer, Ernst. Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte. 2
vols. Leipzig, 1909}

Mayer, Theodor. "Staatsauffassung in der Karolingerzeit."
Das Konigtum. Konstanz, 1956.

 

Metz, Wolfgang. Das karolingische Reichsgut. Berlin,

 

1960.

Mohr, Walter. "Reichspolitik und Kaiserkronung in den
Jahren 813 und 816." WaG, XX, (1960), pp. 168-
86.
. "Die kirchliche Einheitspartei und die Durch-
ffihrung der Reichsordnung von 817." ZKG,

LXXII, (1961), pp. 1-45.

. Die karolingische Reichsidee. Munster, 1962.

 

Morin, D. G. "Un recueil gallican inédit de 'Benedic-
tiones Episc0pales' en usage a Freising aux VIIe -
IXe siecles." Révue bénédictine, XXIX, (1912),
pp. 168-94.

Morrison, Karl F. The Two Kingdoms: Ecclesiology in
Carolingian Political Thought. Princeton, 1964.

 

 

. Tradition and Authority in the Western Church.
Princeton,’l969.

409

Mfihlbacher, E. "Zur Geschichte Konig Bernhards von
Italien." MIOG, II, (1881), pp. 296-302.

Musset, Lucien. Les invasions: 1e second assaut contre
l'Europe chrétienne. 2died. Paris, 1971.

 

 

Odegaard, Charles E. "Carolingian Oaths of Fidelity."
Speculum, XVI, (1941), pp. 284-96.

 

"The Concept of Royal Power in Carolingian
Oaths of Fidelity." Speculum, XX, (1945),
pp. 279-89.

 

 

. Vassi and Fideles in the Carolingian Empire.
Cambridge, Mass., 1945.

 

 

 

Ohnsorge, Werner. "Orthodoxus Imperator: vom
religiosen Motiv fur das Kaisertum Karls des
Grossen." in Abendland und Byzanz. Darmstadt,
1956.

. "Renovatio Regni Francorum." Abendland und
Byzanz. Darmstadt, 1956.

 

. "Das Mitkaisertum in der abendlandische
Geschichte des frfiheren Mittelalters." Abend-
land und Byzanz. Darmstadt, 1956.

 

 

Pacaut, Marcel. La theocratie: l'église et le pouvoir
au moyen age. Paris, 1957.

 

Partner, Peter. The Lands of St. Peter. London, 1972.

 

Pfister, Christian. "L'Archévéque de Metz Drogon."
Mélanges Paul Fabre. Paris, 1902.

 

Prinz, Friedrich. Klerus und Krieg im frfiheren Mittel-
alter. Stuttgart,’1971.

Reuter, Christian. "Ebbo von Reims und Ansgar." 4S5,

Reviron, Jean. Les idées politico—réligieuses d'un
évégue du IXe siécle: Jonas d'Orléans.
Paris, 1930.

 

Schieffer, Theodor. "Die Krise des karolingischen
Imperiums." Aus Mittelalter und Neuzeit:
Festschrift ffir Gerhard Kalien zum 70iGeburtstag.
Bonn, 1957.

410

Schlesinger, Walter. "Kaisertum und Reichsteilung: zur
divisio regnorum von 806." in his Beitrage zur
deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte. Vol. I.
G6ttingen, 1963.

. "Karlingische Konigswahlen." Beitrage zur
deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte. Vol. I.
Gottingen, 1963.

. "Die Auflosung des Karlsreichs." Karl der
Grosse. ed. W. Braunfels. Vol. I. Dusseldorf,
1965.

Schmitz, Philibert. Histoire de l'ordre de Saint
Benoit. 2d ed. 7 vols. Paris, 1948.

. "L'influence de Saint Benoit d'Aniane dans
l'histoire de l'ordre de Saint Benoit." I1
monachesimo ne11'a1to medioevo e la formaEione
della civilta occidentale. Settimane di studio
del centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo,
IV. Spoleto, 1957.

Schramm, Percy Ernst. "Die Ordines der mittelalterlichen
Kaiserkronung." AUF, XI, (1930), pp. 285-386.

. "Die Kronung bei den Westfranken und Angle-
sachsen bis um 1000." ZRG, LIV, k.a. XXIII,
(1934), pp. 117-242. '"

. "Die Kronung in Deutschland bis zum Beginn
des Salischen Hauses.“ ZRG, LV, k.a., XXIV,
(1935), pp. 184-332.

. l"Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als Kaiser."
in his Kaiser, Konige und Papste. Vol. I. Stutt-
gart, 1968.

. "Die Versprechungen Pippins und Karls des
Grossen ffir die romische Kirche." Kaiser,
Konige und Papste. Vol. I. Stuttgart, 1968.

 

Schubert, Hans von. Geschichte der christlichen Kirche
im Frfihmittelalter. Tubingen, 1921.

Schwerin, Claudius Freiherr von. "Zur Herkunft des
Schwert-symbols." Festschrift ffir Paul Koschaker.

Vol. III. Weimar, 1939}

Seckel, Emil. "Die Aachener Synode vom Januar 819."
Neues Archiv, XLIV, (1922), pp. 11-42.

411

Semmler, Josef. "Traditio und K6nigsschutz: Studien

zur Geschichte der kaniglichen Monasteria."
ZRG, LXXVI, k.a., XLV, (1959), pp. 1-33.

. "Reichsidee und Kirchliche Gesetzgebung.“

 

. "Die Beschlusse des Aachener Konzils im Jahre

 

816." ZKG, LXXIV, (1963), pp. 15-82.

. "A prOpos des abbayes royales." Bulletin de

 

Sickel,

 

la société nationale des antiquaires de France,
(1968). PP. 160-61.

 

Theodor. Acta Karolinorum Digesta et Ennarata.
2 vols. Vienna, 1867.

 

. Das Privilegium Otto I ffir die romische

 

Sickel,

 

Kirche. innsbruck, 1883.

W. "Die Vertrage der Papste mit den Karolingern."
Deutsche Zeitschrift ffir Geschichtswissenschaft,

 

 

Siemes,

Sigurd,

Simson,

. ”Kirchenstaat und Karolinger." SS, LXXXIV,
(1900). pp. 385-409.

Helena. Beitrage zum literarischen Bild Kaisers
Ludwigs des FrommenSin deriKarolingérzeit. iFreiburg
im Breisgau, Phil.-Diss., 1966.

 

 

Graf von Pfeil. "Der Augustus-Titel der Karo-
linger." WaG, XX, (1960), pp. 194-210.

Bernhard. Jahrbficher des frankischeggReichs
unter Ludwig dem Frommen. 2 vols. Berlin, 1874.

 

 

Stengel, Edmund E. ”Die Entwicklung des Kaiserprivilegs

Stutz,

ffir die romische Kirche 817-962." in his Abhand-
lungen und Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen
Geschichte. Cologne, 1960.

 

 

Ulrich. "The Proprietary Church as an Element of

Mediaeval Germanic Ecclesiastical Law." trans.
Geoffrey Barraclough. in Medieval Germany.
Vol. II. Oxford, 1938.

 

. Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens.

 

 

3d ed. by H. E. Feine. Aalen, 1972.

 

 

 

   

412

Sullivan, Richard E. "The Papacy and Missionary Activity
in the Early Middle Ages." Mediaeval Studies,
XVII, (1955), pp. 46-106.

 

Tellenbach, Gerd. Romischer und christlicher Reichs-
gedanke in der Liturgie des frfihen Mittelalters.
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Phi1.-Hist. Klasse, XXV.
Heidelberg, 1935.

 

 

 

 

. "Der grossfrankische Adel und die Regierung
Italiens in der Blfitezeit des Karolingerreichs."
in Studien und Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte des
grossfrankischen und frfihdeutschen Adels. ed.
G. Tellenbach. Forschungen zur Oberrheinischen
Landesgeschichte, IV. Freiburg im Breisgav,
1957.

 

 

. Church, State and Christian Society_at the

Time of the Investiture Contest. trans. R. F.
Bennet. New York, 1970.

 

Thomas, Hildegard. "Die rechtliche Festsetzung des
Pactum Ludovicianum von 817: ein Beitrag zur
Echtheitsfrage." SSS, XLII, £1§° XXI, (1921),
pp. 124-74.

Trillmich, Werner. "Missionsbewegung im Nordseeraum."
Geschichtliche Landeskunde und Universalges-
chichte: FestsChrift ffir Hermann Aubin.
Hamburg, 1960.

 

Ullmann, Walter. "The Origins of the Ottonianum."
Cambridge Historical Journal, XI, (1953),
pp. 114-28.

 

. The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of
Kingship. London, 1969}

 

. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle
Age . 3d ed. London, 1970.

Vogel, Cyrille. "Les échanges liturgiques entre Rome
et les pays francs jusqu'a l'epoque de Charle-
magne." Settimane di studio del centro italiano
di studi sull'alto medi6evo. Vol. VII.1.
Spoleto, 1959.

 

 

Voigt, Karl. Die karolingische Klosterpolitik. Kir-
chenrecfitliche Abhandlungen, XC, XCI. Stutt-
gart, 1917.

 

 

 

 

   

413

Voigt, Karl. Staat und Kirche voggKonstantin dem
Grossenibis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit.
Stuttgart, 1936.

 

 

Waitz, Georg. Sputsche Verfassungsgeschichte. 2d ed.
Vol. III, IV. Berlin, 1883.

 

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. Earlnyermanic Kingship in
England and on the Continent. Oxford, 1971.

 

 

Wallach, Luitpold. "The Genuine and Forged Oath of Pope
Leo III." Traditio, XI, (1955), pp. 37-63.

. "The Roman Synod of December 800 and the
Alleged Trial of Leo III." Harvard Theological
Review, XLIX, (1956), pp. 123-42.

 

Weinrich, Lorenz. Wala: Graf, Monch und Rebell.
HSt., CCCLXXXVI. Lfibeck and Hamburg, 1963.

 

Wemple, Suzanne, F. "Claudius of Turin's Organic
Metaphor or the Carolingian Doctrine of Corpor-
ations." Speculum, XLIX, (1974), pp. 222-37.

Wilmart, Andre. "Le copiste du sacramentaire de Gellone
au service du chapitre de Cambrai." Révue Béné-

 

Zatschek, Heinz. "Die Reichsteilungen unter Kaiser Lud-
wig dem Frommen." MIOG, XLIX, (1935), pp. 185-
224.

 

 

“‘(11111111111?