3 Catholic Church History Viii-Xi

Catholic Church History
Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 VIII. Conversion of the west (590-754)
51. The Sacerdotium and Imperium
VIII
Conversion of the West
51. THE SACERDOTIUM AND IMPERIUM
A. The Medieval Dyarchy

(1) THE GELASIAN CONCEPT
"Before the coming of Christ certain ones, in figure but nevertheless living and functioning
in the flesh, were both kings and priests, as sacred history tells us holy Melchisedech was. The
devil, who in his usurping spirit always hastens to appropriate what belongs to the divine religion,
initiated this among his own, so that pagan rulers were called emperors and pontifices maximi.
But when the true king and pontiff came the emperor no longer took the name of pontiff for
himself nor did the pontiff claim the royal dignity. Although the members of Him who is the true
king and pontiff may be said, according to the participation of nature, to have sublimely assumed
both in their sacred nobility so that they are at once a royal and priestly race. For, Christ mindful
of human weakness and of what would be good for men's salvation arranged things by a divine
dispensation. Desiring that His own be saved by salutary humility and not again ruined by human
pride He so divided the duties of the two powers that the Christian emperors would need the
pontiffs for their eternal salvation and the pontiffs would use the imperial orderings for the course
of temporal things. As a result spiritual action would be removed from carnal encroachments; no
one serving as God's soldier would entangle himself in worldly affairs and
on his part he who is involved in secular affairs would not assume leadership in divine matters, so
that the modesty of both orders would be taken care of . . . ."
(2) COMMENTARY
The medieval dyarchy is the fulfillment of the Augustinian sketch of the City of God. In
theory the solidarity of the Christian commonwealth was such that the societies which moderns
sharply distinguish as Church and state were regarded as but two powers of one body, the one
concerned with divine and eternal affairs, the other with human and temporal matters. While the
essential distinction of Church and state was doubtless well recognized by the learned, in practice
the persons and concerns of the two authorities were closely linked, interchanged, and even
confused. In place of two antagonistic societies, one the persecutor of the other in the pagan
imperialistic environment, Christian permeation of secular society had now gone so far that
harmony of ideals of the Church and Christian state was taken for granted. Needless to say, the
whole history of the Middle Ages, even during those centuries most influenced by the clerical
theocracy, would demonstrate that this theoretical collaboration was often far from being the case
in practice; the world, the flesh, and the devil had not abdicated during the medieval era. Yet the
force of the ideal of co-operation between priesthood and statesmanship, between popes and
emperors, must not be discounted. It would prove a stabilizing factor, as it was a reasonable and
by no means entirely unworkable ideal. To a degree, then, Church and state merge into the
dyarchy, the condominium, that is known as Christendom.
B. Role of the Sacerdotium

(1) BASIS OF ITS INFLUENCE
The central idea of the Middle Ages is the all-pervading influence of the Church.
Christianity was younger than the Roman Empire. Hence even after it had brought the greater
part of the Graeco-Roman world under its spiritual rule, it still faced a society and culture that
were venerable and deeply rooted. This environment the Church did modify and elevate, as can
be seen by a comparison of Roman laws before and after the Edict of Milan. Yet the process was
gradual and far from complete.
Teutonic conversion, however, introduced a new environment. When the Germans were
converted, they lacked a pre-existing civilization comparable with the Graeco-Roman. Imperial
culture was in a state of deterioration when the Teutons entered the empire, nor did they derive it
chiefly from secular sources. Rather, the precious remnant of Roman culture survived vitally only
in the institutions of the Christian Church and it was thence that the Teutons drew that modicum
that they were at first capable of absorbing. They came to regard the Church in consequence as
more than a spiritual mother. For them she was also the temporal guide who had given them all
that they prized of education, law, culture-in some cases, even of material civilization. The
Church's influence was therefore the greater upon these unprejudiced minds, bound by no
attachment to a previous culture, withheld by no unconscious intellectual snobbery. The Church
could and did become the center of everyday Teutonic-and Celtic-life, and her voice was beard in
all temporal occupations. This ecclesiastical leadership is what prompts the description of the
Medieval period as the age of Christendom. This feudal era now to be considered witnessed the
gradual and difficult process of softening Teutonic barbarism and of organizing primitive
institutions, until by the twelfth century it might be said that an indigenous Christian culture had
developed-to Hower in what is often termed the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.
(2) ECCLESIASTICAL AGENTS
The priesthood in its widest sense was the divinely appointed hierarchy of the Church,
even from the days when its Founder walked the earth. The apostles had already been set apart
by Him as leaders of men. This priesthood had various grades, but all who shared in it wielded
divinely delegated authority. Religious reverence for the priesthood by the majority of Europeans
in the Middle Ages is the root of all its social influence. Without this supernatural basis, all the
secondary and annexed powers exercised by the sacerdotium remain inexplicable and indeed
quickly disappeared in the great anticlerical revolt of the sixteenth century. The human agents of
this sacerdotium, unfortunately, were not always blameless. They were prone to succumb to their
degrading environment instead of elevating it. Generalizing freely, several times they badly
stumbled, only to recover by a new infusion of supernatural vitality. And in the long run, they
succeeded with God's grace. Success and prosperity, however, brought new problems and that
very Renaissance that was their triumph also nourished a secular intelligentsia destined to
oppose first the temporal, and later the spiritual, lead of the sacerdotium.
(3) THE EPISCOPACY
The sacerdotium maius, the bishops, were by divine institution Superior to the priests, the
sacerdotium minus. At the opening of the Middle Ages, the bishops were more than successors
of the apostles. Under the later empire they had come to be as well substitutes for Caesars
governors. It was to them that the Romans had turned for protectors and intercessors when the
Teutons poured into provinces abandoned by civil governors and generals. It was to the bishops
that the wiser barbarian chiefs, conscious of their precarious position as rulers of a conquered
majority, had turned as intermediaries and pacificators to secure that degree of grudging co-
operation from the Romans which made life possible. The bishops in the universal breakdown of
law, administration, learning, communications, had been called upon to assume or had assumed
many details of secular government in the public interest. Next to the monarchy they came to
hold first place in all Teutonic realms that survived, chief members of a clerical "first estate."
Frankish, Ostrogothic, Visigothic, and Anglo-Saxon law gave them rights of supervision over the
new counts and most of the Teutons recognized the legal immunity which ecclesiastical courts
had begun to enjoy in Roman times.
(4) THE PAPACY
The Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, had a special claim to medieval
reverence for the sacerdotium. St. Gregory the Great and his successors began to protect and
administer not merely the provincial metropolis or civitas, but the traditional capital of the still awe-
inspiring empire. In the absence of residential emperors, the popes had come to be, if not yet
their successors, at least the autonomous viceroys, duces et praefecti militum of Respublica
nostra Romanorum.
Christian brotherhood was a powerful idea for international understanding and solidarity.
Brotherhood, however, presupposes fatherhood. God was indeed the invisible father of mankind,
but in accordance with human inclinations He had given Christian men a visible, earthly father in
the pope. This human papa was considered by his children to have full paternal authority in the
household of the Faith. He wished his children to be at peace, and whenever their better instincts
triumphed he became the arbiter of their disputes. He showed solicitude for their temporal
welfare; hence he tried to protect them and teach them to protect themselves against infidel foes.
He desired them to know the truth and therefore promoted education, supervised instruction,
rooted out error, especially error in Faith. He rebuked them for their moral failings and was the
last court of appeal on earth, whose decision, moreover, would be ratified in heaven. No earthly
eminence could exempt from his jurisdiction; the Synodus Palmaris had demonstrated that to
judge the pope was not only juridically but politically impossible: Christian public opinion would
not tolerate it. This father also sought to shield all from tyranny, political or economic. Thus he
strove to introduce law and justice into society, co-operation, just prices, and fair play into
business. In all moral issues he was final interpreter. And the children acknowledged their father.
Like all children, they might sulk, Murmur or even rebel at times, but even while they did so, they
were half aware that in the long run they must submit to Christ's viceroy and Peter's vicar.
(5) RECOGNITION OF SACERDOTAL AUTHORITY
Temporal jurisdiction. That the pope is supreme sovereign in moral matters is conceded
by all Catholics as a matter of course. The moot question lies in his temporal power. Some
theologians have contended that the pope possessed "direct jurisdiction" in temporal affairs, but
this view today commands little favor. But at least it was certain, according to St. Ambrose's
principles, that bishops had the power to give moral direction and inflict censures on all
Christians, irrespective of rank, even imperial. Priests, moreover, had jurisdiction over oaths and
vows, fundamental in feudal society. In temporal concerns, therefore, they enjoyed at least
"indirect power" or right of intervention ratione peccati. In addition, for the duration of the Middle
Ages the sacerdotium exercised a delegated power over temporal princes in virtue of the
constitutions of various realms. which implicitly represented the popular wish. Monarchs
reluctantly, and their subjects eagerly acknowledged this moral suzerainty of the sacerdotium.
Regal acknowledgement. The Dyarchy reached its zenith with Pope Zachary's decision
in favor of Pepin's kingship (751). The latter's decendants, Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald,
recognized even episcopal power of deposition. The latter admitted: "By no one could I be cast
down from the height of royal power without at least the consideration and judgment of the
bishops, by whose ministry I was consecrated king, and who are called the thrones of God."
Visigothic monarchs, according to the decree of the Sixth Council of Toledo (638) had to abide by
their coronation oath: "Hereafter no king shall mount the throne until he has sworn, among other
conditions, not to tolerate heretics in his states." Article 14 of the Laws of Edward the Confessor
in Anglo-Saxon England held that "the king as he holds here below the place of the Supreme
King, is appointed to rule an earthly kingdom and the Lord's people, and above all to venerate His
Church, to defend those who would injure her, to expel from her all evil-doers, and to destroy
them utterly. Unless he does these things, the name of king shall not cling to him; yes, as Pope
John declares, he shall lose the name of king." Robert Guiscard of Naples swore that: "I, Robert, .
. . will henceforth be faithful to the Holy Roman Church, and to thee, my liege lord, (Pope)
Nicholas."
Imperial recognition. Specifically with regard to the Holy Roman Empire, the thirteenth
century Swabian Code declared: "The ecclesiastical sword is given the pope that he may render
judgment at the proper time, seated on a white horse. The emperor must hold the stirrup lest the
saddle shift. . . . Election of the king belongs by right to the Germans. . . . When he is consecrated
and crowned and placed on the throne at Aachen, with the electors' consent, then he receives the
power and name of king; but when the pope has consecrated him, then he has the full power of
the empire and the name of emperor. . . . Only the pope can put the emperor under the ban. . . .
Any lay prince who does not punish heretics and who defends and protects them shall be
excommunicated by judgment of the Church, and if he does not amend within a year the bishop
who excommunicated him shall denounce his crime to the pope; . . . The pope should deprive
him of his princely office and all his honors. Such shall be the judgment for magnates as well as
for the lowly, for we read that Pope Innocent deposed Emperor Otto from his throne for other
crimes. This the popes do of right, for God said to Jeremias: 'I have appointed thee judge over
every man and kingdom.'"
C. Role of the Imperium

(1) IMPERIAL THEORY
"Realistic philosophy, and the needs of a time when the only notion of civil and religious
order was submission to authority, required the world-state to be a monarchy; tradition, as well as
the continuance of certain institutions, gave the monarch the name of Roman Emperor. A king
could not be universal sovereign for there were many kings; the emperor must be, for there had
never been but one emperor, he had in older and brighter days been the actual lord of the
civilized world. . . ." According to the analogy of the union of soul and body, to the papal spiritual
authority in Christendom was added the temporal executive power of the "Holy Roman Emperor."
These beads of Christendom would rule the same subjects, but in a different respect: one for
eternal concerns, the other in temporal matters. Ideally, the emperor was subservient to the pope
as the body to the soul, but their opposition or separation was deemed as inconceivable as
separation of soul and body.
(2) IMPERIAL PRACTICE
Hierarchical analogy. As, then, the bishop of Rome had primacy over other bishops, so
the king of Germany as emperor would be exalted over all other kings. Both the papal and
imperial office were to be elective; both eligible to males alone. Though practical considerations
would usually dictate the choice of an Italian as pope to rule an Italian see, and of a German as
emperor to rule the German kingdom, legally the electors might choose a man from any nation-
and in fact several times did so. As Christ gave the keys of spiritual authority to St. Peter, so He
is conceived as giving an emblem of temporal authority, the Labarum, to Constantine the Great;
Christ or St. Peter is then depicted as banding these symbols on to St. Leo III and Charles the
Great, or to the contemporary pope and emperor. These two divine-right rulers had their mutual
realm de jure in the world; de facto, it was Europe. This Christian commonwealth was not only to
have one Lord, one faith, one baptism; it was to share a common emperor, political ideal, oath of
fealty. Ideally, there should be no inter-Christian wars. As chanted at imperial coronations, over
all Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
Practice, of course, lagged woefully after theory. Yet when in harmony the sacerdotium
and imperium gave the world the best international order thus far seen; at least, the twentieth
century had best not cast at it debris from the "Concert of Europe," "League of Nations," and
"United Nations." The Christian commonwealth was nourished on faith, but not on faith alone.
The ideal response lay in glorious deeds, in the hearty "God wills it" of the First Crusade. Such
enthusiasm, indeed, waned with secularism and nationalism. So soon as corresponding works
were lacking, the imperium fell and the sacerdotium had to be reformed in "Modern" times.
52. Teutonic Institutions
VIII
52. TEUTONIC INSTITUTIONS
A. General Survey
(1) INTRODUCTION
Many Teutonic tribes, as already noted, penetrated into the Roman Empire. Their religion
and customs at the time of the invasion or infiltration have been sketched, but something needs
to be said of their evolving social institutions as established within the Roman world. Doubtless
each tribe had its peculiarities, sketched to some extent in the separate topics about the
Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Lombards. Here a few general remarks on inchoate Teutonic
law would seem in order, and then some generalizations on Teutonic government and society will
be attempted. These last will be drawn chiefly from the most important and enduring of the
barbarian principalities, the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon.
(2) TEUTONIC LAW
Leges Barbarorum. A primitive stage of medieval, as distinguished from classical Roman

law, is that of compilation. The examples of this type are codifications of existing Teutonic
customs rather than a Series of edicts or legislative acts. Thus the prologue of the Lex Salica of
the ction of the origines causarum by four chosen Franks describes the colle men after lengthy
discussion with the judices of the local assemblies. The Lex Gundobalda of the Burgundians
describes itself as a definition confirmed by the seals of thirty-one counts. The Pactus of the
Alamanni, no longer completely extant, is probably of the same origin. Retrospectively, Widukind,
the Saxon chronicler, stated that under Emperor Otto the Great law was regarded as a truth to be
discovered, not as a command to be imposed.
Migration of course led to changed conditions but it was still true that the Leges
Barbarorum were personal rather than territorial. They came into conflict with the Roman concept
of territorial law. The first resort was a dual system: Teutonic conquerors continued under their
own personal law, while their Roman subjects were allowed to retain much of the imperial law.
Even when special codes were published for the Romans, such as the Lex Romana
Wisigothorum, or the Lex Romana Burgundiorum, these were in large measure borrowed from
the Theodosian Code. In the course of time, fusion of these parallel codes was effected.
Teutonic law became territorial when its authors acquired fixed abodes, while Roman law through
want of scholarship was restricted to comparatively few regions.
Capitularies. A second stage of Medieval Law is that of the capitula of the revived
Franco-Roman Empire. Charles the Great sought to restore the imperial prerogative of
lawmaking by edict. His capitula are edicts binding on the territory rather than tribal customs, but
though initiated by the emperor, they were ratified by assemblies of freemen. This promising
compromise between Roman and Teutonic legal habits was, however, short-lived. Presently with
the breakup of the Carolingian Empire the capitula were engulfed by the feudal contractualism.
B. Frankish Institutions
(1) SOCIAL DIVISIONS
The Salic Law was the Frankish counterpart of the transitional codes adopted by other
Teutonic invaders. Essentially it was a collection of the customs of the Salian Franks made by
Clovis at the beginning of the sixth century. It was intended to adapt the ancient orally attested
customs of the Franks to the changed conditions of settlement among a civilized people. It can
scarcely be regarded as an advanced document.
In criminal matters there was a tariff of fines for injuries to men and animals. The blood
fend, though restricted, was still tolerated. The wergild of an ordinary Teuton was set at 200
solidi, that of a Roman at 100. Nobles were assigned higher values, and after the Franks had
been converted to Christianity, they assigned this privilege to clerics as well. Wergild also varied
with the circumstances of the crime: braincracking, eye-gouging, tooth-eradicating, concealment
of the body-all might increase the amount of recompense to be paid the relatives of the injured
party. But some regard for the public weal may be seen in the required payment of fretus to the
prince for violation of the peace.
In civil law property was divided at the owner's death among all the sons of the deceased,
to the exclusion of daughters. Even though women were later allowed to inherit some personal
property, they were ever excluded from land-ownership. In feudal times the virtual fusion of land
proprietary and political rights resulted in the debarment of women from the throne: ne mulieres
regnant in terra salica, a legal highlight of the Hundred Years' War. In the primitive Salic Law
there appeared clear distinctions between freemen and serfs: if a free woman married a serf, she
was given a distaff and a knife, indicating that she had to become a serf or kill her husband. The
practice of wergild emphasized that membership in a clan still counted for much. Ordeals and
compurgation, described later, were part of "court procedure."
(2) CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
Merovingian origins. According to the Teutonic school of historians this administration

was derived chiefly from the Germans; French hisources. Probably the truth lies torians are
prone to claim Gallo-Roman s somewhere in between, for Roman administration in Gaul never
possessed a central government, and German customs had been adapted to merely petty states.
The prince was war chief of his own people, and later by Byzantine delegation consul and
patrician of the Romans. He was elected from a family, the Merovingian, though usually all the
sons of a deceased ruler shared his power. Inauguration was by raising the chief on a shield; as
yet there was no anointing, and only Clovis assumed a diadem. The prince's law was little more
than the writing down of ancient customs, gradually purged of heathen elements. This customary
code was supplemented by a limited number of edicts or executive orders. Theoretically the
prince was chief judge and could exact the death penalty for treason. His bans or commands
usually carried with them a fine of 60 solidi in case of disobedience. At first the prince was a
powerful ruler; according to one analyst, "his government was absolute monarchy tempered by
occasional assassination."
The council was composed of the chief officials whose deliberations came to supplant the
general moot or thing-though a show of consulting the freemen was kept up at the annual March-
fields, usually summoned as musters for war. At this time gifts were offered and capitularies
promulgated, but most of the day to day business was carried on by officials chosen from the
nobility. These included the cubicularius, keeper of the princely bedroom where the treasures
were stored; the seneschal, steward of the tables; the mareschal, superintendent of the stables,
together with the "counts of the palace," judges over the courts, and " referendaries" charged with
drafting and signing diplomas in the prince's name. In later Merovingian times the major palatii,
originally supervisor of the royal estates, advanced to the post of a prime minister. He collected
rents, chief source of the royal income. Once in control of finances, he came in time to exercise
discipline and assume political functions superior to those of other officials, with military
leadership over duces and comites. Eventually he substituted for the prince in the courts, hearing
appeals, regulating manumission, and conferring benefices. So great was his importance that
magnates desired the choice of a mayor who met with the approval of each of the principal
divisions: Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy.
Local administration was entrusted to grafios or counts chosen from both races, but
tending to develop into an hereditary nobility. The grafio was at the head of local police, taxation,
and justice. Through him the prince endeavored to maintain order against bandits and invaders,
to collect the portion of wergild due him, and to sustain the military force by imposition of fines or
even confiscation for failure to appear at muster. Tribute was exacted of the Gallo-Roman
districts, but Theodebert, Clovis's grandson, made this a general tax for Frank and Roman alike.
The grafios were assisted by vicars and hundredmen. These officials were supported by gifts of
land from the princes and were at first royal agents removable at will. Gradual exhaustion of the
prince's treasury and the rendering of the counties hereditary reduced subsequent Merovingians
to faineants. Frankish agrarian policy seems to have been akin to that of the Visigoths; i.e.,
intermediate between Ostrogothic liberality and Vandal tyranny. Bishops were sometimes
granted certain rights of supervision over the counts.
Carolingian administration really began before Merovingian rule formally ended. After a
century of rivalry the office of mayor of the palace became hereditary in the family of Pepin of
Heristal, ancestor of Charles the Great. Merovingian princes, often youths who seldom reached
maturity, were increasingly eclipsed by these factotums or regents. While they continued to
perform ceremonial state functions, royal government lay in the bands of the Carolingians.
Popular reverence for the Merovingian dynasty, however, withheld the mayors of the palace-after
one disastrous experiment-from openly supplanting the nominal rulers. Only after another
century of real power and after obtaining the sanction of the Holy See did they dare assume royal
style.
C. Anglo-Saxon Institutions
(1) SECULAR GOVERNMENT
Central government was rudimentary. England long remained divided into principalities,
the reputed Heptarchy. Once these had been unified under West Saxon hegemony, a primitive
monarchy appeared. The king was advised by the Witan, a council composed of the royal family,
royal thanes, and prelates. While a strong monarch could overrule the Witan, it had the function
of choosing kings from among the royal princes, and royal edicts or dooms were normally
promulgated and
executed by its agency.

Local administration centered in the shire. its governor was the ealdorman, appointed by
the king from the royal family or the nobility, though caldormen often combined several shires and
made their posts hereditary: Norman earls were successors of Anglo-Saxon ealdormen. While
the ealdorman was the king's civil and military deputy, collection of royal revenues and
administration of justice were in the care of the more plebeian shire-reeve or sheriff. With
ealdorman and bishop, the sheriff took cognizance of major cases involving royal jurisdiction.
Popular government controlled the subdivisions of the shires, called hundreds or

wapentakes, with -which the Christian parish was often conterminous. Petty justice was declared
by a reeve elected by the thanes or knights and other freemen. Every four weeks the reeve,
assisted by the pastor, held moot court, from which no appeal was granted unless three attempts
to gain justice had failed. The common procedure was by compurgation or ordeal. Wergild,
usually paid in cattle, was imposed for all crimes except treason or breaking the king's peace -the
latter might entail the death penalty if the king were strong enough to enforce it. Property of a
thief might be confiscated as cheapogild to compensate an injured party. Indictments might be
made in court, and tithingmen, chiefs of ten, directed to gather a posse by raising the "hue and
cry."
Vassalage. Next to the king were the aethelings or princes of the blood royal, who alone
were normally eligible for the throne. The chiefs-earls--of invasion days eventually merged with
the caldormen or shire-governors when these offices became quasi-hereditary. When
administrators of several shires, the ealdormen were great personages, the only true noblemen in
Anglo-Saxon England. Next to them were the thanes, a sort of knight, though not necessarily
mounted. A thane was never a tenant-in-chief, but bound by oath of loyalty to render
military service to king, ealdorman, or bishop.

Land tenure by 1066 had practically become serfdom for the majority of Anglo-Saxons,
though some free socmen survived. Common land tended to disappear as the king claimed
ownership of all real property, which he re-granted to earls and thanes. Land conceded by royal
charter was known as "book land." Thanes might sublet land to servants for "three lives," a sort of
99 year lease.
(2) ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS
The hierarchy enjoyed great prestige, for in England, ecclesiastical organization had to
considerable degree preceded and suggested the political. The archbishopric of Canterbury
remained the primatial see and conducted communication with the papacy. Much ecclesiastical
business was transacted in the Witan of which the bishops were members. Bishops were often
nominated by the king, subject to papal approval. Bishops ranked with secular lords, and later
archbishops enjoyed the same form of address, "Your Grace," as dukes. Violation of the bishop's
peace carried a heavy penalty. Ecclesiastical vassals, like secular lords, were expected to render
the trinodian necessitas: repair roads and bridges, attend the muster of arms, and advise the
king.
The clergy were all privileged and respected persons. Priests became entitled to "sir" as
the thane or knight, and could clear themselves of accusations by their own unsupported oath.
They paid no wergild for crimes committed by relatives. They were supported by tithes which
were levied and collected in hundred courts. Murder of a priest might be punished by outlawry.
On the other hand, state laws ran against lax priests who neglected the dying or lived in
concubinage. The clergy as a whole constituted the only learned body in Anglo-Saxon England,
and as such was called upon to participate in civil affairs.
The monks, so important in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, long enjoyed the special
affection of the people. Though the monastic learning declined during the early Dark Ages, Abbot
St. Dunstan (924-88) initiated a great revival. The renaissance emanating from his Abbey of
Glastonbury flourished for less than a century before undergoing the renewed shocks of Danish
invasion, but it doubtless kept a spark alive to be kindled by the Norman revival introduced from
Bec.
53. St. Gregory the Great (590-604)
VIII
53. ST. GREGORY THE GREAT
A. Gregorian Inspiration
(1) LIFE OF ST. GREGORY
Gregorius Gordianus Anicius (540-604), son of Senator Gordianus, and grandson of
Pope Felix IV, belonged to a patrician family, though the Anician relationship is merely legendary.
His boyhood was much disturbed by the Gothic War which, with frequent sieges of Rome, lasted
until 553. Possibly St. Gregory escaped some of its ravages by residing on the family's Sicilian
estates. While he received the classical education of a Roman civil servant and was one of the
best educated men of his time, Roman schools were then in a state of decline,
Secular career. St, Gregory emerges from obscurity in January, 573, when we learn from
his fourth letter that he was then holding the office of praetor, an office which under the absentee
Byzantine rule may have corresponded to that of prefect of Rome. St, Gregory was
charged with the immediate civil and criminal jurisdiction over the metropolis, and his cares were
magnified by a crowd of fugitives from the Lombard invasion, Details of St. Gregory's tenure of
office are lacking; at the latest, by 575 he had resigned his post to become a monk. But his
epitaph would aptly describe him as "Consul NC.'
Monastic vocation. Friendship with three Benedictine monks from Monte Cassino had
induced St. Gregory to imitate their mode of life. About 575 he converted the parental home on
the Celian Hill into St. Andrew's Abbey, and in time founded six monasteries in Sicily. St. Gregory
lived at Rome as a simple monk until he was constrained to become abbot about 585. The rule
was Benedictine in spirit, if not formally so, and St. Gregory was destined to become the great
publicist in the West of the ideas of St. Benedict of Nursia.
Clerical vocation. St. Gregory's experience with administration soon drew him from his
retreat into the service of the Holy See. About 578 Pope Benedict I ordained him deacon and
placed him in charge of the seventh Roman region. Pelagius It sent him in the following year to
Constantinople as apocrisarius or nuncio. Here St. Gregory remained until 585, gaining much
valuable experience of the Byzantine court and patriarchate. On his return he appears at least
occasionally as a sort of papal secretary of state. His meeting with St. Leander, exiled
archbishop of Seville at Constantinople, had stimulated his interest in Spain, and if legend be
true-the Anglo-Saxon slaves in the Forum aroused his missionary zeal for England. It was not
surprising to anyone but himself that such an ecclesiastic should be acclaimed by clergy and
people as successor to Pope Pelagius II on the latter's death on February 8, 590. St. Gregory
demurred, and not until his choice had been confirmed by the imperial court would he accept
episcopal consecration, September 3, 590.
(2) ST. GREGORY'S ROLE
Medieval "Keynoter." All agree in designating St. Gregory's pontificate as inaugurating a

mew era, in particular, the period of extraordinary temporal influence of the papacy. Insofar as
close co-operation between Church and state was a distinguishing note of the Middle Ages, St.
Gregory the Great may be considered the founder of Medieval Europe, for he was certainly the
lasting inspiration of the papacy which was the principal factor in the making of Christendom. To
the full he exercised the ecclesiastical primacy bequeathed to him by Christ through St, Peter,
though in this role previous history has demonstrated that he was not the innovator of earlier
Protestant fancy. More than any of his predecessors, however, he was the pioneer of the
temporal leadership of the papacy, at least as that was exercised during the Middle Ages. This
work will presently he examined in somewhat greater detail.
Medieval mentor. Besides his political reputation, St. Gregory enjoyed the respect of the
Middle Ages as doctor of the Church, Though he now appears as less of an original theologian, it
is clear that he performed an exceedingly valuable theological service. For it was his adaptation
or popularization of St. Augustine's abstruse works that introduced these to the early Scholastics.
St. Gregory's Moralia, together with his Dialogues, presented sound guidance for the faithful.
Even his remarkable lives of the saints and their tremendous miracles--which, indeed, St.
Gregory does not guarantee-rendered Christian truths attractive to a rude people. At any rate, for
better or for worse, he set the medieval fashion in hagiography. Though he himself may not have
been a Benedictine monk in the strict sense, he certainly advertised the famed rule and
contributed much to making its author the patriarch of Western monasticism. St. Gregory's own
Regula Pastoralis long remained the vademecum for the secular clergy, as St. Benedict's rule led
the regular clergy. Of this Regula Pastoralis Ozanam has well said that it gave "form and life to
the entire hierarchy; it made the bishops, who in turn made the modern nations."
Hub of conversions. Though it would be an exaggeration to trace the conversion of the

Teutonic West to St. Gregory the Great, the chief evangelizing movements radiate from his
pontificate. St. Gregory himself was not only concerned with initiating Lombard conversion by his
friendly relations with Princess Theodelinda, but he sent to England St. Austin and his co-
workers, missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons. St. Gregory, moreover, was friend and advisor of St.
Leander of Seville, who on his return to Spain won over the Visigoths almost en masse. The
pope also corresponded with St. Columban whose monastic missionaries proved to be a
regenerative force in Frankland. St. Gregory's correspondence with St. Austin in England reveals
his foresight and breadth of view in regard to missionary work among the Teutons. Thus St.
Gregory turned from a dying Roman civilization to the as yet formless Teutonic society, and
proved an instrument of Providence in demonstrating the deathless vitality and adaptability of the
Catholic Church.
B. Gregorian Administration
(1) ECCLESIASTICAL RULE
Servant of the Servants of God. This title adopted by St. Gregory in tacit rebuke to the
Byzantine patriarch's vainglorious style of "ecumenical bishop," well sums up his concept of the
papacy, John IV the Faster (582-95) of Constantinople was chided by the pope: "By our Lord's
words the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles .
. . and yet he was not called universal apostle. . . . Europe is in the hands of the barbarians . . .
and yet priests hunt after titles." Despite St. Gregory's rebukes, neither John IV nor his
successors quite gave up the coveted title, though Cyriacus (595-606) apologized for any sense
prejudicial to papal primacy that might be connoted by the term. Archbishop John of Ravenna
(578-95), when reprimanded for uncanonical use of the pallium and the assumption of other
privileges, proved more submissive. Archbishop Paschasius of Naples was chided for losing
ecclesiastical revenues in ship-building, a venture in which he imagined himself astute. With the
other patriarchs and bishops, St. Gregory's relations were happier.
Imperial critic. Emperor Maurice (582-602) manifested Caesaropapism in 592 by

forbidding civil and military personnel to become monks. The pope's stinging admonition seems
to have effected a compromise. Though Maurice's petty bureaucracy was a trial for Italy, St.
Gregory always manifested scrupulous loyalty to imperial interests. it is true that the pontiff
criticized Maurice to his murderer and successor, Phocas, and bestowed fulsome praise on the
latter. It is probable, however, that the pope had received a doctored report of the circumstances
of Phocas's accession, and the encomiums were merely
conventional.
Roman legislator. The decrees of the Roman Synod of 595 afford some idea of St.
Gregory's ecclesiastical policies within his own see. These canons include the following: (1)
"Ordination of deacons merely to use their voices for singing is strictly forbidden for the future.
Deacons have to preach and look after the poor. The Gospel in the Mass must be sung by them,
but everything else must be chanted by the inferior clergy." This practical preoccupation must not
be construed to deprive St. Gregory of his renown as reformer, if not innovator, of "Gregorian
Chant." (2) "Henceforth the pope's personal needs must be attended to by lay clerics and monks
and not by lay servants, that they may be witnesses of his private life." (3) "Rectors of the
patrimony of the Church are not to act like officers of the public revenue and place titles on lands
that they imagine to belong to the Church. Such conduct implies defense of ecclesiastical goods
by force and not by right." (4) When corpses of the popes are buried, "the faithful cover them
with dalmatics and tearing these to shreds, keep them as relics. . . . For the future these
coverings must never again be placed." But St. Gregory proved incapable of securing for saints a
quiet rest on earth. (5) "It is strictly forbidden any cleric to exact money for the conferring of
orders, the pallium, or necessary documents relating thereto. A present in every way freely
offered may be accepted." (6) "Slaves belonging to the Church who wish to become monks . . .
must be thoroughly tested before being received into a monastery; otherwise there would soon be
no slaves left." Such "slaves" were really serfs; St. Gregory was no advocate of slavery, for he
asserted in a charter of manumission: "The kings of the nations are masters of slaves, but he who
commands the Romans must be a master over free men."
(2) TEMPORAL ADMINISTRATION
Castel Sant' Angelo. The plague which struck down Pelagius II continued to rage and St.
Gregory organized a penitential procession. Legend has it that as this crossed the Tiber, the
Archangel Michael was seen sheathing his sword on the pinnacle of Adrian's mausoleum. This
omen of divine appeasement gave the monument a new name and a statue of the angel was
placed above it. The massive structure was fortified and became throughout the Middle Ages the
papal asylum from Italy's invaders. As a reminder of papal temporal rule it survives today.
The Patrimony. Already the Roman Church had acquired title to many estates by
bequest, and during the troubled times of the Teutonic invasions many Italians hastened to place
their lands under papal protection. Such territories came to be known as the "Patrimony of St.
Peter," and were the nucleus of the Papal States. In St. Gregory's time the popes had as yet
merely proprietary rights over some twenty-three separate tracts. But though St. Gregory lacked
technical civil jurisdiction over the patrimony, be so administered it as to prepare the way for
subsequent papal temporal rule. He employed three classes of officials: rectores, overseers, and
quasi-magistrates; defensores, who served as district attorneys and protectors of the poor; and
conductores, who were farm foremen and rent collectors. Attached to the urban patrimonies were
poor houses, hospitals, and orphanages. The pope sent minute regulations for the conduct of
these officials in assessing and collecting rent, selling stock and horses, and above all in
protecting the rights of the coloni. Antoninus, an exacting defensor, was ordered to restore ten
years' revenues; the subdeacon Peter was directed to help designated poor persons -- St.
Gregory had lists of all needy dependents -- and protect Jews from unfair discrimination.
Stewards were forbidden to beat down the price in seasons of plenty, and instructed to reexamine
weights and measures. Victims of loan-sharks were to be rescued; they might repay later. In
sum, St. Gregory was no political or financial obscurantist: "Cause the writings I have addressed
to the peasants in all the estates to be read to them that they may know bow to protect
themselves against injustice by my authority; and let the originals or copies thereof be given
them."
Military defense. Since Exarch Romanus (590-97) would neither fight the Lombards nor
supply others with the means of doing so, St. Gregory took it upon himself to station guards,
muster troops, erect defenses, commission officers, and even draw up strategy for campaigns.
Bishops and abbots throughout the imperial territories were urged to do likewise. Thrice the pope
negotiated truces to save Rome from destruction: with Ariulf of Spoleto in 592, with Prince Agilulf
of the Lombards in 593, and with both in 597-99. Each time the peace was broken again by
provocative acts of exarchs who did nothing to quell the disturbances thus caused. Finally in 602
Exarch Smaragdus was willing to take the pope's advice, and St. Gregory at last witnessed a
fragile truce before his death on March 12, 604. But his successors would yet have occasion to
re-echo his rallying cry to his troops: "Exert yourselves as becomes brave men."
(3) ECUMENICAL SOLICITUDE
Some idea of the far-reaching extent of St. Gregory's concern can be derived from the
following brief survey.
The Orient. Besides his correspondence with Constantinople already noted, St. Gregory
wrote to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, propounding the view that the
patriarchal dignity originated from St. Peter's connection with a see. In the Balkans he
maintained the apostolic delegation of Salonika against Byzantine encroachment, and intervened
energetically in clerical discipline.
Italy. St. Gregory's correspondence with the Lombard Princess Theodelinda led to the
baptism of her son Adalwald, and conclusion of a truce. During the first year of his pontificate, the
pope provided bishops for fifteen deserted sees, and everywhere he strove to revive disrupted
ecclesiastical life. The surviving Three Chapter schism in Istria was mitigated.
Africa. St. Gregory tried, though in vain, to have the civil penalties executed against the
Donatists. He had better success in upholding papal primacy over the hitherto somewhat
insubordinate African hierarchy.
Spain. St. Gregory congratulated St. Leander of Seville and Prince Reccared in healing
the Arain heresy; to the former he sent the pallium in keeping with "ancient custom." His letters
reveal judicial appeals from Spain to the Holy See.
Frankland. St. Gregory seems to have supervised through agents a patrimony near
Marseilles, remote germ of the Avignon holdings. Pallia were dispatched to Frankish archbishops
and Princess Brunhilda urged to co-operate with them to suppress idolatry, heresy, and simony.
St. Gregory was indefatigable in sending legates and urging restoration of relaxed discipline.
Britain. St. Gregory not only was prime mover in the mission of St. Austin to the Anglo-
Saxons, but he instructed the evangelists by letter. He planned the organization of the English
Church about metropolitan sees at Canterbury and York. One of his letters to St. Austin holds a
key to St. Gregory's widespread success: "We ought not to value things on account of places, but
places on account of things. Choose, then, from different churches such customs as are godly
and religious and right, and bind them as it were into a bundle and establish them in the hearts of
the English."
54. The Papacy and the Lombards (604-752)

VIII
54. THE PAPACY AND THE LOMBARDS
A. The Lombard Environment

(1) LOMBARD INSTITUTIONS
The people. The Lombards were the least affected by Roman culture among Teutonic
tribes inasmuch as they had lived in the remote north until shortly before their invasion of Italy.
Thus they shared but dimly in the awe felt by other barbarians for the Roman Church and empire.
They remained barbarians in the worst sense of the term, and long clung to their primitive pagan
religion. Before coming into Italy they gave an example of their ferocity by exterminating the
Gepidae. In Italy they remained unruly warriors; frequently they were dismissed by St. Gregory
as "unspeakable." Cardinal Newman placed them in the procession of Italian invaders as least
desirable: "First came the Goth, then the Hun, and then the Lombard. The Goth took possession,
but he was of a noble nature and soon lost his barbarism. The Hun came next, but he was
irreclaimable and did not stay. The Lombard kept his savageness and his ground. He
appropriated to himself the territory, not the civilization of Italy: fierce as the Hun, and powerful as
the Goth, the most tremendous scourge of heaven."
Political regime. As finally established, the Lombard principality occupied most of Italy
except for the remnant of the exarchate around Ravenna, Rome, and a small contiguous area,
and scattered strongholds of the Byzantine Monarchy in the south, such as Naples, The first of
these Byzantine enclaves was conquered by the Lombards in 751. In the center the constant
threat to Rome led to papal appeals to the Franks and the establishment of the Papal States,
while the Byzantine territories to the south survived both Lombards and Franks until the Saracen
and Norman invasions. The Lombard state was less a unitary government than a confederation
of thirty-six duchies over which only exceptional princes could exercise effective rule. Lombard
political disunion had lasting effect, for ensuing Italian separatist tendencies resisted unification
until late in the nineteenth century. Though this political anarchy proved the salvation of papal
independence during the Middle Ages, it also exposed the peninsula to repeated invasions by
Greeks, Arabs, Germans, French, and Spaniards, whose surviving settlements increased the
heterogeneous character of the Italian population.
Religious policy. The initial Lombard attitude toward the Church was one of sheer
destruction: in the words of Paul the Deacon, "churches were plundered, priests killed, cities
demolished." It was fifty years before even a dent had been made in Lombard paganism; then the
slow work of conversion began. Christianity, however, did not easily subdue Lombard savagery
and acts of violence continued far into the Middle Ages. Lombard legal development was
accordingly slower than that of the other Teutonic principalities. The first code did not appear until
643. This Edict of Rothari regulated both Teutonic and interracial cases, but preserved more
barbaric customs than the Visigothic Code. Roman law survived in ecclesiastical canons and in
the Byzantine outposts, however, to provide the material for a legal renaissance in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries.
(2) SURVEY OF LOMBARD HISTORY: 568-751
Invasion. During his reconquest of Italy, Exarch Narses had made use of Chief Audoin
and some of his Lombards as mercenaries. As long as Narses remained in office (553-68), he
remained master of the menace which he had called into being, and the new Lombard chief,
Alboin, diverted his energies to exterminating the Gepidae in modern Hungary. Alboin killed the
Gepid chief Gunimund, used his skull for a cup, and married his daughter Rosamund. In 568
Narses was recalled to Constantinople by Emperior Justin II. Alboin seized this opportunity to
invade Italy with the entire Lombard tribe: men, women, and slaves poured over the Alps.
Decimated by the war of reconquest and bereft of leaders, Italy put up feeble resistance. Exarch
Longinus (568-84) immured himself at Ravenna, leaving northern Italy fall into Lombard hands --
it bears their name to this day. the better lands were confiscated and iron rule imposed. Alboin,
indeed, was killed when he tried to force his wife to drink from her father's skull during a drunken
revel, but other Lombard chiefs remained to plague Italy.
Consolidation. An interregnum (573-84) followed these incidents and allowed the

hereditary dukes to consolidate their quasi-independence, The princes were normally chosen
from their number and seldom could enjoy undisputed mastery, Authari (584-90) and Agilulf (590-
616), however, saw Lombard conquests extend to central and southern Italy, and the latter
seriously threatened Rome. Rothari (636-52) reduced the Ligurian coast, captured Genoa, and
crowded the Romans in Venetia on to the islands which evolved into the Republic of Venice.
Rothari tried to establish some fixed norms by publishing a code of laws.
Pressure on Rome. The Lombards desired to appropriate not only Ravenna but also
Rome, which was now cut off from all communication with the capital of the exarchate and cast
upon papal resources. Intermittent civil wars interrupted Lombard progress toward these goals,
and Byzantine and Frankish invasions had to be repulsed. Liutprand (712-43) restored order and
renewed pressure on the centers of Roman power in the peninsula. The exarchate was restricted
to the city walls of Ravenna and Astolf (749-56) at length captured the capital of Byzantine
administration in 751. Astolf then turned against Rome with full determination to annex it. The
popes repeatedly besought Constantinople for assistance, but the Byzantine court was fully
occupied with the Saracen menace. Despair of aid from the East prompted papal appeals to the
rising Frankish power in the West. Charles Martel, Carolingian mayor of the palace during the
first half of the eighth century, declined to intervene, but his son Pepin and grandson Charles the
Great did take action with momentous consequences for Italian history. The Lombard principality
was to succumb to the invaders and form part of the Carolingian Empire for a time, but it re-
emerged not long after as a separate political entity.
B. St. Gregory's Successors (604-752)

(1) LOMBARD CONVERSION (600-662)
Lombard missions. To this period must be ascribed the substantial beginning of

conversion. St. Gregory the Great had corresponded with Princess Theodelinda, a Catholic from
Bavaria, who married Prine Agilulf of Lombardy. Theodelinda at least exercised enough influence
on her husband to permit baptism of their son Adelwald. Agilulf permitted the preaching of the
Gospel, and even received St. Columban kindly when that outspoken missionary was expelled by
the Frankish Princess Brunhilda. A report of Agilulf's own baptism seems unfounded, but his
Catholic son Adelwald (615-25) provided a powerful suggestion "to follow the leader." At least
superficial conversion proceeded apace, for Aribert I (653-62), of the same Bavarian dynasty as
Theodelinda, decreed that the Catholic Church should be regarded as the official religion. Such
national conversions were seldom profound, and subsequent Lombard conduct bears this
suspicion out.
Papal obscurity. Unfortunately the popes of this same period are scarcely more than
names: Sabinian (604-6), Boniface III (607), St. Boniface IV (608-15), St. Adeodatus (615-18),
and Boniface V (619-25). Few details of their legislation survive, but we learn that Boniface III
directed that papal elections should take place three days after the funeral of the late pontiff. This
procedure was normally observed until the interval was extended to ten days by the Second
General Council of Lyons (1274). Pope Honorius (625-38) was a capable administrator, architect,
and engineer whose ability in practical affairs contrasts favorably with his lamentable deficiency in
Christological theology. In 625 he rebuked some Lombard bishops for disloyalty to Prince
Adelwald, while other administrators were admonished.
(2) MONOTHELETE PREOCCUPATIONS (638-83)
The same Pope Honorius, however, was duped by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople
and this gave rise to the Monothelete controversy, to be treated subsequently. For the next forty
years papal annals were chiefly concerned with this new imperially sponsored heresy, and what is
known of papal history is overshadowed by such theological preoccupations. Honorius's
successors, Severinus (640), John IV (640-42), Theodore (642-49), and St. Martin (649-55) tried
to curb imperial insolence, which cost the last-named his liberty and life. An impasse followed
during which St. Eugene (655-57), St. Vitalian (657-72), Adeodatus II (672-76), and Donus (676-
78) upheld the papal theological position while tolerating a secular modus vivendi with the
Byzantine court. Finally Popes St. Agatho (678-81) and St. Leo II (682-83) were able to direct the
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the condemnation of Monotheletism. The last two
pontiffs are known to have been active also in the affairs of Spain and England.
(3) INCREASING PAPAL INDEPENDENCE (684-715)
Electoral freedom. Pope St. Benedict II (684-85) prevailed on Emperor Constantine IV,
the same who had sanctioned the condemnation of Monotheletism, to abandon Justinian the
Great's Pragmatic Sanction. According to this regulation of 554, nominees of the Roman clergy
for bishop of Rome delayed receiving consecration until their election had been confirmed by the
imperial court. The alleged reason for this practice had been to prevent turbulent elections, but
vexatious delays had resulted while the Holy See was under interim administration by the
archpriest, archdeacon, and chief notary. After 685, however, election and consecration closely
coincide, and during the vacancy the Roman Church was administered by the bisbop-elect.
Popes John V (685-86) and Conon (686-87) are little known, but following the latter's death there
was a recurrence of disputed elections when a number of factions put forward candidates.
Pope St. Sergius I (687-701), nominee of the pars major et sanior, emerged triumphant
from a brief contest. This resolute and able pontiff refused to confirm the acts of the Byzantine
Synod in Trullo (692) which accorded Constantinople rank scarcely second to Rome, and
criticized the Latin practice of sacerdotal celibacy. The pope repudiated the unauthorized
signatures of his apocrisarius and maintained his ground even when Emperor Justinian II sent
Prefect Zacharias to arrest him. But times had greatly changed since the first Justinian had
kidnapped Pope Vigilius. Italians rallied to the pope's defense and Zacharias saved himself from
a mob by biding under the pope's bed. In 695 Justinian's deposition relaxed imperial pressure for
a time. About 698 Pope St. Sergius, with the assistance of the Lombard Prince Cunicpert,
brought an end to another memento of the reign of the first Justinian: the Lombard division of the
Three Chapter schism finally terminated at a synod in Pavia. St. Sergius also consecrated St.
Willibrord as vicar apostolic for the Frisian mission, and attended closely to Spanish and English
affairs.
Shadowy figures are Popes John VI (701-15), John VII (705-7), and Sisinius (708).
Pope Constantine (708-15) defied the restored Justinian II's renewed attempt to have the
Trullan decrees confirmed, and proved strong enough to visit Constantinople (710) and return
safely without yielding his position. In 712 a synod at Rome condemned the Monothelete
reaction of the party of Philippicus. The usurper was deposed soon after, and the intruded
Patriarch John sent a profession of faith to Rome.
The Iconoclast Schism, treated subsequently, proved the final example of papal
independence of action. Popes Gregory II (715-31) and Gregory III (731-41), though continuing
to acknowledge Byzantine temporal suzerainty, were able to defy the imperial religious policy with
impunity. Byzantine attempts at reasserting control foundered with its fleet in the Adriatic in 732
and a period of "diplomatic notes" ensued.
(4) EVE OF PAPAL INDEPENDENCE (715-52)
Pope St. Gregory II (715-31), besides resisting Iconoclasm, had to ward off Lombard
attacks. The pontiff appealed to Charles Martel, mayor of the Franks, but the latter, preoccupied
by the Moorish attacks from Spain, could or would do nothing. The pope commissioned St.
Boniface for the German mission, thereby completing the circle of missionary activity, for the new
evangelist was a spiritual descendant of that St. Austin sent to England by the first Pope St.
Gregory.
St. Gregory III (731-41) continued his predecessor's policy in all things. He, too, was
threatened by Greeks and Lombards, and also appealed in vain to Charles Martel. St. Gregory
died while Liutprand of Lombardy was pursuing a new drive for the possession of Rome.
St. Zachary (741-52), an Italo-Greek, naturally did not break with his predecessors'
conservative policy of allegiance toward Byzantium. But his recognition of Pepin's title to kingship
of the Franks prepared the way for his successor's reversal of papal political policy. For the most
part the pope was able to keep off the Lombards by negotiations and tribute, but the fall of
Ravenna in 751 and the accession of the determined Prince Astolf portended the end of half-way
measures. The papacy had to find a radical solution for the Lombard problem.
55. Visigothic Catholicity (589-713)
VIII
55. VISIGOTHIC CATHOLICITY
A. Visigothic Conversion (587-610)

(1) POLITICAL PREPARATION
Retrospect. Prince Leovigild had ruled Spain with an iron hand and had used every
means to force Catholics to adhere to the official Arian religion. Edicts of persecution were still in
effect at his death in 586, though the determined resistance of Leovigild's son, St. Hermenegild,
had ended in martyrdom in 585. Leovigild seems to have appreciated that he had suffered a
moral defeat, for he is reported to have suggested conciliation of the Catholics to his surviving
son Reccared.
Reccared I (586-601) went farther than his Arian father had contemplated. Not only did
he at once revoke the edicts of persecution, but within ten months of his accession, he embraced
the Catholic faith with his family. As in all Teutonic realms where personal leadership counted for
much, this action was a signal for many of his subjects to follow his example. In Spain, moreover,
definite measures were taken which gave a distinctive character to Visigothic Catholicity.
(2) NATIONAL CONVERSION
St. Leander, Archbishop of Seville (579-600), and possibly maternal uncle of St.
Hermenegild, was doubtless the instrument of Reccared's conversion, as he had been of his
brother's. St. Leander had been exiled to Constantinople by Leovigild about 580, and there
became acquainted with St. Gregory the Great, then the papal nuncio. It was probably St.
Leander who suggested convocation of a national ecclesiastical-civil assembly, the important
Third Council of Toledo.
Council of Toledo. After a three day fast, this assembly opened on May 8, 589. It was
attended by the Catholic hierarchy, sixty-four bishops headed by St. Leander, and by Prince
Reccared and the Visigothic nobility. During the meeting the prince led many magnates in a
formal abjuration of Arianism and a profession of faith in Catholic dogma which, incidentally,
contained the Filioque clause later challenged by the Greeks. The Church was officially
established and Arianism proscribed. Twenty-three disciplinary enactments simultaneously
became canon and civil law by episcopal and princely signature, while a like number of
anathernas were pronounced upon dissenters from the Catholic creed. Unspecified penalties
were threatened against all violators. Apparently Arian churches were confiscated, and Jews
debarred from civil office.
Conciliar execution was supervised by St. Leander and his brother and successor as
archbishop of Seville, St. Isidore (600-36). Receared and his son Liuva II (601-3) supported
Catholicity vigorously. Liuva's assassination by the pro-Arian usurper Witterich (603-10) only
proved the solidity of Visigothic conversion. Arian reaction failed utterly and Witterich was
deposed by the Catholic Gundemar in 610. Thereafter Arianism rapidly disappeared in Spain.
B. Visigothic Theocracy (610-80)

(1) RELIGIOUS-SECULAR INSTITUTIONS
Union of Church and state to an excessive degree developed in the fifteen national
councils which followed the Third Toledan synod. These assemblies were composed of bishops
and nobles under the presidency of the prince, and their decrees had the force of ecclesiastical
and civil law. Through their agency the old opposition between Romans and Teutons was rapidly
broken down, and the two peoples were fused into an intensely nationalistic whole. The Spanish
nation thus formed naturally came to identify loyalty to the Church with patriotism. Fanatics were
prone to regard anything non-Catholic as anti-Spanisb, and anything non-Spanish as not quite
Catholic. Perhaps the good resulting from this arrangement outweighed the evil, for it helped
preserve the Spanish Church during the prolonged trial of Moorish domination, and kept the
majority of Spaniards militantly loyal to Catholicity into the twentieth century. But the imprint of
Caesaropapism was also lasting. Successive Spanish regimes have rendered priceless service
to the Holy See and the Church, but not without at times severely trying the patience of both.
The Church became the dominant factor in purely religious concerns. After St. Isidore's
death in 636, ecclesiastical primacy gravitated to Toledo where it remained. Non-Catholics were
excluded from all civil positions. Jews in particular were deprived of civil rights and laden with
extra burdens. Anti-Semitism reached its height in the execrable eighth canon of the Council of
Toledo in 695 which decreed that all adult Jews should be reduced to perpetual slavery and their
children forcibly removed from them at the age of seven. It is true that the inspiration for such
laws emanated from the nobles, but the bishops, practically named by the prince, were all too
compliant. Even during St. Isidore's lifetime, the otherwise over-indulgent Pope Honorius
admonished the Spanish bishops not to be "dogs that never bark." Indeed, it may be said that the
Church gave the state more than she received, for complete recognition was secured at the price
of domination. For instances of clerics who tried to check forced conversions of Arians and Jews,
there were too many others who abetted pogroms.
The state was raised to a pitch of culture not attained by any contemporary Teutonic
principality. Every effort was made to secure the establishment of orderly succession to a strong
but not absolute monarchy. The Liber Judiciorum, a common code issued in 654, was the most
enlightened document of its kind and time. Roman and Visigothic customs were blended and
imposed upon the entire nation, once they had been revised in accord with Christian principles.
This adaptation of the Justinian Code tried to uphold an objective law without acceptation of
persons-non-Catholics excepted. By the middle of the seventh century the Visigothic nation
entered upon a brief golden age which must be ascribed chiefly to clerical influence.
(2) HISTORICAL SURVEY (610-80)
Rivalry for the throne (610-41). The new regime made halting progress at first because
of rivalry for the throne. Gundemar (610-12) restored Catholic ascendancy, but died after a reign
of but twenty-one months. Sisebut (612-20) was scholar, conqueror, and something of a bigot.
Though he expelled the remaining Byzantine garrisons, he prepared new centers of disaffection
by opening persecution of the Jews. The motive seems to have been religious uniformity, for the
subsequent pretext-which did not lack truth-that the Jews were in sympathy with the Saracens,
could not yet have been alleged. After the death of Sisebut's son, Reccared II (620-21), Swinthila
(621-31) seems to have tried to conciliate the lower classes against the nobility. He was deposed
by Count Sisenand of Septimania, who usurped the throne (631-36). He and his successors,
Chintilla (636-39) and Tulga (639-41) were mediocre rulers, but docile to the bishops who in 633
condemned forced conversions and the usurpation of the throne.
Peaceful prosperity (641-72). The Visigothic state reached its height under
Chindaswinth (641-52) and his son Reccaswinth (652-72). Preceding reigns had been disturbed
by conspiracies of the nobility who tried to subject the monarchy to their control. The nobles
expected that the elderly Chindaswinth would prove a pliant tool; instead, he promptly asserted
central authority. The first five years of his reign were spent in pursuing rebels, past and present,
among the nobility. He likewise forced the bishops to pronounce excommunication upon such
rebels in the Council of Toledo of 646. Such measures, sanctioned by 700 executions, restored
order. To render this discipline permanent, Chindaswinth planned and his son promulgated the
new code, Liber Judiciorum. While Chindaswinth was prone to be somewhat anticlerical,
Rcccaswinth worked in close harmony with the hierarchy. A brief revolt of the nobility was easily
subdued, and Reccaswinth could relax his father's severe measures. Perhaps, however, his
preoccupation with the arts of peace induced him to neglect the danger threatening Spain in the
Saracen advance through northern Africa which began in 670. This was, however, still remote
when Reccaswinth died without direct heirs in 672.
Military revival. Prince Wamba (672-80) did recognize the Saracen danger and strove to
prepare for it. During the years of peace the old Visigothic militia had practically disbanded and
Wamba strove to revive it. In 673 he decreed compulsory service in the army. Heavy penalties
were laid on those who sought to shirk this service, especially by entering monasteries. This
tighteDing of the reins provoked new restiveness among the nobility, and some bishops resented
the Prince's orders that they mobilize their serfs. Wamba proved the necessity and efficacv of his
military measures by repulsing a Saracen raid on Algericas and by destroying the enemy fleet.
But in 680 he fell into a prolonged coma and the nobles shipped him off to a monastery. When he
regained consciousness he found himself deposed and powerless. "Foul play is suspected."
C. Visigothic Collapse (680-717)

(1) DECLINE (680-709)
Prince Erwig (680-87). Wamba's difficulty was capitalized upon by Count Erwig who
ascended the throne with the sanction of Archbishop Julian of Toledo (679-90) whom he made
virtual prime minister. Erwig sought to bolster his dubious title to the crown by concessions to the
nobles who had opposed Wamba and by prosecuting Wamba's adberents. Thereby were formed
two feuding factions who henceforth prevented unified action. Another menace was seen in the
Jews who looked upon the Saracens advancing through Africa as potential liberators. Against the
Jews, Erwig was exceedingly severe. By an edict 681 he not only ordered them to receive
baptism within a year under penalty of exile, but subjected those who should accept Christianity
to minute regulations. Such a decree could not have been fully enforced. At the close of an
ineffective reign Erwig sought to conciliate the opposing faction by recognizing Wamba's relative
as his heir.
Egica (687-701), the nobleman thus favored, at once broke his facile promises of
reconciliation and began in turn to prosecute Erwig's family, thus prolonging the feud. The
Saracens came nearer and some Jews confessed, probably under torture, that they had invited
their intervention in Spain. In retaliation, Egica had the sixteenth Council of Toledo (695) enact
the decree already alluded to: servitude for adults and seizure of children. Such Jews as were
able to do so escaped to Africa; others probably awaited a day of vengeance under the mask of
outward conformity.
Witiza (701-9), Egica's son, began his reign with an amnesty toward his father's foes, but
this seems merely to have encouraged them in their turbulence. Whether Witiza then became a
suspicious tyrant, as some of the confused accounts represent him, or remained benevolent, he
seems at least to have maintained the principality secure against foreign attacks. While still a
young man, he terminated
his reign by death or deposition.
(2) AND FALL (709-17)
Don Roderick, an almost legendary figure, now emerges as the last Visigothic prince. It
seems that the nobility had elected him in opposition to Witiza's son, Achila. The latter and his
uncle, a Bishop Oppas, then took refuge with the Moors in North Africa, where thev were joined
by Count Julian, governor of Ceuta, said to have been incensed against Roderick by the latter's
rape of his daughter Florinda. Such Visigothic disaffection, at any rate, was scarcely necessary
to induce Musa, Saracen governor of Mauretania, to intervene. In 711 his general Tarik crossed
the Tangier Straits to capture the rock henceforth known as "Gibal-Tarik: Gibraltar." Advancing
toward Cordova, Tarik routed a Visigothic army at Xeres de la Frontera, July 19, 711. Musa now
intervened in person and defeated and killed Roderick in 713 near Salamanca. The Moors
pressed the Visigothic troops into the Pyrenees, and in 717 crossed into Septimania, the
Visigothic wedge into Gallic territory.
(3) THE FAITHFUL REMNANT
Desultory resistance continued for some time against the Moorish invaders in Spain.
Count Theudemir organized a tributary Christian principality in Murcia and in 754 his son
Athanagild was still in charge of it. Eventually, however, independent Spain was reduced to a tiny
mountainous corner of Asturias where Count Pelagius (Pelayo), one of Roderick's officers, held
out with die-hard Visigothic warriors. The Moors did not bother to impose their rule on this
inaccessible and insignificant territory once they had been checked at the Cave of Cavadonga,
and left the survivors to maintain an isolated and precarious independence.
From this nucleus grew the medieval Christian principalities which at length took the
offensive against the Moors. The prolonged contest of the Reconquista was not terminated until
1492, with Columbus waiting in the wings to open the history of the New World. This reconquest,
however, did Dot properly get under way until the close of the century when Charles the Great's
invasion raised Christian hopes. Even then the area regained was paltry and the reaction was
slow in gaining momentum. Not until the dissolution of the Caliphate of Cordova during the
eleventh century did it fairly get under way. A united Spain was still farther in the future; for the
present the broken pieces of Visigothic civilization were subjected to domination by an alien
religion and culture.
56. English Christian Origins (597-750)
VIII
56. ENGLISH CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
A. Anglo-Saxon Invasion
(1) THE CELTIC BACKGROUND
The Britons were the dominant group among the earliest historical inhabitants of
England. Numbers of the same Celtic race that invaded Ireland', they had crossed over from
Gaul at least by the fourth century before Christ. Prior to the Roman conquest they were divided
into many tribes. Druidism undoubtedly flourished, though information about native religious
practices is not abundant. Naturalism, superstition, a priestly caste, and hints of human sacrifice
are reported.
The Romans explored the island with Caesar in 55-54 B.C., but did not begin permanent
occupation until 43 A.D. Julius Agricola, governor from 78 to 85, completed the conquest of
England, Wales, and the Scottish lowlands. Romanization emanating from the metropolis of
Londinum followed, and survives in roads and "chesters." castra.
Christianity had reached Britain by 208 if we may believe Tertullian. St. Alban appears on
good authority as a martyr during the Decian persecution, and that Christianity made good
progress is clear from the presence of bishops of London, York, and Lincoln at the Council of
Arles in 314. Other British bishops are mentioned in the course of the Arian controversies, and
the career of Pelagius presupposes a well-established Christian community. There is also
considerable archaeological evidence of the presence of Christianity in Roman Britiian. The well-
authenticated visits of St. Germanus of Auxerre to battle Pelagianism in 429 and 447 give reason
to believe that the British church, if not as widely spread as throughout the rest of the empire, was
nonetheless flourishing. But with St. Germanus's visits a dark curtain descends on Roman British
history and only dim figures are seen until after the arrival of St. Austin.
British survival after the departure of the bulk of the Roman forces in 410 was
problematical. The Romanized Celtic provincials were subjected to raids from the Gaels in
Ireland, the Picts in the Scottish Highlands, and the Saxon pirates who had harried the coast as
early as 287. Regular Roman garrisons terminated in 443, and a British Prince Vortigern may
well have hired Anglo-Saxon foederati to replace them. In any event, the Britons got more than
they bargained for when Teutons, authorized or not, poured into the island. Prince Arthur is an
historical but shadowy figure of the British resistance during the sixth century. British defeat at
Deorharn in 577 isolated Cornwall, while that at Chester in 613 cut off Strathclyde. The only
independent Britons were henceforth confined to Wales. Here an alleged relative of Prince
Arthur, St. David, organized Christian life about his see of Menevia in Pembrokeshire, thereafter
known as St. David's. St. David, who died about 600, was a diligent monastic founder. There is
no doubt that he and his successors acknowledged papal primacy, though communication with
the Holy See was infrequent until the ninth century.
(2) ANGLO-SAXON CONQUEST (450-800)

Invasion. According to legend, the first Teutonic invaders of England were Jutish
mercenaries under their chiefs Hengist and Horsa who had been hired by a British Prince
Vortigern. Arriving in 449, they established themselves in southeastern England, subsequently
known as Kent. In 477 Chief Aella is supposed to have conducted a band of Saxons from the
Baltic coasts. Their tribal divisions of West, South, Middle, and East Saxons gave names to
Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, and Essex. Arrival of the Angles is not reported until the middle of
the following century. They are believed to have originally inhabited the "angle" at the base of the
Danish peninsula. We are told that the North Angles formed two states of Bernicia and Deira,
later merged into Northumbria. One Wuffa brought the East Angles to the region which still
preserves their name about 571. Finally Cridda led Middle Angles into north-central England
shortly afterwards to found the principality of Mercia. There must have been many successive
landings, but there is no reason to question the rough outline of the legendary pattern of invasion.
Consolidation. By 613 most of modern England had been won from the Britons and the
period of invasion may e considered over. At first there were doubtless many petty tribal units,
but about 600 these consolidated into the traditional "Heptarchy": Kent, Essex, Sussex, Wessex,
East Anglia, Northumbria, and Mercia-though a principality of Hwicce existed for a time in the
area of Gloucestershire.
Hegemony. Not until the ninth century was a uniRed Kingdom of England formed.
Before that time, however, various princes achieved a temporary and often purely personal
ascendancy as "brctwaldas" or broad-wielders beyond their own direct territory. The first of these
bretwaldas was Ethelbert of Kent (560-616) who providentially made St. Austin and his
missionaries welcome in 597. He had married Bertha, a granddaughter of Clovis of Frankland,
and eventually accepted Christianity. Kentish hegemony, however, scarcely survived his death.
The leadership passed to Northumbria, where the bretwaldas Edwin and Oswald proved of great
assistance to Anglo-Saxon missionaries. But with Oswy's death in 670 this principality began to
decline. Prince Ine of Wessex (688-726) was bretwalda in the South for a time and was able to
publish a primitive code of laws. Ine, however, abdicated and retired to Rome, and leadership
passed to Mercia. Princes Ethelbald (716-57) and Offa (757-96) were recognized both by Pope
Adrian and King Charles the Great as virtually rulers of England, and for the sake of Offa another
metropolitan see was temporarily erected at Lichfield. Offa also issued a code which has been
lost. His western fortification, "Offa's Dvke," fixed the Welsh boundary. But Mercia in turn went
down after his death, and it finally became the lot of Wessex to unite the Anglo-Saxon
principalities into the Kingdom of England during the ninth and tenth centuries.
B. Anglo-Saxon Conversion
(1) FOUNDATION IN KENT
Gregorian inspiration. Anglo-Saxon conversion is linked by legend to St. Gregory's puns.

Some time before his election to the papacy, his attention was attracted to some fair-haired
youthful captives sold as slaves in the Roman Forum. Told that thev were Angles, he retorted:
Non Angli sed Angeli. Thereupon he resolved to save these exiles from Deira, de ira Dei, and
vowed that alleluia might yet be chanted in Chief "Aella's land." But when he tried to undertake
the mission himself, Pope Pelagius II overruled him. St. Gregory received an intimation of this
obstacle when a locust lit on his book, indicating that he must at least for a time sta in loco. After
his election to the papacy, St. Gregory seems to have ceased to pun, but not to labor for
England's conversion. Either an occasion offered in 596 or he made one, for he writes that "it has
come to us that the race of the English desires with yearning to be converted to the Faith of
Christ, but that the bishops in their neighborhood are negligent." The last allusion is probably to
the degenerate state of the Frankish church which St. Columban was even then trying to reform.
The pope accordingly decided to send missionaries directly from Rome.
St. Austin's mission. For the English field, St. Gregory selected Benedictine monks from
his own Abbey of St. Andrew. Their chief was his own successor as abbot, St. Augustine or
Austin. He was named vicar-apostolic of the English in 596, though not actually consecrated
bishop by Vergilius of Arles until 597 or 598 after the mission had begun. After St. Gregory had
overridden their misgivings, St. Austin and his band of forty monks landed on the Isle of Thanet
early in spring, 597. Within a few days they were granted an interview with Prince Ethelbert,
whose wife Bertha, who must have been a Christian, disposed him favorably. Nevertheless the
prince received the band in the open air where he deemed himself safe from incantations; indeed,
he seems to have been more frightened than the monks as they moved forward in solemn
procession chanting a litany. St. Austin then preached of how "the compassionate Jesus had
redeemed the world of sin by His own agony and opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all who
would believe." Ethelbert replied: "Your words are very fair, but as they are new to us and of
uncertain import, I cannot assent to them and give up what I have long held; . . . but we make no
objection to your winning as many disciples as you can." But by Pentevogt a few months later the
Prince himself was one of the converts, and the Jutes began to follow his example. St. Austin
baptized ten thousand on Christmas, 599, and the mission began to extend into Essex, then
tinder Kentish domination. St. Austin established his see at Canterbury, and in 601 St. Gregory
sent him the pallium symbolizing his metropolitan jurisdiction over the entire Anglo-Saxon church.
Twelve suffragan sees were to be erected, and a beginning was made at London and Rochester
where Meletius and Justus, leaders of the re-enforcements sent in 601, were installed. The pope
even then contemplated another metropolitan see at York to have jurisdiction over the northern
portion of England. But these plans had to be left for future missionaries, for St. Austin died on
May 26, 604, just two months after St. Gregory the Great.
(2) EXPANSION
Kentish crisis. St. Lawrence, second archbishop of Canterbury (604-19) lived to see
Ethelbert's successor Edbald (616-40) relapse into a anism. The convert rince of Essex, Sebert,
was also succeeded by pagan rulers who drove Meletius from London. St. Lawrence weems to
have mediated abandoning the anglo-Saxon mission until reassured by a vision of St. Peter.
Prince Edbald was later won over to the Faith and the exiled bishops were permitted to return.
By the time of Archbishop Honorius (630-53), the Kentish mission was relatively secure and
attention shifts to Northumbria whether Ethelbert's daughter, St, Ethelberga, had gone as bride of
the pagan Edwin of Delra.
Northumbrian conquest. Edwin was the son of Deira's founder, Aella, whom St. Gregory
had promised an alleluia. Since Edwin had assured his bride the free exercise of her religion, St.
Paulinus, who had been consecrated vicar apostolic for York, accompanied her. Edwin's victory
over Wessex came after invocation of Christ induced him to inquire into the new religion. The
pagan priest Coifi seconded his interest, and Edwin and many of his people were baptized at
Easter, 627. During the next few years Christianity spread in all areas touched by St. Edwin's
influence, which extended into East Anglia and Essex. Here the missionaries Felix and Fullan of
Burgundy labored. A setback occurred when Edwin was defeated and slain in 633 by the
fanatical pagan, Penda of Mercia (626-54). Since the profession of Christianity became well-nigh
impossible so long as Penda lived, St. Paulinus fled back to Kent. But Edwin's daughter Eanfleda
had married Oswy of Bernicia, who in tirne regained control of Northumbria. The new princeand
his land were regame d for Christianitv by Celtic missionaries, as will be noted in the following
topics. Mistinderstandings arose between returning Anglo-Saxon and Roman missionaries and
the Celts. The Synod of Whitby, held in Oswy's presence in 664, decided in favor of the Roman
usages, and the Celtic monks ceded the English mission field.
Mercian mission. Oswy's daughter Aechfleda had married Penda's son Peada who
became a Christian and introduced his new faith to Mercia after his father's death. His brother
and successor Wulfhere (657-74), became an ardent champion of Christianity and seconded the
Celtic mission tinder Bishop Diuma.
Saxon conversion. Armed with a Roman commission, Birnius from Genoa began
preaching to the Saxons in 634. Prince Cynegils of Wessex (611-43) was induced to receive
baptism when his daughter Kineburga married Oswy's elder brother, Oswald of Bernicia, also a
Christian. St. Wilfrid of York preached in Sussex in 666 and brought Prince Ethelwald (648-85)
into the Church. Though the Saxon mission experienced some relapses, Christianity was secure
by the time of the devout Prince Ine of Wessex (688-726). Doubtless there were the usual
number of superficial conversions but by the opening of the eighth century the Anglo-Saxons had
heard the Gospel and commenced in large part to embrace it.
(3) ORGANIZATION
St. Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek sent directly from Rome to occupy the primatial see of
Canterbury proved the organizing genius of the English Church. He summoned two plenary
councils at Hertford
(673) and Hatfield (660) at which unified calionical discipline was enacted and provision made for
the erection of dioceses with clearly defined limits and jurisdiction. In the course of his many
journeys through England, the aged but vigorous archbishop supervised the execution of these
decrees and arranged the boundaries of the new dioceses to correspond as nearly as possible to
the civil frontiers of the principalities. He also sustained the decrees of the Synod of Whitby (664)
in favor of uniEcd Roman liturgical usages throughout the Anglo-Saxon realms. Thus was
England given the traditional Roman territorial episcopate, and any tendencv to introduce the
Celtic monastic jurisdictional system halted. St. Theodore's influence on the political evolution of
England cannot be overestimated, for ecclesiastical unity was prior to and pointed the way to
political unification. In fact, the English political system, inherited by the United States, owes
more to the Roman Church than to the secular institutions of the Roman Empire. St. Theodore
also vindicated for Canterbury the primacy of the English Church, and this it never lost even when
York was later also made an archbishopric. After the Kingdom of England amid been formed, the
proximity of Canterbury to the metropolis of London and the royal residences made its
archbishops important personages in the state as well as the Church.
The See of York. St. Gregory's plan for a second metropolitan see at York was slow of
realization. After the Synod of Whitby, the see was claimed by the doughty St. Wilfrid who
defended the Roman usages against Celtic monks, and his own episcopal independence against
St. Theodore himself. No less than three times did St. Wilfrid go to Rome in person to have his
claims vindicated. But while he sustained the principle of appeal to the Holy See, this "holy
terror" was often thwarted by princes and bishops at home. PostlitimousIv he won his case in
England also, for about 747 St. Egbert was nanied metropolitan of York. Except for the brief
existence of the Mercian archbishopric of Lichfield (787-803), Canterbury and York remained the
only metropolitan sees in medieval England; Catholic England did not have three metropolitans
again until 1911.
Monastic scholarship. The Anglo-Saxons always preserved a special veneration for the
Benedictine monks who had brought them the Faith, and they cherished the learning which was
preserved in the English monastic centers. St. Benedict Biscop (628-90), founder of Wearmouth
Abbey in Northumbria, rivaled St. Wilfrid in his visits to Rome, though these concerned less points
of discipline than the collection of relics, books, and pictures. St. Bede of Jarrow (673-735),
monk, priest, encyclopedist, and doctor of the Church, must be given the greater share of credit
for the bigtorioal 6owledge that we possess about the beginnings of the Anglo-Saxon Church.
His death praotically ooineideg with the end of the period of Anglo-Saxon foundations, but Anglo-
Saxon scholarship continued to flourish at York, and one of its luminaries, of learning on the
Continent.

57. Celtic Christianity (461-795)
VIII
57. CELTIC CHRISTIANITY
A. Gaelic Ireland
(1) GAELIC ORIGINS
Pre-Celtic Ireland. The legendary Book of Invasions introduces us to 61 Invasions
featuring Firbolgs, Tuatha de Danaan, and Milesians between 1397 and 1120 B-c. The legends,
however, seem to have been a mythical reconstruction of Irish history to correspond with the five
ages of the world outlined by Paul Orosius. History, on the other band, suggests that the Irish
aborigines were neolithic men, users of flint. The Firbolgs, small dark men using bronze, are
supposed to be Iberi or Basques. The Tuatha de Danaan must be identified with the Picts-if they
do not designate some mythical race of demigods. Milesians are equated with the Celts, though
their invasion is to be placed about 350 B.C., during the general Celtic migration of which the
Galatian invasion of Greece in 279 B.C. may be considered the closing episode.
The Gaels or Goidels possibly came directly from southern France or northern Spain by
sea. They were a tall race with red-blond hair, speaking an Indo-European language. They had
learned the use of tempered iron, and were able to impose their will upon the earlier settlers of
Ireland, Yet they remained an upper-class minority subsequently influenced by the subject
peoples. Division of Ireland into the "fifths" of Ulster, Munster, Leinster, Meath, and Connaught is
believed to be pre-Celtic, and it is conjectured that the somewhat democratic institutions of the
continental Celts were modified in a monarchical direction. But historical Ireland is already Gaelic
Ireland: Eriu or Erin, a name rendered by the Romans as Hibernia.
Political evolution differed considerably from Roman and Teutonic, and classical
centralism and medieval feudalism were never the Gaelic ideal. Rather, an ingrained clan spirit
remained opposed to the concept of political unity; learning and religion were the chief common
bonds. As fully organized, there were 184 tuaths in Ireland, each ruled by a ri, chief of a petty
clan or tribe. Chieftaincy was elective from a ruling family, The chief was not absolute: he had to
rule according to custom and could be deposed, Often a number of tuaths were combined into a
mor-tuath or great chieftaincy, and these by the Christian era were ranged into provinces,
presided over by a prince. Over all was the ard-ri or great or high prince, who presided over a
parliament traditionally held at Tara in Meath. The ard-ri was in no sense a strong monarch, but
more or less titular overlord of a number of autonomous chiefs or princes. While legendary lists
of ard-ris go back into antiquity, the first effective ruler that need be noted was the ard-ri Nial of
the Nine Hostages (375-405). The legitimate overlordship continued in his descendants, the
O'Neills, until the Norman invasion, though after 1002 O'Neill primacy was repeatedly challenged
by O'Briens, O'Connors, and other provincial chiefs.
(2) GAELIC INSTITUTIONS
Society. The social classes were not greatly different from those of other peoples.
Besides the chiefs there were flaiths or nobles who owned their own land, freemen, subdivided in
accord with the amount of land rented from the nobles, and nonfree groups, some of whom were
outright slaves. Though Christianity was to modify the lot of the latter, the Synod of Armagh in
1171 still had occasion to castigate an extensive traffic in slaves. Slavery, however, was not the
spirit of Irish society, but rather the Brehon maxim: "It is the people that ordain the chief, and not
the chief that ordains the people." Clan solidarity, with certain possessions in common, was an
important social factor.
Brehon Law, The immemorial customs of the Gaels were collected in what may be
termed the "Brehon Code," The Senchus Mor, roughly corresponding to civil law, and the Book of
Acaill, a sort of criminal code, were interpreted by the brehons, a learned class carefully trained
not merely in law, but in all secular culture. The existing Brehon Code was hater revised in
harmony with Christian principles, reputedly by St. Patrick himself. Since strong government
never developed, statutory law was practically nonexistent, and custom proved tenacious. The
clan had eminent domain over all land, subjecting all owners of tenants to certain public
obligations. Strictly speaking, rent was paid for use of seed and cattle on the land, not for the
land itself. Introduction of alien Norman theories of land tenure would cause many of Ireland's
social and economic woes, for the Gaelic system was contractual as opposed to state
compulsion. The criminal code was akin to the Teutonic codes: crime was a tort against kindred
to be compensated by fines. Though arbitration was possible, in the absence of a strong political
power feuds were rampant.
Druidism was the religion of the Gaels, as of all the Celts, but so complete was the
Christian conquest of Irish culture that most descriptions of Irish paganism survive in Christian
sources, Apparently the Celtic aversion for centralization applied to religion, for there is no record
of any clearly defined hierarchy of gods. Vague figures flit through the legends without specific
functions. An idol Bel was popular, and children were immolated to Crum Cruaich, "chief idol of
all Ireland." It may be that the Gaels had a higher culture than their continental Celtic cousins, for
Christianity does not seem to have encountered formidable obstacles. True, elves, fairies, and
banshees peopled every nook and cranny of Ireland, nor is there any sign that they departed
immediately after the introduction of Christianity.
B. Christian Ireland
(1) INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY
Recapitulation: St. Patrick (385-461), as already narrated, was, if not the first, at least the
most famous missionary to Ireland. Captured as a youth by Nial of the Nine Hostages, he was
unwittingly prepared to return as missionary bishop in 432. He established headquarters in
Ulster, at Saul Monastery and the see of Armagh. Under his guidance the work of conversion
proceeded rapidly, aided by re-enforcements from the Continent and promising recruits from
Ireland itself. Though his own mission centered in Connaught, St. Patrick is said to have
preached in all the "five fifths" of Ireland before he died on March 17, 461. The work of
evangelization was already far advanced at his death. Conal Creevan, one of the O'Neill princes,
had been converted, though the first certainly Christian ard-ri was his grandson, Grand Prince
Dermot I (544-65), Under Dermot the official Druidic cult at Tara ceased, and Irish paganism was
henceforth on the way out.
Ecclesiastical organization. According to tradition St. Patrick made an ad limina visit to

Rome about 440 and received metropolitan jurisdiction over all Ireland from St. Leo the Great.
On his return he made Armagh his primatial see and prepared to introduce the typical hierarchical
organization of the Latin Rite. But he and his successors encountered unusual difficulties.
Throughout the Roman Empire the Church had been uniformly organized around the civitas; a
municipality became an episcopal see whence jurisdiction emanated into the rural districts by
means of the excellent Roman communication system. Nor did the Teutonic invasions entirely
disrupt this order, for many Roman towns survived, if in a diminished size. Indeed, the
established episcopal residence remained an urban nucleus, and in the feudal era the civitas
often evolved into a walled burg over which the bishop exercised secular as well as religious
jurisdiction. St. Patrick and his colleagues had grown up in this ecclesiastical environment and
intended to imitate it in Ireland. But Ireland was a country of rural clans, without cities or even
towns, devoid of good communications, and lacking it strong central authority to provide them.
Not even briefly had Rome occupied the country, Perforce St. Patrick accommodated himself to
the tribal system in his provisional organization of the Christian mission, The converts were
gathered into communities to preserve them in the Faith, But the tuaths were so numerous that a
bishop could not be placed over each congregation. St. Patrick resorted to the expedient of
naming priests and abbots over the smaller divisions, and gathering the clergy into a strictly
monastic or semimonastic society, For ecclesiastical property he adopted the Brehon system of
land tenure, These adaptations, however, did not essentially modify the traditional hierarchical
organization; in St. Patrick's time the episcopal hierarchy was still the paramount authority and
monastic jurisdiction remained subordinate and auxiliary.
(2) PARTICULARISTIC EVOLUTION
Monastic development. Circumstances, however, proved too strong for St. Patrick's
designs, and from the sixth to the twelfth century the Irish church took on a distinctively monastic
character. Of great moment in this change is the fact that during much of this time Ireland was
more or less isolated front the Holy See and continental Christendom. After the death of St. Leo
the Great, the Roman Empire in the West collapsed and was not even briefly restored until the
days of Charles the Great (768-814). Left largely to her own resources, the Irish church
developed certain disciplinary peculiarities, though doctrine was in no way affected. During the
sixth century the great monastic foundations began. These were legion: Armagh, Clonard,
Bangor, Clonmacnoise, Lismore, Mungret, Glendalough do not exhaust the list. A numerous
progeny came especially from St. Finian's foundation at Clonard, and St. Congal's at Bangor. St.
Bridget (453-523) was the matriarch of many convents for women. Irish devotion endowed these
great monastic centers with land and wealth, and they soon became centers of both religious and
secular culture. The abbeys developed into veritable cities and their abbots became
correspondingly prominent personages. When their influence grew to provincial, even national,
proportions, it tended to overshadow that of a bishop whose resources were sometimes confined
to a petty tuath. Conflicts in jurisdiction were averted either by the abbot receiving episcopal
consecration, or the bishop taking up residence in an abbey. It was not long before the heads of
great monasteries were abbot-bishops: Cormac, St. Patrick's fourth successor at Armagh, is so
described. Abbots who were not bishops or even priests completely overshadowed rural pastors.
Thus episcopal and abbatial jurisdiction became confused, though of course the distinction in
orders was maintained. An anomaly often arose when the abbots, by monastic tradition simple
priests or deacons, would exercise both monastic and parochial jurisdiction without being
consecrated, while they designated one of their subjects to receive consecration in order to
confirm and ordain. Bishops in orders thus became auxiliaries of abbots, As long as abbots and
bishops were zealous and holy men, religious life did not stiffer too much, but with lay
commendation under secular domination spiritual decline set in, This degeneration, however,
belongs to the Celtic "Dark Ages" which followed the present "Golden Age."
Liturgical peculiarities were less important, though for many centuries they afforded fuel
for clerical controversies. St. Patrick had introduced the Roman liturgy as it was known in his day
. But during the
interruption of communications, Rome progressed while the Irish tenaciously held to the customs
bequeathed to them by St. Patrick. Thus the Irish kept the old defective Roman Easter cycle,
even after this had been corrected by Denis the Little early in the sixth century, and had been
brought to England by St. Austin. Pope Honorius criticized the old-fashioned Irish aside;
whereupon the Synod of Magh Lene (630), citing St. Patrick on Roman primacy, sent envoys to
the Holy See. Southern Ireland seems to have yielded by 640, though it was -,mother century
before northern Ireland and Scotland had come up to date. Another difference lay in the fact that
Celtic monasticism derived its rule through St. Patrick from John Cassian and the Orient, while St.
Benedict's rule was becoming universal in England and on the Continent. Some details of the
ensuing misunderstandings will be furnished by the following topic on the Celtic missions.
(3) Ireland's Golden Age (400-800)
Early rivalry. Disputes for the succession to the overlordship among the many
descendants of Nial of the Nine Hostages disturbed Ireland for some time. The uncertain mode
of succession accounted for feuds. Thus Nial's successor was his nephew Dathy (405- 28) and
his own son Leary (428- 63) was followed by Dathy's son Ailill (463- 83). The latter was slain in
the battle of Ocha and succeeded by Lewy, Leary's son (483- 512). Murtogh I of Ulster then
mounted the throne (512- 33) only to be followed by a distant relative, Tuathal (533- 44).
Relative stability was reached with Dermot I (544- 65), the Christian ard-ri who destroyed
official druidism. Thereafter the succession alternated as a general rule between the Northern Hi-
Neill, descendants of Nial through Murtogh I, and the Southern Hi-Neill, descendants through
Dermot I. The power of the former lay in Ulster, while that of the latter was in Meath, Until the
usurpation of Brian Boru in 1002 this alternate succession secured a modicum of good order. So
long as there was no foreign menace, this system prevented tyrannical absolutism, but it proved a
glaring defect after the first recorded Norse raid in 795. Political disunion then prevented a
prompt and unified defense and the following desperate but disorganized struggle put an end to
Ireland's Golden Age. But before that time Ireland provided a haven of tranquility for piety and
culture in her flourishing monasteries and schools, while the Continent and England were still
subject to Teutonic barbarism, It was Ireland's tragedy that her civilization declined just as that of
the Continent revived: once again she was out of step.
58. Celtic Misions (400-800)
VIII
58. CELTIC MISSIONS
A. The Scottish Mission

(1) SCOTTISHBACKGROUND TO 844
The Picts, though probably not the original inhabitants of Scotland, occupied it during
historic times. The Romans left them their barbaric independence beyond the Tweed, in a region
known to them as Caledonia and to the Irish as Alba. When Roman power in Britain began to
wane, the Picts strove to penetrate into England, only to be repulsed by the Anglo-Saxon
newcomers. Themselves in turn attacked by Teutons and Celts, the Picts were restricted to the
northeastern portion of Scotland. perhaps this crisis needed stronger political organization, for
princes of Caledonia appear in the annals after 555. The introduction of Christianitv broke down
the barriers to association with other Scottish principalities and prepared the way for the union of
Caledonia with Gaelic Dalraida under Kenneth MaAlpine, first king of Scotland.
The Scots were really Irish invaders. During the reign of Nial of the Nine Hostages or
even earlier Irish settlements were made in the western portion of Scottland. About 470, Fergus
MacErca, chief of Irish Dalaria, crossed over from Antrim to Argyle and consolidated existing
Gaelic groups into the principality of Scottish Dalaria. The Irish were able to establish permanent
control over Argyleshire and the Isles and to contend on equal terms with the Picts. In 575
princely authority was enhanced by St. Columkil, who is reported to have officiated at the first
coronation of a British prince. Aiden, the prince so honored is supposed to have transmitted this
ritual and the still magical :Stone of Scone" to Kenneth MacAlpine.
North Angles founded the Northumbrian principality, which extended to the Firth of forth.
Edinborough, their capital, was named after the first Christian prince, St. Edwin. Northumbria
thus for a time extended on both sides of the modern English-Scottish border. In this point of
junction between Celtic and Teutonic culture the Irish missionaries first came into contact with the
Roman and Anglo-Saxon traditions deriving from St. Austin, Danish invasions later cut ofl
Northumbria from southern England, and the successors of Kenneth MacAlpiDe were able to
annex Lothian, the area between the Firth of Forth and the Tweed, By 1018 the medieval and
modern border had been established.
The Britons who had been forced back by the invading Anglo-Saxons were reduced to
Cornwall, Wales, and Strathclyde. The last named territory occupied the land west of
Northurnbria, along the Clyde River. This Celtic principality maintained a degree of independence
until annexed by Malcolm II of Scotland in 1018.
(2) CONVERSION OF THE SCOTS
St. Ninian (360-432) is the first certainly historical apostle of Scotland, though doubtless
there were some scattered Pictish Christians before him by reason of proximity to Roman Britain,
St. Ninian, possibly a native Piet, studied at Rome and was consecrated bishop by Pope St.
Siricius (384-99). About 402 he returned to his native land. At Whithorn he founded a monastery
and erected the first known stone church in Scotland. Though traditionally regarded as the
apostle of the Picts, St. Ninian may have preached among the Scots as well. He did not convert
all the Picts, but he rendered easier the task of the Irish missionaries who followed.
St. Columkil (521-97) is the best known and most successful of the missionaries to
Scotland. He bore the name of Columba or Colum, surnamed Cille, "dove of the Church." On his
father's side he was a direct descendant of Nial of the Nine Hostages, while his mother was
descended from Earc, ancestor of the princes of Dalraidan Scotia. St. Columkil became a monk
at Clonard, and after his ordination to the priesthood himself founded Derry, the first of thirty-
seven monastic schools that he established in Ireland. But his career was not to continue at
home. It is said that it was his zeal for learning that got him into trouble. When he had secretly
copied a manuscript of Abbot Finian of Moville, the latter accused him before Grand Prince
Dermot. The ard-ri awarded the copy to the of the manuscript, according to a Brehon maxim: "To
every cow he calf; to every book its copy." The irate scholar was nothing loathe to assist his
judge's enemies, and participated with other O'Neill princelings in the bloody battle of
Culdreimhne (c. 560). For this Columkil was excommunicated, and his confessor, St. Molaise, is
said to have imposed on him as a penance to save as many souls as he had destroyed bodies in
battle. If this be true, St. Columkil fulfilled his assignment. With twelve companions he
disembarked at Iona in Scotia and there founded a monastery which became a center for the
whole Scottish mission. Though the Saint and his successors were priests, they came to
exercise over the infant Scottish church the peculiarly Irish abbatial jurisdiction. By the time of his
death, St. Columkil was not only leader of a flourishing mission, but first citizen of Scotland.
Hierarchical reorganization. Apparently St. Columkil's jurisdictional system survived until

the eighth century, but the decision of the Synod of Whitby (664) against Celtic usages in Britain
had spelled its doom. About 704 Abbot Adamnan of Iona was won over by Ceolfrid of Jarrow to
Roman customs, and these were introduced into Scotland during the following generation. Celtic
monks who resisted the change were expelled by the prince of the Picts. After the unification of
the monarchy under Kenneth MacAlpine, the ecclesiastical center shifted to Dunkeld, but by 908
had moved to St. Andrew's near Edinburgh where it remained throughout medieval history. But
not until the fifteenth century did the see achieve metropolitan status, because the English
bishops continued to claim jurisdiction over Scotland in virtue of the commission of St. Gregory
the Great.
B. The English Mission
(1) NOBTHUMBRIA
St. Aidan (d. 651), a monk of Iona, crossed over into the Northumbrian principality when
the missionary field had been deserted by Paulinus following the victory of Penda of Mercia. St.
Aidan established the abbey of LindisfarDe on an island off the coast. From this post he and his
successor, St. Fillian (651-61), effected the conversion of much of Northumbria and Strathclyde.
The next abbot, Colman (661-64) was worsted at the Synod of Whitby and left the field to the
Roman and Benedictine tradition. Lindisfarne remained a center of learning until it was sacked
by the Danes about 795.
St. Kentigern, alias Mungo, was another collaborator of St. Cohimkil, especially in
Strathclyde and North Wales. He became the first bishop of Glasgow and died in 603.
St. Chad, a monk from Lindisfarne, took over the administration of York. When
challenged by St. Wilfrid, he amicably allowed himself to be transferred to another jurisdiction in
Mercia.
(2) THE ROMANO-CELTIC RITUAL CONTROVEIRSY
The Issue. Ritual differences between Romans and Celts were eblefly three: (1) Paschal
observance. This was the most prominent point in the controversy. It was not a repetition of the
old Easter dispute settled at Nicea, but the result of the Celtic failure to kee abreast of Roman
liturgical reforms. The Irish and British thus preserved the cycle fixed by Anatolius which St.
Patrick had introduced, despite subsequent Roman calendar changes by Victorius (457) and
Denis the Little (525). (2) Baptismal rite. There was also some difference in the rite used in
administering baptism. The precise nature of the diversity is unknown, but it certainly did not
affect validity. (3) Form of tonsure. While Roman clerics and monks shaved the crown of the
bead, the Celtic monks shaved the forelock.
Hwicce Conference. St. Gregory the Great had given St. Austin extensive jurisdiction:
"All the bishops of Britain are entrusted to him to the end that the unlearned may be instructed,
the wavering strengthened by persuasion, and the perverse corrected by authority." About 601 St.
Austin had held two conferences with the British bishops in Hwicce. He proposed a common
missionary policy for which he declared the observance of the Roman Paschal cycle and the
Roman baptismal ritual essential. But the British hierarchal had long enjoyed their own way, nor
were they eager to convert the fierce Teutons who had robbed them of their country. They
accused St. Austin of pride and ambition, they refused to acknowledge his authority. Neither
these discussions nor subsequent admonitions from Popes Honorius and John IV seem to have
liked any noticeable effect.
Northumbrian dispute. But the British bishops were less intimately connected with the
conversion of the Anglo-Saxons than the Irish. Though the Northumbrian mission had been
commenced from Canterbury, after 633 it had been taken over by the Celtic clergy from
Lindisfarne. During the episcopate of St. Finian of Lindisfarne, Princess Eanfleda's chaplain,
Romamis from Canterbury, had protested against the Celtic usages which had been introduced
since Patilinus's departure. St. Wilfrid, originally a monk of Lindisfarne, now returned from studies
in Rome an ardent champion of the Roman usage. His new monastery at Ripon defied the Celtic
practices and his fiery intolerance led to disputes which seriously hindered effective
evangelization.
Synod of Whitby. To bring about unity, Prince Oswy assembled the missionaries at
Whitby in 664. The Celtic Bishop Colman declared: "The Easter which I keep I received from my
elders. . . . All our forefathers and St. John the Evangelist, the disciple beloved of our Lord,
practiced the same." To this St. Wilfrid had the following rebuttal: "The Easter which we observe
we saw Mchratcd by all at Rome, where the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, lived, tauglit,
suffered, and were buried." Oswy then gave his opinion: Clearly impressed by our Lord's imagery,
he asserted: "Peter is the doorkeeper whom I will not contradict, but will obey as far as I know in
all things, lest when I come to the gates of the kingdom of heaven there would be none to open
them, he being my adversary who is proved to have the keys." Colman left the country in disgust,
and shortly after the Celtic missionaries either followed him or conformed.
C. The Frankish Mission

(1) IRISHMEN ON THE CONTINENT
Irish scholars performed a priceless service to civilization by conserving Graeco-Roman

learning while the continental centers of culture were paralyzed by the Teutonic invasions. In time
the fruits of scholarship were returned to Europe with interest by Irish contributions to the Palatine
School of Emperor Charles the Great. Clement, second rector of the Palatine school, and John
Scotus Erigina will be mentioned later as representative of this numerous contingent.
Irish missionaries not only reformed the decadent clerical discipline

of Frankish Gaul, but pushed beyond to breal the around in Germany
for St. Boniface's subsequent apostolate. Their activities will presently be surveyed in treating
Frankish history, but here something may be said of the distinctive stamp of austerity given to
their spirit by their pioneer, St. Columban.
St. Columban (540-615), not to be confused with St. Columba or Cohnnkil, was born
somewhere in Leinster. We are informed that he was a handsome lad much sought by the
colleens. To escape them he entered the monastery founded by St. Congal at Bangor. Thence
he proceeded with twelve companions to the Frankish mission, which he conducted from
monastic foundations stemming from Luxeuil. It was there that he codified the observances
which constituted his monastic rule.
(2) THE COLUXTBAN RULE
St. Columban's rule is much sborter than that of St. Benedict. It consisted of but ten
chapters, but these give indications of a sharp contrast with the rule of St. Benedict which
eventually supplanted it. Its spirit was basically oriental, for it came from Egypt by way of Mar-
Moutier, Saul, and Bangor.
The office multiplied the number of psalms for daily and festive recitation, Sunday Matins
reaching the record total of 75 psalms and 25 antiphons. Though weekdays were less burdened,
the Celtic ideal seemed closer to daily recitation of the whole psalter than the Benedictine
principle of covering it each week.
Asceticism was more severe than the Benedictine. Food consisted of pulse, meal
moistened with water, and one small loaf of bread. Nothing more should be added to suit the
climate, tastes, or health of the monk. Meat and wine were never permitted anyone. Though
Benedictines were allowed two solid meals on most days, Columbans were obliged to be content
with one scanty repast near evening. Manual labor played a greater part in the horarium, nor was
there the Benedictine solicitude for adequate sleep.
Discipline presented the sharpest contrast, The slightest faults could deprive the monk of
his meal or expose him to a sound scouring. From six to fifty lashes were imposed for failure to
begin work with prayer, offering an excuse when corrected, or coughing at the beginning of a
psalm. Should a monk speak to a woman alone, two hundred lashes landed on him. The other
Celtic ritual peculiarities were preserved in the Columban rule. Enthusiasts among the Teutons
might embrace such a discipline for a time, but the majority would not long persevere. The
purpose of St. Columban and his rule seems to have been to shame continental laxists into
performance of at least their minimum duties; as a general way of life it proved unworkable and,
as will be seen, was forced to yield to the Benedictine at the Synod of Autun (670).
59. Merovingian Frankland (511-689)
VIII
59. MEROVINGIAN FRANKLAND
A. The Merovingian Monarchy (561-687)

(1) MEROVINGIAN VITALITY (511-638)
Dynastic schism. The powerful realm of the newly converted Clovis (481-511) was
broken up at his death by division among his four sons. They and their descendants warred
against their neighbors and among themselves until the Merovingian dominions were reunited in
558 under the surviving brother, Clotaire (511-61). He had learned nothing from his generation's
rivalry, however, and promptly redivided Frankland among his own four sons. The same
wearisome contests followed until by attrition a grandson, Clotaire II (584-628), reunited the realm
in 614. This time the contest was embittered by the feud between two women, Brunhilda of
Austrasia, and Fredegundis of Neustria. The latter, mistress of the ignoble Chilperic I (561-84),
had murdered Brunhilda's sister Galswintha. Against Fredegundis and her progeny Brunhilda
incited her husband, son, and grandsons, for whom she often acted as regent. Another
Merovingian, Gunthrurn of Burgundy (561-93), tried ineffectually to mediate, and St. Columban
boldly rebukcd the royal factions. He procured only his banishment, however, and Brunbilda's
saga unfolded to its doom: the princess, still avid for power at eighty, was tied to the heels of a
horse and dashed to pieces on the rocks. St. Columban's curse on her illegitimate great
grandchildren was verified, for the Austrasians strangled them an offered the throne to
Fredegundis's son, Clotaire II of Neustria.
Racial cleavage. It is possible that in the background of these personal quarrels lie the
beginnings of regional divisions and racial differences. Not only did the newly conquered
Burgundy preserve its separate entity within the Frankish realm, but a more clearly defined
fissure appeared in the Frankish tribe. Austrasia, the older northeastern portion of Frankland
including the ancestral territory, remained quite solidly Teutonic, while Neustria, the more newly
conquered area to the west and south came to include a large Romance element. These, by
accident or design, often had separate rulers or mayors. Doubtless this cleavage between
Eastern and Western Franks was centuries in growing, but by the Treaty of Verdun (843) their
respective militia could no longer understand one another's language, for an archaic German and
incipient French had developed.
Reunion interlude. After Brtinhilda's fall, Clotaire II thus reunited all of Frankland (614),
and was able to remain in sole control until his death in 628. But the nobles of Atistrasia,
Neustria, and Burgundy exacted of him the appoiritment of separate mayors of the palace. The
nobility was gaining in power as the princes became land poor and could no longer procure
military or civil service by bestowal of beneficia. Clotaire and his son Dagobert I (628-38; tried to
halt this process, but the latter was the last effective Merovin(rian ruler. Both princes promoted
ecclesiastical reform, or at least made it possible, and permitted Frankish society an interval of
relative calm.
(2) MEBOVINGIAN DECLINE (638-87)
Carolingian origins. During his youth Dagobert had been tinder the tutelage of St. Arnulf,
bishop of Metz, who alwavs remained a trusted advisor. From 623 to 639 he maintained in office
as mayor of Austrasia Courit Pepin (1) of Landen or Heristal. The Carolingian Orlasty, descended
from the marriage of St. Arnulf's son Ansegis 'to Pcpin's daughter Begga, eventually supplanted
the Merovingians.
Mayoralty ambitions. Dagobert's immorality brought him to an early demise, leaving two
sons aged nine and six. This provided an opportunity for the mayors of the palace to supplant the
Mcrovingians in effective control of Frankland, though it was not immediately evident what noble
family would win the prize. Pepin was succeeded as mayor of Austrasia by his son Grimwald
(639-56) who ruled for Dagobert's older son, Sigebert III (638-56) while Mayor Erkinwald (638-60)
exercised similar control over the boy prince Clovis II of Neustria. When Sigebcrt III died in 656,
Grimwald thought to seize the throne by installing his own son Childebert. But the magic of
Merovingian royalty still endured, and other nobles assisted Clovis II and Erkinwald in arresting
and executing Grimwald and son. Any chance that Clovis might have to profit by this victorv was
removed by his death in the same year. He left three infant sons, Clotaire III, Childeric II, and
Theodoric III, who were placed in nominal charge of one or more of the divisions of Frankland.
Clovis's widow, St. Bathildis from England, did preserve some form of harmony for a while before
retiring to a convent. The real power behind the throne was then revealed in the persons of
Mayor Wulfwald of Austrasia (656-78) and Mayor Ebroin of Neustria (660-81). St. Leger, bishop
of Autun and mayor of Burgundy, expelled Ebroin for a time, but the latter regained power and
after Wulfwald's death seized control of Austrasia as well. Assassination then put an end to his
avaricious tyranny, and the MayoraltV contest was again open. Throughout these years
Merovingian princes had been enthroned, transferred, and deposed more like pawns than kings.
Carolingian triumph. Into the contest now entered Pepin (II), grandson of St. Armilf. After
Ebroin's death in 681, Pepin obtained the office of mavor in Austrasia. Here he consolidated his
power while plottilia against successive mayors of Neustria, Warottan and Berthar, who had taken
possession of the sole surviving Merovingian, Theodoric III (673-91). In 687 Pepin felt strong
enough to attack Berthar. What proved to be a decisive contest was fought at Tertry, near St.
Quentin. Pepin won and thereby became sole mayor in the three Frankish realms until his death
in 714. Though Merovingian rois faineants reigned until 751, one annalist had the realism to
write: "In the year 687 Pepin began to rule."
B. The Merovinorian Church (585-670)

(1) ST. COLUMBAN's REVIVAL
Introduction: The importance of the Frankish church is linked with the destiriv of the
Franks. They were the only one of the invading tribes to found a powerful and prosperous
MODarclty. In time they not only absorbed remnants of other Teutonic principalities, but inherited
Rome's imperial title. Frankish conversion may be said to have proceeded in three stages. The
first was effected by Gallo-Roman bishops and monks trained in the school of St. Martin of Tours.
During the sixth century much of their good work was undone by Merovingian tyrants and their
clerical puppets. Though fifty councils attest episcopal efforts to reform, the church in Frankland
was in need of a new external stimulus. This second stage was conducted by St. Columban and
his Celtic monks. Restilts were startling, but not lasting. There was room for a third conversion
or reform, inspired by St. Boniface and his aides. Roman in liturgy, Benedictine in spirit, and
Teutonic in race, they proved better adapted to the Frankish character.
St. Columban (540-615) and twelve companions settled in the dominions of Gunthrum of
Burgandy, best of the reigning Merovingians. About 585 St. Columban formed a monastic center
in the ruins of an old Roman castle in the Vosges Mountains. Five years later he had moved
some eight miles to another castle, Luxovium, site of Luxeuil Abbey. When this house no longer
sufficed for his many disciples, St. Columban founded others, notably at Fontaines, over which he
continued to exercise supreme direction. All these monasteries observed the austere Columban
rule, already analyzed, which seems to have been formulated at Luxeuil by 600. Nor did the
Saint confine his austerity to the monastic walls. Lay penitents received as penances long fasts
on bread and water, denial of meat and wine, and pilgrimages requiring years to fulfill. Such
severity, if not generally imitated, was admired and virtually compelled some sort of emulation at
a distance.
Persecution, however, was not long in coming. St. Columban was scarcely tactful in
hinting to the Holy See that the Roman liturgy was well-nigh heretical, in openly terming Frankish
bishops "scribes and pharisees," and in reproving Merovingian princes for their flagrant
immorality. Indeed, the Celtic tonsure must have been a standing affront to Merovingians who
deemed a fuzzy pate essential to royalty. When St. Columban refused to bless Brunhilda's
illegitimate brood about 611, he discovered that his visa had expired. After some wandering he
descended into Lombard Italy where he founded the monastery of Bobbio near Milan. Soon he
was enmeshed in the Three Chapter Strife surviving at Aquileia, and lecturing Pope Boniface IV
on the iniquities of Vigilius. He was quite in error, but his undoubted good faith must have
induced the Holy See to benign toleration of this self-styled "foolish Scot" whose holiness none
could deny. He died in peace and Roman communion at Bobbio in 615.
(2) COLUMBAN MISSIONARIES
Frankland. Brunbilda's death put an end to opposition to the Columbans for a time.
Though St. Columban himself refused an invitation of Clotaire II to return, he commended Luxeuil
to royal protection. His successor at Luxeuil, St. Eustace (d. 625), became one of the most
influential ecclesiastics of the country. Under St. Eustace and St. Walbert (d. 665) Luxeuil
functioned as the center of a large monastic family. St. Donatus founded St. Paul and Jussa-
Moutier; St. Deicolus establisbed Lure; Ermenfrid, Cusance; St. Germanus, Grandval,
Vandregesil, and Fontenelle; St. Philibert, Jumieges, and St. Owen, Rebais, and Jourarre. St.
Burgondofara and her brother St. Faron erected Columban rule convents, while Romaric set up
"conasteries,` institutes with an abbey and convent in juxtaposition. In 627 the Synod of Macon
sanctioned the Columban rule, and for a time its influence prevailed in Gaul.
Lombardy. St. Columban's successor at Bobbio, Attalus (615-62), had an important part
in converting the Lombards from paganism and Arianism, and in preserving them from
entanglement in the Istrian schism. Attalus prudently substituted Roman ritual usages.
Switzerland. Though the Alamanni inhabiting Switzerland were under Frankish
suzerainty, they had been scarcely exposed to Christianity, St. Columban himself visited the land,
while his disciple St. Gall devoted his life to its conversion. He founded the monastery which later
bore his name on Lake Constance, and refused election to the abbacy of Luxeuil to continue on
the Alamanian mission until his death in 646.
Bavaria, though also under the overlordship of the Franks, was by now virtually
independent under its own dukes. About 580 Duke Theudo invited St. Rupert to preach at
Regensburg, and that pioneer missionary is known to have converted the duke and some of his
followers. But St. Emmeramis of Poitiers is better known. When St. Rupert died, St. Enuncranus
took tip his work. Three years afterwards (655) he was murdered by Theudo's son Lambert on
the false denunciation of Princess Ota whom he had tried to convert. The mission languished but
was later revived by St. Corbinian and St. Boniface.
Thuringia. This land had been conquered by the Franks in 531, but it was not
evangelized until the next century. Then the mission was undertaken by the Irish bishop Kilian
with his companions Coloman and Totnan. Though Duke Gtizbert accepted baptism, he
maintained an incestuous union with his brother's widow, Geilana. When St. Kilian denounced
the scandal, he met the fate of St. John the Baptist. His companions were also murdered and the
mission lapsed. Though the work of the Celtic missionaries in central Europe was, then, neither
thorough nor uninterrupted, it did break ground for the labors of St. Boniface who often had to
rebuild rather than lay the foundation.
(3) BENEDICTINE-COLUMBAN SETTLEMENT
Coming of the Benedictines. St. Maurus, an immediate disciple of St. Benedict, is said to
have established the first monastery at Glanfeuil -later known as St. Maur-in 543, and to have
founded other abbeys before his death in 584. This legend has been challenged; at least the first
documentary evidence of Benedictine presence in Gaul is found in the regulations of Donatus of
Besancon about 620. But at any rate Benedictine influence grew rapidly in the latter half of the
seventh century and a controversy similar to that of Celtic and Roman missionaries in England
arose. The points in dispute were much the same, though whereas in England the primary
requisite was a common ritual observance to present to new converts, in Frankland stress was
laid on the need of a uniform monastic discipline.
The Verdict at Autun. Both rules found their artisans amon the hierarchy, but the
Columban seemed by now the more alien element. Curiously enough the prime mover in Celtic
repudiation in Frankland was a "deserter" from the Columban usages. just as in England St.
Wilfrid had left Celtic Lindisfarne for Rome and Ripon, so St. Leger, once a monk of Luxeuil,
changed his favor to the Benedictines after he became bishop of Autun and mayor of Burgundy.
About 670 he convened a council at Autun which decided in favor of Roman liturgical usages and
the Benedictine rule. The latter was made obligatory, and this legislation was gradually extended
throughout Frankland. Thereafter the Benedictine rule was clearly dominant, and by later
Carolingian times it was universal.
60. Carolingian Frankland (687-754)
VIII
60. CAROLINGIAN FRANKLAND
A. The Carolingian Mayoralty (687-751)

(1) PEPIN (II) (687-714)
Pepin of Landen, victor at Tertry, promptly consolidated power in his bands and ruled
undisputed until his death. The Franks' suzerainty was reasserted over the Bavarians, Alamanni,
and the Thuringians, and the subjugation of Frisia began. Pepin's policy toward the Church was
usually respectful, and he supported the missionaries' labors. But he imperilled his political
achievement by selecting as his successor his infant grandson Theodewald in preference to his
mature but illegitimate son, Charles Martel.
(2) CHARLES MARTEL (715-41)

War was the metier of Charles Martel from the beginning. Though the regent, Pepin's
widow Plectrude, cast him into priSOD,within a year Charles had escaped to rally supporters.
After a civil war lasting until 719, he succeeded in eliminating Theodewald and other rivals and
possessing himself of Pepin's position. A Merovingian, Theodoric IV (720-37), was set up as
nominal prince; at his death Martel felt strong enough to continue ruling for a vacant throne.
Charles retraced his father's work by exacting tribute from the vassals of the Franks to the east
and in pressing forward the conquest of Frisia. The Saxons, if not conquered, were at least
chastised for their raids. Martel's immortal reputation, however, rests on his repulse of the
Saracen invasion from Spain in 732. Near Tours, Martel's infantry held fast against Abdur
Rahman's light cavalry, and turned back what proved to be Mohammedan high-tide in the West.
Oppression of the Church was the price exacted by Martel for these military services to
Christendom. Though St. Boniface edmitted that Martel's protection was essential to his
missionary labors, the mayor regarded sees and abbeys as so many menas to exact money and
supplies for his campaigns. Carelessly he sold them to the highest bidder, or used them as
rewards for retired generals. In places ecclesiastical property was so plundered that clerics were
forced to practice a trade to support themselves.
(3) PEPIN (III) THE SHORT (741-51)
Pepin the Short, associated until 747 with his brother Carloman, carried on his father's
work with greater reverence for the Church. Carloman eventually abdicated the mayoralty to
enter a Lombard monasterv, and Pepin mellowed after his first troubled years into a valuable
protector of St. Boniface's reforms. in their first uneasy years Pepin and Carloman had placed
another Merovingian, Childeric II, on the vacant throne, but by 751 Pepin felt that he needed him
no longer. Still mindful of the fate of Grimwald a century before, he applied to Pope Zachary for
sanction before supplanting the Merovingians. When the pope replied that "it was better that he
be king who had supreme power," Pepin deposed Childeric, and was anointed by St. Boniface as
king of the Franks. As such he was to reign until 768, and play an important part in papal history.
B. The Carolincian Church (678-754)

(1) CONVERSION OF THE NETHERLANDS
The Frisians had occupied the low-lying coasts and islets of Holland in Roman times, but
had never been subdued by the empire nor its Teutonic lieirs. They remained fierce pagan
barbarians.
St. Eligius (590-660) is the first known missionary among them. In his earlier years he
was a goldsmith and master of the mint for Clotaire II and Dagobert I. But about 632 he became a
Columban monk, and in 640 was chosen as bishop of Noyon-Tournai. He converted some
pagans in modern Belgium and probably penetrated into Holland.
St. Wilfrid (634-709) briefly played an important part in Frisian conversion. On one of his
numerous journeys to Rome his ship was wrecked off the Dutch coast. St. Wilfrid made use of
the mishap to preach Christianity to the inbabitants during theWiDter of 678-79. On his return to
Northumbria he recommended the mission to his monks at Ripon, and undoubtedly brought its
needs to the attention of the Holy See to which he was so ardently devoted.
St. Willibrord (658-739) was one of the monks of Ripon who responded to St. Wilfrid's
appeal. After Pepin's initial successes, Prince Adigisel of the Frisians consented to receive
missionaries. At Pepin's request, St. Willibrord and eleven companions arrived in Frisia about
689. The missionaries encountered difficulties, not only from the sullen suspicion of the Frisians
who regarded them as agents of the Franks, but in the cavalier treatment of the Frankish church
by the nobility, St. Willibrord deemed it prudent to proceed to Rome for pidance, He there
received a canonical mission from Pope St. Sergius I, and returned to his field, where greater
progress was made.
Church of Utrecht. In 695 St. Willibrord returned to Rome for episcopal consecration. As
vicar-apostolic of the Frisians he erected a monastery and church at Utrecht, destined to become
the main center of the medieval Dutch hierarchy. But the new Prince Radbot (700-19) chafed
under Frankish suzerainty and seized on the confusion arising after Pepin's death (714) to rebel.
From 716 to 719 a fierce antiChristian reaction followed as Radbot slew missionaries and
installed idols in their churches. St. Willibrord was forced to flee and remained in exile until
Radbot's death in 719. The new Prince Adigisel II was mindful of Charles Martel's newly re-
established power, and permitted the surviving Christian missionaries to resume their labors in
Frisia. Before his death in 739 St. Willibrord received the pallhan from the Holy See, but this
honor seems to have been personal, for Utrecht did not preserve metropolitan rank but later
became suffragan to Cologne.
(2) CONVERSION OF THE GERMANS
St. Winifrid (680-754) was born near Crediton, Devon, of a noble West Saxon family
between 673 and 680. At an early age he entered the then renowned monasteries of Exeter and
Nutcell or Nutschalling. Here he professed the Benedictine rule under Abbot Winbert, and at the
age of thirtv was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Daniel of Winchester. The excellence of
his education was reflected in his preaching and correspondence. About 716 he secured
permission to go on the Frisian mission, but was soon after forced to return by Radbot's
persecution. Though placed in charge of the monastic school, he yet yearned for the continental
missions. Abbot Winbert was averse to losing his talented subject, but after his death in 718
Winifrid refused election as his successor. Armed with a letter of recommendation from Bishop
Daniel, he proceeded to Rome where he expounded to Pope Gregory II his plans to convert the
Germans still pagan. The pope confirmed his mission, saying: "Go: henceforth you shall be
called Boniface: he who does good."
Missionary reconnaissance. St. Boniface proceeded at once to St. Willibrord's

assistance, but once the Frisian mission had been restored, he turned to Thuringia. Here he
sought to win back chiefs who had once professed Christianity. He summed up his missionary
policies in a letter to Bishop Daniel: he would explain the Faith calmly instead of attacking
paganism violently; he would be moderate rather than sarcastic; he would prcsent a simple but
entire view of Christianity, St. Boniface's inquiries showed him that Hesse had not even heard of
the Faith and he consulted the Holy See as to whether his mission extended there. St. Gregory II
reassured him by recalling him to Rome and naming him vicar-apostolic of any pagan Germans
he could find. After exacting an oath of allegiance, still preserved in writing, the pope consecrated
him bishop.
The Thunder mission. In 722 St. Boniface returned directly to Hesse where he found his
work hindered at the outset by Hessian veneration for the "Thunder Oak," an ancient tree sacred
to Thor and reputedly guarded by thunderbolts. Since the Hessians-no brighter then than at
Trenton-were fully convinced of all this, St. Boniface felt that he must remove this obstacle before
obtaining a hearing. In a scene reminiscent of Elias and the priests of Baal, he demonstrated
Hessian error by chopping down the Thunder Oak with his own hands. "The fall of this oak
marked the fall of heathenism." Not only the Hessians but the Thuringians began to enter the
Church in large numbers. These mass conversions necessitated assistants, and these St.
Boniface recruited from England and Frankland. His compatriot Lullus became his chief
lieutenant and eventual successor in the see of Mainz. To staff the mission permanently St.
Boniface built monasteries. Fulda, erected in the heart of Germany, became mother of many
abbeys and symbolic hub of German Catholic life. Its first abbot was St. Sturm, a native
Bavarian, while St. Lioba, a cousin of St. Boniface, established the convent of
Tauberbischofsheim.
Hierarchical organization followed St. Boniface's reception of the pallium, from Pope St.
Gregory III in 732. By 748 the metropolitan see was fixed at Mainz, until 1800 Germany's
primatial see. Both older sees like Cologne and newer foundations such as Salzburg received
territorial limits which, though fluctuating during the early centuries, proved remarkably stable in
medieval and early modern German history.
(3) REFORM OF FRANKLAND
Apostolic delegation. For many years missionary labors and the brutal domination of the
Church in Frankland by Charles Martel had prevented St. Boniface from giving much attention to
the need of another reform in the more settled regions of the German folk. But after Martel's
death in 741, the new Pope Zachary named St. Boniface apostolic legate with extraordinary
personal jurisdiction for the reform of the whole Frankish Church. Against the natural opposition
of lax clerics, St. Boniface now instituted a revival of discipline through the means of councils. In
742 Austrasia was gathered in a synod; in 743 or 744 it was Neustria's turn; finally a Plenary
Council of Frankland was summoned for 745. Its decrees were to receive papal approbation and
secular sanction.
Reform decrees. The chief reforms at this council comprised the following points: (1)
Hierarchical organization. It was decreed that councils should henceforth be held at regular
intervals under metropolitans, who were to signify their union with the Holy See by applying for
and using the pallium. Bishops were to be subordinate to archbishops, and themselves in turn
supreme over local pastors, to the exclusion of secular patronage of parishes and benefices.
Diligent episcopal visitation was to ensure parochial stability. (2) Clerical discipline. False and
un¬worthy clerics were deposed, and those in good standing subjected to a strict mode of life.
They were to wear a distinctive garb, be exempt from and withhold themselves from military
service, and to refrain themselves from secular pursuits, especially hunting of game. Clerical
celibacy was to be observed, so that no women other than a priest's mother, sister, or niece were
to be permitted residence in rectories. While provision was made for clerical support by tithes,
the clergy were strictly forbidden to appropriate ecclesiastical property for their personal use. (3)
Monastic discipline. The strict and exclusive observance of the Benedictine rule was to be
reestablished in all monasteries and convents. (4) Church property. Church possessions
alienated by Charles Martel were to be restored, and Pepin later prepared an inventory for this
end. Provision was made against future lay appropriations, but loans to the state in times of
stress and with ecclesiastical permission were authorized. (5) Lay practices. The strict
enforcement of marriage regulations and the eradication of superstition may be singled out for
attention.
The Patriarch. By now the aged St. Boniface had become the revered Patriarch of the
Germans, their apostle, reformer, and guide. It was he who was called upon to anoint and crown
Pepin the Short as king of the Franks after the pope's approval of the deposition of the
Merovingians. In 753 he could write to the Holy See: "In the course of the thirtysix years during
which I have filled the office of Roman legate I have been able to render some services to the
Church of God. For the faults and mistakes I may have committed, I declare that I submit to the
judgment of the Church."
(4) SAXON HOLOCAUST
Martyrdom. St. Boniface's nunc dimittis was followed by his resignation of the care of
Mainz to St. Lullus. In 754 he set out with a band of fifty clerics and monks for a mission to the
yet pagan Saxons. Coasting the Zuyderzee by boat, he made some contacts promising
conversion, and appointed Dokkum as a meeting place for the bestowal of baptism at Pentecost,
June 5, 754 (or 755). But the news had reached pagan Saxon bigots. Instead of catechumens, a
warlike band of Saxons descended to meet the missionaries. St. Boniface's last words were:
"Take courage; all those weapons cannot harm souls." He and his disciples were slain, but others
presently reaped the bloody seed. Even before the conquest of Saxony by Charles the Great
(772-85), St. Lebuin and Gregory of Utrecht won over many Saxons to Christianity. In 785 the
baptism of the Saxon Duke Widukind assured eventual success to the mission. Thus St.
Boniface's death closely coincides with the completion of the conversion of the Teutonic invaders
of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of new missions to tribes which had never come under
Roman influence.
Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 IX. Alienation of the East (565-843)
61. Byzantine Restriction (656-641)
IX
Alienation of the East
61. BYZANTINE RESTRICTION
A. Loss of Imperial Sway (565-610)

(1) SIGNIFICANCE OF BYZANTINE DECLINE
At Justinian's death (565), the ancient Roman world still was an empire in fact as well as
in name. In the East, the so-called Byzantine monarchy was really no more than the Hellenistic
portion of the ancient empire which had remained intact amid the barbarian deluge. It still ruled
Greece and the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria-Palestine, and Egypt. Its new capital at
Constantinople dominated the vital passage of the Dardanelles. In the West, moreover, Justinian
the Great had virtually restored imperial control. Italy and Africa were again imperial provinces.
Southern Spain had been regained and there was every prospect that the warring Visigothic
chieftains in the north would soon fall. Then diplomacy and force might easily restore imperial
rule in Gaul where, indeed, the Franks and Burgundians still nominally acknowledged imperial
suzerainty by accepting honorific titles of consul, etc.
Factual loss of empire. But during the period now beginning, Justinian's restored realm
quickly ceased to be an empire in fact. Within ten years of his death, his western conquests had
been reduced to scattered and isolated patches of territory. Though Rome still nominally
remained within the empire, its political allegiance gravitated to Pope St. Gregory the Great and
his successors. The Lombards took over most of Italy, Visigoths reduced the Spanish
beachhead, and Saracens swept away Roman rule in Africa. Then in the East came renewed
pressure on both the Danubian and Euphrates frontiers which were soon pushed back. Avars
and Slavs wrested most of the Balkans from imperial rule, while the Saracens tore away Syria,
Palestine, Egypt, and large portions of Asia Minor. The "Empire" was presently restricted to a
Greek state: the peninsula, Thrace, and the Asiatic coast. This small monarchy, often defending
its very capital against destruction, could no longer be regarded as a true empire, that is, a
universal or world state. Latin ceased to be even its official language before Justinian's death,
and externally it was scarcely recognizable as Roman.
Juridical loss of empire. Though Constantinople was saved and portions of Balkan and
Syrian dominions later recovered for a time, the Byzantine monarchy never regained its ancient
limits even in the Orient. Yet for two centuries after Justinian's death this reduced realm was still
juridically acknowledged as "The Empire" by popes and barbaric princes. But in 797-800 theory
yielded to fact in the West. The kingdom of the Franks had attained truly imperial proportions
under Charles the Great (768-814), and Pope St. Leo III, as spokesman for western public
opinion, "transferred the imperial crown from the Greeks to the Germans." Henceforth the Eastern
realm, deeply resentful, became politically alien. Growing political and cultural schism did not
improve ecclesiastical relations; after 1054 the East was an area differing in religious allegiance
as well.
(2) SURVEY OF DECLINE
Emperor Justin II (565-78), nephew of Justinian the Great, became his successor. Both
Justin and his wife Sophia, a niece of Empress Theodora, had hitherto been effaced by the strong
personalities of their predecessors. Eager to assert himself by a radical change of policy, Justin
at once refused payment of the tribute to the Lombards and Avars. These then promptly fell upon
Italy and the Balkans respectively, and the depleted Byzantine treasury and military resources
could not avert loss of the greater part of these provinces. In 571 the Persians, whom Justinian
had checked but not defeated, resumed the offensive. The sequel was a prolonged and wasting
conflict, which, with uneasy truces, lasted until 628. Though Byzantium suffered no permanent
loss of territory in this struggle, taxation was increased to an intolerable rate and already depleted
resources exhausted. The Roman victors were almost as helpless as the Persian losers when
the Saracens appeared immediately after the contest.
Tiberius II (572-82). After 572 Justin became a suicidal maniac with but brief lucid
intervals, and power passed to Empress Sophia who entrusted the regency to General Tiberius
Constantius. Tiberius as regent, and after Justin's death, emperor, staved off disaster for a time.
By rigid economy he reduced taxation, a truce with the Avars was concluded, and a supreme
military effort obliged the Persians to withdraw for a time. But this orthodox, able, and upright
ruler was stricken with disease and died in the prime of life. Lasting peace he had been unable to
achieve.
Maurice (582-602), Tiberius's son-in-law and designated beir, made a resolute effort to
retrieve declining Byzantine fortunes. The situation was soon desperate, for both Persians and
Avars resumed the attack in force. Genius was demanded, and poor Maurice had none. Energy
and determination he possessed, but he lacked tact and singleness of purpose. He adopted a
policy of "economy at any price." When he extended this to the army, mutinies broke out. For a
while Maurice was able to suppress these and even to conclude a truce with the Persians. Then
he transferred exhausted and grumbling veterans to the Balkans where, according to a Byzantine
chronicler, "the cursed people called Slavonians" were wearing out imperial troops and resources.
Though no match for an army in the open field, they lurked in swamps and forests whence they
raided. Between an elusive foe and a miserly commander the troops became exasperated. At
length, when ordered to hibernate on the barren plains of Wallachia to conserve supplies,
centurion Pbocas led them in revolt against the capital.
Phocas (602-10) usurped the throne after slaughtering Maurice and his entire family. The
new ruler, brutal and ignorant, confined himself to repressing conspiracies, real or imagined, in
the capital. The provinces were practically abandoned to the Persians who invaded Asia Minor
and the Avars and Slavs who roamed at will in the Balkans. Imperial administration verged on
collapse.
B. The Heraclian Revival (610-41)

(1) IMPERIAL DEFENSE (610-22)
Accession of Herachus. The only province not affected by the recent Byzantine disorders
had been distant Africa which had somewhat revived after reconquest from the Vandals. The
region was then governed by Heraclius, a distinguished retired general of Maurice, who was
universally respected. When Pbocas's tyranny became intolerable even to the army, many
officers began to hope for better times under Herachus. In 609 Priscus, commander of the
praetorian guard, secretly besought assistance from the African governor. During the winter the
old general made methodical preparations for an expedition against the capital. Since he was in
failing health, Heraclius entrusted the enterprise to his like-named son. Aided by the opportune
desertion of Priscus, Herachus junior had little difficulty in capturing Pbocas. The usurper was
promptly beheaded and Heraclitis acknowledged as emperor by the senate. The new dynasty
thus established endured for a century (610-711).
Military disasters. Though Heraclius was himself an able general, he at first conformed to
court etiquette which had deterred every reigning emperor since Theodosius the Great (d. 395)
from taking the field in person. Subordinate commanders proved unsuccessful; Priscus in
partictilar was as disloyal to Herachus as he had been toward Pbocas. Persian forces led by
General Sharbarz captured Damascus in 613, and Jerusalem the following year. The True Cross
was carried off to the capital of the Persian monarch Chosroes II (589-628). Finally in 616 the
Persians completed the Mediterranean balf-circuit by taking Alexandria, the imperial granary. In
due time the emperor received an arro(yant ultimatum from the Persian King: "Chosroes, greatest
of the 9,-ds, and master of the whole earth, to Heraclitis, his vile and insensate slave. Why do
you still refuse to submit to our rule and call yourself a king? Have I not destroyed the Greeks?
You say that you trust in your God; why has He not delivered out of mv hand Caesarea,
Jerusalem, and Alexandria? And shall I not also destroy Constantinople? . . . Do not deceive
yourself with the vain hope that Christ, who was unable to save himself from the Jews, will save
you."
Desperate measures. This was the challenge which Heraclius answered with what may
be called the first true crusade. For the moment. however, he could not take the offensive, even
though the Persians pressed through Asia Minor to capture Chalcedon (617) in sight of
Constantinople. On the land side, Avar raids penetrated to the walls of the capital. Heraclius
strained every nerve in its defense, while Patriarch Sergius pledged the gold and silver of the
local church as a war loan, and encouraged the emperor to remain at his post. With such
backing Heraclius succeeded by 622 in purchasing a truce with the Avars by payment of tribute.
(2) IMPERIAL CRUSADE (622-29)
Proclamation. Herachus now resolved to lead an offensive in person against the

Persians. He implored divine assistance for the avowed aim of recovering the True Cross. In
618 he announced a formal vow and began to assemble volunteers and supplies. Despite near-
siege conditions, these filtered into the capital during the next four years. Before setting out in
622, the emperor personally observed the Lenten fast in a most strict manner. On Easter Sunday
he presented himself with his troops to obtain solemn episcopal blessing. Then the Byzantine
forces embarked for Cificia to begin campaigns which even secular historians are prone to
describe as superhuman.
Persian campaigns. By sailing to Cilicia, Herachus boldly bypassed the Persians under
Sharbarz who were occupying Asia Minor even to the shores opposite Constantinople. Landing
in Cilicia, Heraclius first cut Sharbarz's communications and forced his troops to retreat to
Cappadocia where they were severely defeated in 622. Herachus next boldly pushed into the
interior of the Persian province of Media, forcing Chosroes to withdraw forces for the defense of
his own capital. During the next years (623-295) the Byzantine commander won three battles
and sacked Persian temples in reprisal for the plunder of Jerusalem. In 625 Heraclius returned to
Armenia to gain re-enforcements from Constantinople, with which he again defeated Sharbarz.
Chosroes now planned a bold stroke in return. After bribing the Avars to resume their offensive
against Constantinople on the European side, the king rushed new forces into Asia Minor. While
one section of this army held Heraclitis at bay, the other drove on to Constantinople. A sea-borne
attack on the capital, however, was repulsed by Governor Bonus and Patriarch Sergius on the
night of August 3, 626. The Avars then fled, leaving the Persians stranded. Heraclius seized this
opportunity to launch a daring offensive directly against the Persian capital at Ctesiphon. In 627
he defeated the last organized Persian army at Nineveh, and plundered with imptinity right up to
Ctesiphon.
Exaltation of the Cross. When the discredited King Chosroes fled, his son Kobad
declared him deposed and eventually imprisoned him. Kobad opened peace negotiations, which
ended in May, 628. According to their terms, the Persians restored all Roman territory, released
imperial captives, paid an indemnity, and above all, surrendered the inspiration of the whole
campaign, the True Cross. This was first exposed for veneration in Hagia Sophia, and then
returned to Jerusalem. Herachus tried to carry it on his own shoulders, but found it too heavy
until he had set aside his imperial splendor. To avert recapture by the Saracens, the Cross was
later cut up and eventually distributed throughout Christendom. Many relics of the Passion were
acquired by King St. Louis of France for the Sainte Chapelle in Paris where he personally carried
them on September 14, 1241. Heraclius's victory is liturgically commemorated today on
September 14, date also of St. Louis's translation of the relics.
C. Imperial Collapse (629-41)

(1) THEOLOGICAL MEDDLING
Unfortunately both Emperor Herachus and Patriarch Sergius outlived their hour of
justifiable triumph. At once they became obsessed with the old Byzantine utopia of securing
political unity, especially in the reconquered areas. The Syrian and Egyptian Monophysites had
shown little disposition to resist the Persians. Perhaps they could be won back by dogmatic
compromise: surely they would give up their teaching of a single nature in Christ, if Catholics
conceded that the Savior had only one will and operation. This produced the prolonged
Monothelete heresy and schism which will be treated separately. Only through the negligence or
confusion of Pope Honorius did Sergius escape excommunication during his lifetime; Heraclius
before his death seems to have disowned Sergius in an apology to Pope John IV. Nor did an
order of 634 requiring Jews to be baptized produce peace; in a few years they were actively
assisting the Arab conquest.
(2) TERRITORIAL LOSSES
One might say that Providence quickly demonstrated that the recent Byzantine victories
had been won by divine more than human power. No sooner did Heraclius launch his theological
scheme than a new military power arose which quickly stripped him of all his reconquered
territories. This was the dread menace of Islam which was to haunt Constantinople until its fall in
1453. Its nature and development will be examined later; here it is sufficient to note that already
in 629 the Saracens were skirmishing at the Roman frontier. During the last seven years of
Heraclius's reign, the emperor could not stem the whirlwind that captured Damascus (635),
overwhelmed his forces at the Yarmouk (636), seized Jerusalem (637), overran Mesopotamia and
routed Persia (639), and conquered Egypt (641). The dying emperor did not hear of this last
disaster, but within a few months of his death Syria, Palestine, and Egypt with their factious
patriarchates had been lost to Islam.
62. The Menace of Islam (600-732)

IX
62. THE MENACE OF ISLAM
A. Moslem Ingredients
(1) RACIAL ELEMENT: THE ARABS
The Arabs, it is generally held, are Semites, closely akin to the Jews in origin as they are
in language. From time immemorial their life has been that of nomadic shepherds, to which the
isolated Arabian peninsula admirably lent itself. Though much of this area is desert, there is
enough scanty vegetation for sheep and goats, if they are moved often from one oasis to another.
The Arab, therefore, was unable to have a fixed abode had he desired one. Secured from
outside interference by the desert which he alone knew from lifelong experience, he could roam,
rob, and fight in his restricted circle. Only along the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea did a few small
towns develop which served as depots for the caravan trains, and a sole tenuous link with the
world outside.
Patriarchal society developed in such an environment. Clans were extended families

descended from a common ancestor and owing subjection to his eldest living scion. The clans in
turn were grouped into tribes, ruled by a chief or It sheik." These larger societies were needed to
safeguard possession of certain vaguely defined regions for pasturage, containing several oases.
Normally higher civilization did not develop, and the frequent civil wars were designed more for
plunder than permanent conquest. Occasionally a powerful personality was able to effect a larger
political union, but such did not prove lasting. Only in the twentieth century has Ibn Saud been
able to found an Arabian kingdom.
Religion. Worship centered about Mecca, a small but prosperous trading town about fifty
miles inland from the caravan port of Jidda. Here the chief object of veneration was the Kaaba or
"Cube," a square temple containing a sacred black stone supposedly descended from heaven-
possibly a remarkable meteorite. Arabs could combine business with piety by visiting the sacred
city at the same time as the annual fair held in the vicinity. Religious tenets, as well as other
forms of tribal lore, were handed down by oral tradition. Arabian paganism contained a strong
element of superstitious worship paid to animals and trees as representative of deities. To these
a perfunctory rite was paid, including sevenfold circum-ambulation, the kissing of the black stone,
and sacrifice of sheep. Coastal towns, however, had had some contact with Judaism and
Arianism.
Migration. The first impetus of Mobernmedanism was to lead the Arabs farther from their
native soil than they had been before or since. Though the cause for this was mainly religious, a
partial explanation may perhaps be sought in the concurrence of one of the periodic chmactic
changes producing desiccation of the Arabs' familiar haunts. Many emigres never returned, and
Arabia, relieved of economic stress, settled back into its old ways. Only Islam remained to
remind residents of their once decisive role in history.
(2) PERSONAL ELEMENT: MOHAMMED'S CAREER
Family. Modern criticism labors under the difficulty of having only Mohammedan sources;
the founder's life cannot be regarded as of unchallenged authenticity. We are told that
Mohammed was born at Mecca about 570 of a cadet line of the Kuraish tribe which guarded the
Kaaba. His father, Abdallah, was pagan; his mother, Arnina, was a Jewess. Since he was a poor
boy and after the age of ten an orphan, Mohammed had to work for his uncle as shepherd and
caravan guide. Though he had little or no formal education, his travels gave him much
experience. He rose to be caravan-conductor, and after leading a rich consignment for the
wealthy Khadija of Mecca, was rewarded by being made her third husband. About the age of
twenty-five he could retire from business to pursue inquiries into the religions with which his
profession had brought him into contact.
Religious foundation. About 610 this visionary and epileptic--if this last be not a hostile
slur--affirmed that he had received a revelation from the Angel Gabriel directing him to found a
new religion. Though he may at first have believed his experience, there can be little doubt that
in later life he invented revelations whenever he needed them-as when he found a special
dispensation permitting himself more wives. Mohammed's aim became to substitute belief in one
God for the debased polytheism of his countrymen. Hence the watchword heard round the world:
"There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Mohammed won early converts in
his wife, his cousin Ali, later his son-in-law as well, a prominent chief named Abu Beker, and a
youthful enthusiast, Omar. But the majority of the Kuraish opposed the self-styled prophet. After
the deaths of his wife and uncle in 619, there was little to bold Mohammed at Mecca. In 622 he
moved with his family and disciples to Yathrib, where a colony of Arabian Jews had shown
interest. Yathrib was renamed Medina: Madinat-an-Nabi, City of the Prophet. Mohammed's
migration was known as the Hegira, and served to open a now calendar.
Political triumph. At Medina, Mohammed worked out his religion, called Islam, and
trained disciples, known as Muslim. His followers supported themselves by plundering caravans.
Such exploits invited retaliation, but at Badr, near the Red Sea, the Moslems won their first victory
in 624. They then expelled all foes from Medina and took over its administration. From this base
they operated even against Mecca which they defeated in 628 and captured in January, 630.
Mecca was then made the capital of a religious-political society. Mohammed was in possession
of the Arabian shrine, and he made every effort to transform the annual pagan pilgrimage into an
acknowledgement of Islam, which he advertised as a purified version of the ancestral religion.
Dissenters were taught the error of their ways by force. Before his death on June 7, 632,
Mohammed had certainly subdued the coastal region of Hejaz along the Red Sea, and may have
begun to extend his conquests inland.
B. Religion of Islam
(1) NATURE
The Koran. Mohammedan religion is contained in the Quran, Reading. This is a

collection of Mohammed's sayings, supposedly collated after his death by Zaid at Abu-Beker's
request. Interpolations and additions have certainly been made subsequently. The Koran
consists of 114 suras or chapters without coherence. It may be divided arbitrarily into the Inian
(dogma) and Din (moral). Though the Koran alone is authoritative, it has been supplemented by
the Haddith, a "tradition" containing deductions and commentaries of sages.
The Iman. Mohammedan dogma is a simplified monotheism compounded of Judaism,

Arianism, and original elements. It was found necessary to reject the Trinity. Christ, said to have
been the semiangelic s on of God and a female angel known as the "Holy Ghost," was the fifth of
six major prophets from Adam to Mohammed, the sixth and greatest. Allah is held to be creator
of man7s body, though the soul is termed an emanation from divinity. In spite of stray references
to freedom of will, man is conceived usually as subject to all-pervading fatalism. The human soul
is immortal, but the body will rise to enjoy sensual pleasures which would seem to preclude
society with God.
The Din. Practically Mohammedan moral is more concerned with external than internal
acts. Certain precepts prohibit di-inking of wine, eating of pork, possession of images, and
garribling-which are a systematization of Arabian taboos. In place of the pagan'sexual laxity, the
Moslem-Mohammed excepted-was limited to four wives, though he might have concubines from
his slaves. Woman had a definitely inferior position, and divorce was allowed at the husband's
discretion. Man is held to be moved remorselessly by a fatalistic destiny. The best fate is to
propagate Islam by the sword, for death in battle will enable a man to avoid "the pit of bell,
burning fire," and bring him to paradise, "a cool place, watered by limpid streams, and shaded by
thornless trees which bear an inexhaustible crop of delicious fruits. There shall dwell the people
of the right band, reclining on sumptuous couches, eating choice viands, and quaffing a beaveDly
beverage that causes neither headache nor drunkenness. They shall be waited on by handsome
pages, always in the bloom of youth, and as wives shall have houris created for them by a special
providence, lovely damsels with eyes like black pearls." To win this the Moslem ran amuck.
Cult. Mohammed retained some of the primitive rites of the Kaaba, and 'Mccca was
made the focal point of his rcligion-though Jerusalem was also venerated. Formal prayers were
said five times a day. After washing himself with water or sand, the devotee was to assume a
fixed posture facing Mecca and recite stereotyped formulas. There was a Friday noon service for
men only when forty could be assembled. The iman, a sort of Protestant elder, gave an
instruction and led the usual prayers, but strictly speaking, there were neither priests nor
sacrifices. Muftis were doctors of the law, and dervishes a sort of religious. Temples were
ornamented by fancy lines called arabesques, since graven images were forbidden. All Moslems
were to fast during the month of Ramadan-that is, until sundown-give alms, and go to Mecca
once during life.
(2) EVOLUTION AND INFLUENCE
Sects soon arose from disputes about the interpretation of the Koran. The basic division
is into Sunnites and Sbuites. The former are orthodox Mobammedans who often manifest lofty
religious sentiments. The latter are regarded as heterodox, and their cult often includes debased
elements. Originally the Sunnites were conscientious traditionalists, acceptting the ninth century
Haddith as stabilizing sunna or tradition. Sufisim is derived from sufa, a woolen garment worn by
early mystics. At first it was a reaction against the legalism of the Koran, but pseudo-mysticism
soon revealed bizarre teachings. Iran has remained the Shuite strongbold. The chief
Mohammedan teachings which have been challenged within Islam in the course of time are: the
prophet's own prerogatives, rigid predestination, the "inspiration" of the Koran, Allah's attributes,
and the sensual paradise. Rationalism, moreover, proved a serious threat to literal
Mohammedanism when Aristotelian philosophy was borrowed from the Graeco-Roman world.
Avicenna sought an orthodox synthesis, while Avcrroes would seem to have been, at least
secretly, heterodox.
"The power of the religion of Mohammed rests above all on its absolute simplicity. it is the
new type of world-religion reduced to its simplest elements. It rests on the principles of the
absolute unity and omnipotence of God and of the all-importance of the life to come. But in spite
of its simplicity it is far from being a rational deism, as some of its modern apologists have
conceived it. It is based not on reason, but on prophetic revelation in the strict sense of the word,
and on the belief in the miraculous interposition of the supernatural powers. The life to come is
portrayed in vivid material imagery. . . . Fighting puritanism, which is of the essence of Islam,
found its highest expression in the Moslem state under the first Khalifs, and it is this period, and
not the age of culture and philosophy under the Abbasids, which has always been regarded as
the Golden Age of Islam by the Moslems themselves. . . . The secular principle in Islam was
victorious and Damascus became the capital of a great oriental state under the hereditarv rule of
the Umayyid dynasty. . . . Expansion was accompanied by the rapid transformation of Moslem
culture. The Khalifs took over the old Byzantine and Persian methods of government. The lower
officials were almost entirely natives, and Greek and Persian were at first the languages of the
administration. . . ."
"Islam does not reach to the stars-it is realistic, which is only a euphemism for being
timid. And this timidity comes from the realization that the combination of the many disparate
elements which make up Muslim civilization might split under the impact of the unknown. So
traditionalism is erected like a wall to shield the gathered harvest and assure next year's returns.
The mental effort is directed toward ever subtler understanding of the ancestral heritage, and
toward ever more perfect expression of the familiar. . . . The Muslim's world is at rest and he is at
rest within it. . . .
C. Expansion of Islam,
(1) ORIENTAL EXPANSION (632-718)
Arabia. At Mohammed's death, Abu-Beker was chosen the khalif or successor of

Mohammed in his religious and political capacity. His rule (632-34) was chiefly occupied with
defeating "false prophets," those Arabian chiefs who refused to acknowledge Islam, and
succeeded in subjugating much of Arabia.
Syria-Egypt. Caliph Omar (634-44) was the real founder of the Arabian monarchy.
Assuming the title of Amir-al-Muminin, Commander of the Faithful, he sent his general Khalid to
raid Syria where the Semitic peasantry tended to side with the invaders. Omar himself came to
Kbalid's assistance in decisively defeating Heraclius at the Yarmouk, August, 636. The Byzantine
army was virtually annihilated so that the Arabs could easily occupy the strongholds of
Damascus, Antioch, Aleppo, Emesa, Jerusalem, and Caesarea. Syria conquered, the Arabs
divided to attack Egypt and Persia. Egypt was taken two years before Omar's assassination; his
successor Othman (644-55) completed the conquest of Persia by 651. Othman's assassination
was followed by civil war, terminating in the repudiation of Ali and the traditionalists, and the
founding of the more secularistic Ominayyid caliphate at Damascus (661-750). From this center
the Arabians advanced to high tide in the East before the walls of Constantinople (718), as will be
related in the next topic.
(2) WESTERN EXPANSION (670-732)
Africa was reached from Egypt. Until 670 civil war and native revolts restrained the
Saraceris, but in that year General Okba fortified Kairwan in Tunis as a base against the Roman
province. In the conquest, the native Berbers and Moors gave the Arabs more trouble than the
Romans, but by the capture of Carthage in 698 northern Africa was securely in Mohammedan
hands.
Europe saw Saracen invasion begin with Musa's attack upon Visigothic Spain. By 717
most of the Spanish peninsula had been overrun by Moslem forces, which pressed into
Frankland. Narbonne was taken in 720 and in 732 Abdur Rahman pitted his full strength against
Duke Eudes of Aquitaine. He defeated him and moved northward only to encounter Charles
Martel near Tours. All day the Arabs battered in vain against the huge Teutonic infantrymen
standing shoulder to shoulder while they hewed down thousands with battle-ax and sword. The
Arabs retreated and by 759 had been expelled from Gaul. The Moslems retained part of Spain
until 1492, but their power was in decline from 1031. Their invasion of Sicily (827) threatened the
conquest of all Italy. A defeat by the Lombards at Garigliano checked them in 915, but they were
not driven from the peninsula until the eleventh century, with Norman assistance. These last
European contests merged and blended into the first medieval crusades.
63. Defense Aainst Islam (636-718)

IX
63. DEFENSE AGAINST ISLAM
A. Mohammedan Advance
(1) THE ARABIAN-BYZANTINE DUEL
Caliphate of Damascus. The first great conquests of Greek territories had been made by
Caliphs Omar and OthmaD who still preserved much of the primitive simplicity of the Arabs.
Persia was destroyed and Egypt and Syria wrested from the empire. Civil strife between
Othman's Ommayyid relatives and Mohammed's son-in-law Ali (656-61) retarded advance until
Moawiva, governor of Syria, became caliph (661-80) and made Damascus his capital. Roman
institutions did not entirely disappear. Rather the central government was taken over by Arab
chieftains, and the official Byzantine aristocracy ruined. After the surge of early conquest
subsided, stereotyped routine succeeded, accompanied with all the intrigues of an Oriental
monarchy. The Damascene caliphate rapidly became secularized, provoking doctrinal and
dynastic disputes that finally led to rival Moslem states. While the Arabian onset swept over
Afghanistan and northern India, the Caliphate of Damascus entered Asia Minor and organized a
fleet on the Mediterranean. Moawiya almost captured Constantinople in 669, and his successor
Sulavman came even closer in the prolonged siege of 717. Until 739 the fortunes of war
generally favored the Arabs. Then the strife which caused the downfall of the Ommayyid
caliphate allowed the imperial troops to regain much of Asia Minor.
Caliphate of Bagdad. After the Ommayyids had been overthrown at Damascus, the
Abbassid branch of the Kuraish established their headquarters at Bagdad (762-1258). Dynastic
strife continued, however, and an Ommayyid prince set up a rival caliphate at Cordova in Spain
(921-1031). At Cairo in Egypt, moreover, still another Moslem center claimed legitimate
succession to Mohammed, the Fatimites (969-1517). At first a series of great rulers made
Bagdad renowned: Al Mansur, Al Mabdi, Harun Al Rashid, and Manum between 754 and 833.
Despite temporary successes and failures, the Byzantine-Saracen frontier remained near Tarsus
until 965. By that time the caliphate at Bagdad had begun to disintegrate as local governors
became autonomous and mercenaries dictated to the effeminate court. The Byzantine monarchy
momentarily pressed forward to regain most of Syria (965-1025). but was halted by the Seljuk
Turks, Asiatic mercenaries who gained control of the caliphate and adopted its religion. These
new Moslem zealots routed the Greeks at Manzikert (1071), forcing them back almost to
Constantinople, and obliging them to appeal to the West for aid: whence the medieval crusades.
(2) SARACEN RULE
Religious policies. Mohammed and his first successors seem to have tolerated the
conquered Christian populace upon payment of a tribute, though during the course of actual
conquest massacres often occurred. The Christians were known to the Moslems as the dhimmis,
protected peoples, provided that they paid the ftya, head tax, and the kharaj, a land tax. Each
community became a semiautonomous milet, which was restricted to distinctive clothes and
forbidden the use of horses. The Melkites as a rule preserved their loyalty to Byzantine
orthodoxy and most converts to Islam came from the ranks of the Nestorian or Monophysite
heretics. Accordingly the three patriarchates under Saracen domination generally witnessed the
Jacobite claimants favored by the Moslems over the Melkites. Occasionally, however, treaties
with the Basileus assured the Melkite patriarchs temporary immunity. Then there were numbers
of Oriental Christians who compromised by professing Mohammedanism openly while continuing
some Christian practices. On the other hand, the career of St. John Damascene (d. c. 749), for a
time a high official at Damascus, demonstrates that indulgent caliphs overlooked the profession
of Christianity by valuable subjects.
Diplomatic relations. The Damascene Ommayyids were generally mild rulers who
imposed low taxes which did much to conciliate their rule. But civil war and the rise of local
tyrants brought increased extortion and persecution after 750. The Abbasids proved less tolerant
and foreign intervention on behalf of the Christians increased. Emperor Charles the Great (768-
814) corresponded with Caliph Harun al Rashid (785-809) and procured for the Christians a
quasi-toleration that lasted for centuries. Charles purchased Haceldema and erected a hospice
which was still functioning in 870. Normally the Saracens permitted foreign Christians to maintain
such institutes by collections, and regulated and supervised pilgrimages were usually allowed.
These might be interrupted by an outburst of popular fanaticism, or the measures of a tyrant.
Caliph Hakim went berserk between 1004 and 1013, destroying the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher. But Byzantine influence was also respected and in 1046 the church was rebuilt by
Basileus Constantine. Already in the tenth century Nicephorus Phocas had posed as a Christian
champion, and after 969 Byzantine intervention was generally effective.
Muslim civilization performed important services for medieval Christendorn. Its

superiority in scientific and material arts to the barbaric West is generally acknowledged. In
medicine and astronomy the Muslim teachers made important contributions, while in other
sciences they preserved and transmitted existing knowledge. Greek thought, especially in
Aristotelian philosophy, reached the West as soon by way of Africa and Spain as directly from
Greece. "Islamic civilization, one might say, contributed a good deal of detail and acted as a
catalyzer, but it did not influence the fundamental structure of the West."
B. Byzantine Resistance (641-718)

(1) THE HERACUAN DYNASTY (641-85)
Introduction: The title of this topic, "Defense Against Islam," could apply to all
subsequent Byzantine history. The period now under discussion witnesses the repulse of the first
propagators of Islam, the Arabs, who were foiled in their effort to capture Constantinople. The
danger did not recur in such an acute form until the Turks replaced the Arabs as the militant arm
of Islam in the eleventh century. But Byzantine-Western commerce, which had not been seriously
disrupted by the Teutonic migrations, was now hampered, if not entirely cut off by the Saracen
crescent which within a century (650-750) extended itself from Asia Minor to Spain. Although
communication with Italy, especially Venice and Sicily, was never completely broken off, yet
commercial isolation added a new rift to the growing alienation between East and West. The
Byzantine monarchy remained a capitalistic state, while the Teutonic kingdoms, cast upon their
own resources, became a closed agrarian economy.
Constantine III (641), son of Emperor Herachus by his first wife Eudoxia, had to contend
with Heracleon, Herachus's son by his second wife Martina. Though Constantine's death within
three months allowed Heracleon and Martina to triumph momentarily, in September, 642, the
senate asserted its power by exiling the usurping pair and installing as emperor Constantine's
twelve year old son, Constans.
Constans II (64,968) during his minority enjoyed the senate's protection. The Arabs were
diverted for a time by the conquest of Persia. The fall of that kingdom in 651 coincided with the
assumption of personal rule by Constans. As will be seen presently, he remained an obstinate
Monothelete in theology, but in civil and military matters he inherited his grandfather's energy and
ability. He, too, resorted to sea power to defend Constantinople, and from 652 to 655 organized
maritime raids on Saracen held lands. The Saracens struck back by defeating the Byzantine
armada off Rhodes in 655, but Othman's assassination prevented them from following up their
victory. During the lull Constans reorganized remaining imperial territory on a martial basis,
dividing it into themes under strategoi who combined civil and military jurisdiction. The six Asiatic
themes consolidated smaller pre-existing provinces, and made possible the eventual imperial
survival. Constans's last years were spent in an unsuccessful attempt to reconquer Italy and
keep open communications with Roman Africa now tinder attack by the Saracens. At Syracuse
he was murdered by his valet, who deemed him no hero (668).
Constantine IV (668-85), Constans's son and successor, was as able as his father,
though unlike him, a Catholic. Saracen attacks resumed in 669 and by April, 673, General Abdur
Rabman had laid siege to the capital by land and sea. Constantine's competent defense
employed the newly invented "Greek fire," some sort of "secret weapon" of naphtha. Constantine
pursued the retreating Saracen army and defeated it, while a storm destroyed the Arabian fleet. A
truce was concluded in 678 which lasted until 693. In 679, moreover, the emperor admitted
Bulgars as colonists into the Balkans.
(2) DYNASTIC RIVALRY (685-717)
Court intrigues had not succeeded in disturbing the succession to the Byzantine throne
from 395 until the seventh century. Then Phocas's usurpation set a bad precedent which was
followed by many ambitious officers. The ability of the Heraclian dynasty restored order for a
time, but the situation deteriorated rapidly in the next generation under the incompetent
namesake of the great Justinian.
Justinian II (685-95), the immature and self-confident son of Constantine IV, had dreams
of emulating Justinian the Great. After he had gained some limited success against the
barbarians, he unwisely broke the truce with the caliphate in 693. During the ensuing campaign
his incompetence and overbearing conduct brought repeated disaster to Byzantine arms and
provoked the generals' resentment. In 695 one of these, Leontius, deposed Justinian, slit his
nose, and banished him to the Crimea.
Leontius (695-98) was but the first of a series of usurpers and rivals who contended for
the crown on the pretext that they alone understood the best method of dealing with the Saracen
danger. Leontius was scarcely a success; Carthage and Roman Africa were lost to the Saracens
in 698, and the unsuccessful generals deposed Leontius rather than face his reprimands.
Tiberius III (698-705) was the title assumed by a new usurper, Admiral Apsimar. His anti-
Saracen remedy proved more successful, but it was no panacea, for Tiberius was then
overthrown by the former Basilcus, Justinian II, returning with a new golden nose and some
Bulgarian allies.
Justinian's second reign (705-11) degenerated into a career of vengeance and suspicious
violence which provoked his murder. His entire family was slain at the same time and the
Heraclian dynasty extinguisbed.
Factional strife now became unrestrained, as the strateloi Put themselves or their
puppets forward for the throne. The passing scene saw the spotlight play briefly on Philippicus
Bardanes (711-13), a Monothelete reactionary; Artemius (713-15) who proclaimed himself
Anastasius II and returned to orthodoxy; and Theodosius Adravmvtes (715-17). But he was
challenged by the strategos of the ADatolic theme, Leo the Isaurian. The Saracens had reached
the walls of Constantinople by the time that Leo had emerged victorious as emperor (717-40).
(3) BYZANTINE CRISIS
The siege of Constantinople began in mid-August, 717, when an army of 80,000

Saracens and a fleet of 1,000 ships appeared before the capital. Leo the Isaurian had gained
control of the city the previous March and had used the intervening period in desperate
preparations. His first feat was the destruction of twenty enemy ships by a surprise
counterattack. Though the Saracens then proposed to blockade the capital, it was soon
discovered that the citv was better provided with food than the besiegers. Next Leo supplied his
ships with "Greek fire," sailed out suddenly, and destroyed or captured the greater part of the
enemy fleet. This was made possible by the mutiny of the impressed Christian seamen on the
Saracen ships. Finally Leo hired Bulgarian allies and inflicted 22,000 casualties on the invading
army. By mid-summer, 718, it was forced to retreat, suffering heavily on the way.
Byzantine recovery followed rapidly under the counterstrokes of Leo the Isaurian, who
engaged in serious fighting until 738. The greater part of Asia Minor was recovered and thus the
siege of Constantinople came to rank with the Battle of Tours in the West as high tide of the
Saracen advance. Unfortunately the remainder of Leo's reign was complicated by the Iconoclast
heresy and schism which, more than any previous theological dispute between East and West,
separated the halves of ancient Christendom.
64. Monothelete Deceit (638-49)
IX
64. MONOTHELETE DECEIT
A. Monothelete Origins (600-633)

(1) REMOTE SOURCES
Monophysitism Lurks in the background of the new Monothelete heresy, for the doctrine
of a single will and operation in Christ is but a logical consequence of the Monophysite assertion
of one nature. Byzantine Caesaro-papism, however, hoped to induce the Monophysites to
abandon their premise about Christ's unitary nature, if they were allowed to hold a novel
conclusion of a theandric will. Though the doctrine of two wills in Christ had not yet been formally
defined, it was clearly the mind of the fathers.
Monotheletism made its first public appearance in the Monophysite stronghold of

Alexandria. During Melkite-Jacobite theological discussions about 600, allusion was made to an
alleged mia thelesis (one volition) and a single energy in Christ. Though Patriarch St. Eulogius
(580-607) rejected this innovation, George Arsas, a leading Monophysite theologian, attempted to
compile a collection of patristic texts in favor of the new theories.
(2) PROXIMATE ORIGINS
Sergius of Constantinople must bear the chief responsibility for Monotheletism. He had
been chosen Patriarch early in 610, a few months before the accession of Emperor Herachus.
Statesman and diplomat rather than ecclesiastic, Sergius's best qualities were displayed in
unswerving loyalty to the imperial cause during its darkest hours. The emperor, whose
background had been largely military, came to prize his advice on civil administration. Since
Herachus reposed such confidence in Sergius's judgment, the latter must be regarded as the
inspirer more than the abettor of imperial overtures to the Monophysites.
Preliminary intrigues. During the Persian War, both Heraclius and Sergius deemed it high
statesmanship to conciliate their subjects in Syria and Egypt of Monophysite persuasion. As early
as 619 Sergius requested Arsas for his collection of "patristic Monotheletism." At Antioch,
moreover, efforts were made to win the Monophysite Patriarch Athanasius for Monotheletism, and
these bore fruit in time. About 622 Herachus held a conference with Paul the One-Eyed, leader
of the Severian Monophysites and tried in vain to win him over to Monenergism. The doubtful
issue of the Persian War must have suspended execution of these early overtures, but they
furnish evidence of a deliberately conceived plan of doctrinal compromise with the Monophysites.
(3) OVERT PUBLICITY
Final preparations. After the beginning of the victorious last campaign against Ctesiphon,
Sergius won over Archbishop Cyrus of Pbasis to Monenergism. Cyrus's scruples were overcome
by a synod at Constantinople which published an alleged letter of former Patriarch Mennas to
Pope Vigilius which contained an allusion to "one energy and one will of our Savior Christ."
Though papal legates to the Council of Constantinople in 680 demonstrated this letter to be a
forgery of Sergius, for the moment it served its purpose. Cyrus, eager to leave his remote see for
Alexandria, promised co-operation. The same forged letter was instrumental in winning the
adhesion of the Arabian bishop, Theodore of Pharan, and of Athanasius of Antioch. The latter,
recognized by Herachus and Sergius as the legitimate Patriarch, actually remained a crypto-
Monophysite.
The Nine Anathemas. At the death of Patriarch George of Alexandria (630-31), Sergius
had Cyrus of Phasis promoted to the vacant see. Instructed to reconcile Alexandrian
Monophysites, Cyrus opened discussions. By 633 he announced that the Pthartolatrian sect
would return to communion on the bases of the Nine Anathemas. These, while not admitting
Monophysite doctrine, yet employed its terminology as much as possible. The Seventh of these
pronouncements asserted on the authority of (Pseudo-) Dionysius the Areopagite that "there was
but one and the same Christ, working both the divine and human actions by one theandrical
operation . . . the elements out of which the union is made being distinguished only through the
consideration of the mind." Practically this reduced to a merely logical one, the distinction
between the divine and human wills in Christ. Yet on June 3, 633, Patriarch Cyrus entered into
communion with prominent Monophysites and reported the transactions to Sergius in a jubilant
letter.
Court sanction. Sergius promptly sent back a formal letter of endorsement, which
embraced in a special manner the Seventh Anathema. By altering the text and modifying the
sense of St. Leo's Tome, Sergius felt justified in announcing that the papal teaching was in
substantial agreement with the new doctrine. In fact, the Monophysites had yielded so easily
because they perceived that they could preserve their basic doctrine with no more than verbal
alteration. Yet Sergius went on blissfully to conclude a union with the Armenian Jacobites on the
new formula, though this union proved of short duration. The only protest was raised by St.
Sophronius, a Palestinian monk, who, unaware of the link between Sergius and Cyrus, had
denounced the latter to Constantinople. Sergius reassured Sophronius that the teaching was
traditional and constrained him to silence. A simple monk might have deferred to the better
judgment of patriarchs, had he not himself become one and been required to assume personal
responsibility.
B. Monothelete Controversy (634-49)

(1) SYNODAL LETTER FROM JERUSALEM (634)
St. Sophronius was chosen patriarch of Jerusalem at the end of 633 or the beginning of
634. Aware of the doctrinal innovations emanating from Alexandria, he prepared a careful
statement of Catholic teaching against Monotheletism. This was published in the synod of his
installation (634) and copies sent to Pope Honorius and other patriarchs. In logical, and probably
also in strict chronological order, this synodal letter is the opening document of the Monothelete
controversy. Yet it is important to note that its contents were either known to or suspected by
Sergius before publication. On the other hand, through some unexplained delay, the existence of
St. Sophronius's letter was not known to Pope Honorius at the time that he received Sergius's
apology and wrote his own reply.
Doctrinal statements from the Synodal Letter include these: "Christ is one and two: He is
one in hypostasis and person, but two in natures and in their natural properties. Of these, He is
permanently one, and yet ceases not to be dual in nature. Therefore one and the same Christ
and Son and Only-Begotten is recognized undivided in both natures and He worked physically
(physikos) the works of each nature (ousia) according to the essential quality or natural property
belonging to each nature, which would not have been possible if He possessed only one single or
composite nature as well as one hypostasis. He who is one and the same could not then have
performed the works of each nature. . . . As in Christ each nature possesses its property inviolate,
so each form works in communion with the other what is proper to itself. . . . All the speech and
energy of Christ, whether divine and heavenly or human and earthly, proceed from one and the
same Christ and Son, from the one compound and unique hypostasis which is the Incarnate
Word."
(2) SERGIUS'S APOLOGY TO ROME (634)
Sergius, to forestall at Rome any influence adverse to his pet theory, hastily sent an
adroit letter to Pope Honorius. In glowing terms he described the "conversion" of Monophysites
obtained by Cyrus and himself. He suggested that St. Sophronius was a holy, but scrupulous
monk needing guidance: "We decided that in the future Sophronius should speak neither of one
nor of two energies, but should content himself with the doctrine of the Fathers; and the saintly
man was content with this." For the sake of simple souls it were best to leave aside subtle
theological discussions and merely repeat what Pope Leo had taught; namely that "from one and
the same Incarnate Word all divine and human energy proceeds indivisibly and inseparably."
Though Cyrus had definitively imposed Monotheletism, Sergius professed to propose silence on
the subject of one or two wills in Christ. He concluded with apparent docility: "We pray you to
read and complete what you find defective, and communicate to us your view of the subject in
writing."
(3) EVASIVE REPLIES OF POPE HONORIUS (634-36)
First letter. Pope Honorius, who now beard of the dispute for the first time and from
Sergius, had no reason to suspect his informant. The patriarch of Constantinople had shown his
zeal in recovering the True Cross, he seemed considerate toward Sophronius, and he professed
deference to the Holy See. The theological difficulty looked occult and already nearly past.
Under these circumstances and in view of past Oriental quibbling over words, it seemed to
Honorius inexpedient to make a doctrinal pronouncement without necessity. The pope replied:
"We commend your Fraternity for removing a new expression which might give offense to the
simple, for we must walk in what we have learned. We will go in our predecessors' path. . . .
Whether on account of the works of godhead and manhood it is suitable to think and speak of
one or two energies as present, we cannot tell; we leave that to the grammarians. . . . We have
not learnt from the Bible that Christ and His Holy Spirit have one or two energies; we, however,
wish to think and breathe according to the words of Holy Scripture, rejecting whatever by novelty
of expression might cause uneasiness in the Church of God, so that those under age may not
bold us for Nestorians by taking offense at the expression, 'two energies'; and that we may not
seem to simple ears to teach Eutychianism when we clearly confess only one energy. . . . Fleeing
from the new manner of speech of one energy or two, proclaim with us one Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of the living God, true God, in two natures working the divine and human." Thus the pope
merely repeated the condemnation of old Christological heresies. He might be accused of
banality or platitude, but never was there such an obstinate refusal to define dogma.
Second letter. Perhaps in the following year, the pope sent another letter to Sergius.
Apparently he had in the meantime received St. Sophronius's encyclical, for he complained that
that patriarch had not sufficiently guarded against seeming opposition between Christ's divine and
human operations. But again the pope refused to commit himself: Non unam vel duas
operationes in Mediatore Dei et hominum definite. Yet in the same letter Honorius cited St. Leo
the Great in a passage which implicitly contained the doctrine of two wills and two energies: 'We
must confess that both natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each in communion
with the other worked and acted: 'the divine works the divine, and the human performs what is of
the flesh,' without separation and without mixture. . . . Proclaim with us the two natures, that is the
divinity and the assumed manhood, which work what is proper to them in the one person of the
Only-Begotten Son of God, unmingled and unseparated and unchanged." Far from teaching error,
Honorius implicitly taught the true doctrine, for in saying that the divine and human natures work
what is proper to them, a distinct will is implied in each. Still obsessed with the notion that
definition would be inexpedient, the pope refrained either from excessive timidity, failure to grasp
the issue, or negligence in inquiry. He certainly did not teach error, but his failure to teach truth
would produce prolonged troubles.
(4) IMPERIAL "DEFINITION" (638)
The Ekthesis. If the pope would not define, the emperor, at Sergius's bidding, would.
Encouraged by Honorius's abstention, Sergius induced Heraclius in 638 to publish the Ekthesis
Pisteos, an "exposition of the faith" which imposed silence on all in regard to one or two
operations, but bluntly enjoined them "to confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." Caesar had
spoken.
Oriental ratification followed from Sergius's patriarchal puppets. Cyrus of Alexandria of
course made no difficulty. St. Sophronius had died during the Saracen onslaught which had
taken both Jerusalem and Antioch. To these sees now in partibus infidelium Sergius named two
pliant tools, Sergius of Joppe and Macedonius. These absentee titulars subscribed to the
Ekthesis, as did Pyrrhus who succeeded Sergius at Constantinople (639-41).
(5) DYOTHELETE REACTION (638-49)
Papal resistance. Pope Honorius had died in October, 638, without further involvement in
the controversy. Heraclius seems to have deferred confirmation of the election of Severinus as
Honorius's successor for two years in the vain hope that he would subscribe to the Ekthesis.
Pope John IV (640-42) did not await imperial confirmation to be consecrated, and at once ordered
the emperor to withdraw his edict. This pope explained that: "My predecessor (Honorius) stated
concerning the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ that there was not in Him, as in us sinners,
contrary wills of mind and flesh. Some, however, changing his statement to their own sense,
supposed him to have taught only one will of the divinity and the humanity; which is completely
contrary to the truth." It may be that Herachus's eyes were now at long last opened; at least in
surviving fragments of a letter written to the pope just before his death, the emperor shifted the
entire responsibility to the deceased Sergius.
Lull in the storm. During the confused years of the contest for the imperial succession,
the Ekthesis was neither withdrawn nor enforced. Constans II (642-68), only twelve at his
accession, was a noncombatant during his minority, though Patriarch Paul II (641-54) was a
Monothelete. Pope Theodore (642-49) tried to win him over, and failing in this, excommunicated
him. St. Maximus, a disciple of St. Sophronius, appeared as the theological champion of the
Catholic cause, and won a number of converts, including for a time ex-Patriarch Pyrrhus. The
Byzantine Court essayed neutrality: in 648 the Ekthesis was replaced by the Typos, an edict
imposing silence on everyone regarding the explosive theological topic.
65. Monothelete Rejection (649-715)
IX
65. MONOTHELETE REJECTION
A. Condemnation (649-81)
(1) PAPAL CONDEMNATION
Lateran Synod. St. Martin, elected pope in 649, at once ended ambiguity. Without
awaiting imperial confirmation, he received consecration in July, and during October, 649,
assembled a plenary council of Western prelates at the Lateran. St. Martin and St. Maximus led
the discussions which culminated in the condemnation of Monotheletism by 500 bishops. The
neutrality of the latest imperial position was first criticized: "We must indeed avoid evil and do
good, but not reject both. We may praise indeed the good intention of the Typos, but its terms we
must reject, for they are altogether opposed to the spirit of the Catholic Church which imposes
silence on error, but does not command truth and its opposite to be asserted or denied together."
Next the Council added to the assertions at Chalcedon the corollary that "as there were two
unconfused natures of the same Christ, so also two natural wills, divine and human, and two
natural operations, divine and buman." Finally twenty anathemas rejected the Ekthesis and the
Typos, along with their authors, Sergius, Cyrus, and Paul II of Constantinople.
Imperial reprisal. Peter had spoken through Martin but in his successor's person would
again be led whither he would not. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to injure the pope--in
one case a would-be assassin went blind--Constans II directed the Exarch to seize St. Martin. He
was declared deposed on June 11, 653, and transported to the Crimea with St. Maximus. They
were brought to trial before Patriarch Paul II during September, 654. St. Martin was reviled,
struck on the face, stripped, driven in mockery through the streets, and cast into prison with
criminals. From time to time his tortures had to be relaxed to prevent his death. When the heroic
pontiff would not yield, he was again sent to the Crimea where he died of ill-treatment on
September 16, 655. St. Maximus had his hand amputated and after similar rnistreatment died in
exile in 662.
Papal defiance. The Roman clergy meanwhile elected St. Eugene as legitimate vicar of
the exiled pope and he was consecrated bishop on August 10, 654. This was not a repudiation of
St. Martin, who resigned the papacy sometime before mid-summer, 655, when he smuggled a
letter to Rome in which he prayed that "God may protect especially the pastor who now presides
over them." St. Eugene, certainly pope from 655 to 657, continued his predecessor's doctrinal
stand, and was enthusiastically supported by the Roman populace who signified their intention of
interfering with any new attempt to coerce the Holy See. Constans II, who in 655 had seen his
armada defeated by the Saracens, was scarcely master of Constantinople. Paul II died soon
after St. Martin's trial, and the new patriarch Peter (655-66) manifested his uneasy conscience by
seeking confirmation from Rome.
(2) MODUS VIVENDI (657-80)
Papal-imperial relations reached an impasse. Pope Vitalian (657-72) maintained his

theological stand while co-operating in friendly fashion with the emperor's defense measures.
Constans II is not known to have withdrawn the Typos, but he permitted the placing of the pope's
Dame on the diptyclis, the one case of such recognition between 638 and 680. He attended
Mass, dined with the pope and left gifts for St. Peter's during a visit to Rome in 663. Apparently
St. Vitalian saw fit to tolerate the imperial theological Silence so long as it lasted. But when
Archbishop Maurus of Ravenna with imperial backing adopted Nionothelete views and patriarchal
airs, the pope excommunicated him.
Papal-patriarchal relations bore some analogy to those of the Acacian schism. Again the
Catholic-minded patriarchs seem to have been admitted to communion as individuals, though
official confirmation of their rank was withheld so long as they were not permitted by the court to
revoke the Typos. Patriarchs Peter (655-66), Thomas II (667-68), John V (669-75), and
Constantine (675-77) enjoyed this limited papal recognition. But the Monothelete usurper
Theodore (676-79) again struck the papal name from the diptyclis. With the other Eastern
patriarchs, the Holy See had little to do. At Alexandria, the Melkite Monotheletes, Cyrus (631-41)
and Peter (641-54) came under Saracen domination, and after 644 there was no resident Melkite
patriarch until 724. The Melkite patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem were titulars resident at
Constantinople. Pope Martin, however, named an apostolic vicar to minister to Oriental Catholics
under Saracen rule, and this system was continued until resumption of more normal jurisdiction.
Path to reunion. The death of Constans II removed one barrier to return in 668. His
successor, Constantine the Bearded, ceased to enforce the Typos and repealed his father's edict
transferring Ravenna from Latin to Byzantine patriarchal jurisdiction. The emperor I s intense
efforts to meet attacks by both Saracens and Avars, however, kept theological matters at a
standstill until the Truce of 678. Then Constantine requested a resumption of communion with
Rome, and entered into protracted negotiations with Pope St. Agatho (678-81) for convening an
ecumenical council. The pope ordered preparatory synods throughout the West, and himself held
one at Easter, 680, which reaffirmed the decrees of the Lateran Council of 649 and endorsed a
papal dogmatic letter to guide the deliberations of the future general council. This last comprised
from 100 to 175 bishops who assembled at Constantinople between November 7, 680, and
September 16, 681. It was attended by Patriarch George of Constantinople (679-86), and the
titular Patriarch Macarius of Antioch; Alexandria and Jerusalem were then vacant.
(3) THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Convocation. The council opened its first session in the Trullan Palace on November 7,
680. Pope Agatho had named as legates Bishops Abundantius, John of Reggio, and John of
Porto, with two priests and a deacon as assistants.
Dogmatic decisions. After prolonged research into patristic sources, the council ratified the
doctrine of St. Agatho's Tome. Though Macarius of Antioch beaded a Monothelete minority, 174
bishops subscribed to the following declaration: "The holy ecumenical synod . . . consistently
defining, confesses our Lord Jesus Christ . . . to be perfect in deity and humanity, truly God and
truly man with a rational soul and body, and according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers we
proclaim that there are in Him two natural wills and two natural operations, without division,
conversion, separation, or confusion, and these two natural wills are not opposed."
Papal infallibility. The council also gave oral approval to St. Agatho's assertion: "The
Blessed Apostle Peter . . . received from the Redeemer Himself, by three commissions, the duty
of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church, under whose protecting shield this Apostolic Church
of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error. . . . The Apostolic
Church of Christ . . . has never erred from the path of apostolic tradition, nor has she been
depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but . . . remains undefiled to the end according to
the divine promise" (Mansi, XI, 234-236). It is in this context that the conciliar decree must be
understood which said: "We also excommunicate and pronounce anathema upon Theodore of
Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and also Honorius
who was in all things a follower of Sergius." So also are to be weighed other references to
Honorius who "permitted the immaculate rule of the Apostolic See to be stained" and "who did not
illumine the Apostolic See with the teaching of apostolic tradition." These negative and
posthumous condemnations express the resentment of a later generation keenly aware of the
forty years of trouble permitted by Honorius's negligence. It will be recalled that Pope John IV,
who had known and served Honorius, had been less severe.
Discipline. The council adopted no general disciplinary canons, but besides

excommunicating the dead, it censured and deposed Macarius of Antioch and his disciple
Stephen for refusing to subscribe to the condemnation of Monotheletism. George of
Constantinople signed, as did the newly designated Theophanes of Antioch.
Confirmation. Since St. Agatho died on January 10, 681, the conciliar decrees were
confirmed by Pope St. Leo II, in a letter to the emperor, August 17, 682. The pope somewhat
softened the indictment of Honorius, saying merely that "Honorius neglected to sanctify this
Apostolic Church" and "be allowed its purity to be polluted." Aside from Macarius, there were no
episcopal defections, and the Oriental Church was again in communion with Rome.
B. Monothelete Extinction (681-715)

(1) SYNOD IN TRULLO (692)
Aims. Both the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople felt that the lack of
disciplinary legislation at the Third General Council of Constantinople ought to be supplied.
Accordingly in September, 692, Justinian II and Paul III convened some 200 bishops in the
Trullan Palace for what was announced as a supplementary synod. Its purpose was to supply for
the dearth of disciplinary canons of both the fifth and sixth general councils, those of 553 and
680. Though this "QuiniSext Synod," as it came to be called, claimed some ecumenical standing,
it was never so recognized either by the Holy See or by the majority of historians.
Decrees. The Synod merely confirmed many previous dogmatic canons, though the
82nd canon prohibiting representations of Christ under the figure of a lamb may be a portent of
the next Oriental heresy of Iconoclasm. The Synod confirmed an inchoate code of "Apostolic
Canons," accepting 85 of these in contrast to the Roman usage which admitted but 50. The
Synod's own decrees number 102. Many re-enact or apply previous decrees, but several canons
contain pointed criticism of Roman usage and reveal a Greek intolerance of the Latin Rite which
would terminate in schism. Canon 36 would accord the Holy See little more than a primacy of
honor: "The see of Constantinople shall enjoy the same rights as that of Old Rome, shall be as
highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it." Canon 55
remarked caustically that "in Rome they fast every Saturday in Lent; this is contrary to the 66th
Apostolic Canon, and may no longer be done." Another difference between the rites regarding
celibacy is seen in canons 3, 13, and 48. Trullo explains that "in regard to the purity and
continence of the clergy, the Romans have a more stringent, the Constantinopolitans a milder
canon. . . . In the Roman Church ' those who wish to receive the diaconate or presbyterate must
promise to have no further intercourse with their wives. We, however, in accord with the Apostolic
Canons, allow them to continue in matrimony." Only bishops were obliged to separate from their
wives.
Papal reaction. Through Justinian II the Synod sent its canons to Pope Sergius I with a
blank space for his signature. But the pope resolutely refused any confirmation. Exarch John
Platinus of Ravenna refused to assist Chamberlain Zacharias whom the emperor sent to Italy to
arrest the pope. When Zacharias tried the task on his own, he ended up cowering under the
pope's bed in flight from an irate Roman populace. Justinian II renewed his demands during the
second part of his interrupted reign, but the papal nuncio Gregory succeeded in pacifying him.
Justinian's assassination ended the critical state of the affair, and long afterwards Pope John VIII
(872-82) acknowledged cautiously that in regard to the Trullan Synod the Holy See "accepted all
those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the Roman decrees."
(2) BRIEF MONOTHELETE REACTION
Philippicus Bardanes, who seized the Byzantine throne after murdering Justinian II and
his family, tried to reimpose the Monothelete heresy. When Patriarch Cyrus (706-12) refused to
co-operate, he was replaced by John VI (712-15). The latter convened a forced synod at
Constantinople which dutifully rejected the definition of the Third General Council of
Constantinople, and ordered observance of a Monothelete profession of faith. Many eastern
bishops yielded to court pressure, and when Pope Constantine refused to give his signature, his
name was struck from the dipthychs.
Catholic restoration followed when Artemius Anastasius replaced Bardanes on the throne
(713-15). He annulled his predecessor's doctrinal decrees and directed the pliant Patriarch John
VI to renew communion with the Holy See. This was effected in short order, and the next
patriarch, St. Germanus, formally revoked the decrees of the Monothelete synod and proclaimed
anew the Catholic teaching. Practically speaking, this terminated the history of Monotheletism
within the Byzantine monarchy.
66. The Iconoclast Schism (715-87)
IX
66. THE ICONOCLAST SCHISM
A. Iconoclast Origins
(1) REMOTE PORTENTS
The Old Testament had forbidden images lest the materialistic Hebrew people succumb
to an imitation of their idolatrous neighbors. Though the Mosaic legislation in this respect had
been abrogated by the New Covenant, it could still serve as a basis for the specious arguments
of opponents of images.
Christian liturgy, however, revealed from the beginning a veneration for images. The
catacombs contain rude but devotional representations of Christ, the Cross, and of the saints.
After the triumph of Christianity, more elaborate expressions of Christian piety appeared above
ground in the new churches. Sound Christian theology recognized both the use and abuse of
images. Xenias Pbiloxenius, Monophysite bishop of Mabboug, is the first known objector to their
veneration, and Agathias (d. 582) is one of the their earliest defenders. The correct attitude
maintained by the Holy See is revealed in a letter of Pope St. Gregory the Great, written about
599 to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles. In this the pope admonished that prelate: "You ought not to
have broken what was put up in the churches, not for adoration, but merely for the promotion of
reverence. It is one thing to worship an image, and another to learn from the history represented
in the image what we should worship. For, what Scripture is for those who can read, that a
picture is for those who are incapable of reading, since in this also the uneducated see in what
way they have to walk. In it they read who are not acquainted with the Scriptures" (Letter 9).
Oriental iconoduly, however, presented certain distinctive aspects. The higher cultural
standards of the East were reflected in more ambitious representations and works of art.
Spreading from Egypt during the fourth century, veneration of icons gained great, and
occasionally extravagant, popularity. From the seventh century, not only do historical portraits of
Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints appear on all the walls of the churches, but the images
of Christ and of Christian symbols, such as the Cross, began to appear on imperial documents
and coins. It is the extension of images into secular life which may have provoked outright
opposition among the Jewish and Mohammedan subjects of the empire. Monophysites,
moreover, in their exaggerated view of the absorption of Christ's humanity into His divinity, seem
in general to have deemed illicit any representation of Christ as man. Among the religious icons,
some termed acheiropoitai, that is, not made with human hands, were attributed miraculous
origin, such as the Veil of Edessa and the lkon of the Virgin of Blacherna.
(2) PROXIMATE ORIGINS
Saracen initiative. The facts surrounding the outbreak of iconoclast agitation are
obscure, but the following is plausible testimony of contemporaries. The Koran had not banned
images, but simply the use of idols. The early caliphs permitted human figures in their palaces
and continued to use Byzantine coins with imperial images. The probibition of the representation
of the human figure and restriction of Moslem art to "arabesques" would appear to originate with
the Haddith compiled by commentators on the Koran. Its first manifestation was the issue of new
coinage by Caliph Abdul a Malik in 695. In 723, Caliph Yezid ordered the destruction of all
images in "temples, churches, and houses," and until his death in the following year a vigorous
campaign was carried out. Thereafter Mohammedan fanaticism seems to have waned, for St.
John Damascene, Catholic defender of images, long resided in Saracen territory.
Ecclesiastical propaganda began with Bishop Constantine of Nicaolia in Phrygia. He was

possibly influenced by Moslem iconoclasm to advocate similar action within the Byzantine
dominions. Constantine objected to images on the score of the Old Testament prohibition, and
won over to his view Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus and Bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis.
Through Beser, a Syrian Christian once a reneaade, Constantine may also have influenced Leo
the Isaurian, strategy of the Anatolian theme in which Nicaolia was located.
Imperial prosecution. Leo the Isairrian seized the imperial crown in 717 and securely
entrenched himself in power by repulsing the Saracen attack on Constantinople. Thereafter he
displayed considerable ability in terminating the anarchy that had prevailed since the first
deposition of Justinian II in 695. Though his talents were chiefly military, Leo proved a capable
administrator in the crisis. Historians speak of a general reform initiated by him, though it is not
necessary to hold that he was a political genius, for his rule may have seemed great by contrast
with the preceding turinoil. But in artistic matters the Isaurian parvenu was without appreciation
and showed no grasp of the theological principles involved in veneration of images. As early as
723 he was in contact with Constantine and Beser, and by 726 showed his hostility to images.
About this time he sent workmen into the Chalcopraetaia quarter of the capital to destroy a
favorite icon of Christ, reputed achaeiropoiton. This action roused a mob to kill Leo's agent,
About the same time the emperor persecuted the professors of the imperial university-an event
later magnified into the report that he had burned down the library with twelve librarians and
303,000 books.
B. Iconoclast Controversy (726-87)

(1) OPENING OF SCHISM (729-40)
Outbreak. In April, 727, the revolt of a certain Cosmas in Greece played up opposition to
imperial iconoclasm. Though his naval attack on Constantinople was repulsed, Cosmas alarmed
Leo into seeking hierarchical sanction for his iconoclastic campaign. When the Patriarch St.
Germanus, refused approval, the emperor begged the pope to convoke an ecumenical council on
the subject. Pope St. Gregory II declared this unnecessary and sent his own refutation of the
new theory. Leo III then ordered Exarch Paul to seize or kill the Roman pontiff. The Italians,
already incensed by an unjust Byzantine tax, defended the pope, and only the latter's intervention
prevented them from setting up an antiemperor. Unable to strike at Italy for the moment, Leo in
729 replaced St. Germanus with his henchman Anastasius (729-52). The intruder obligingly drew
up a condemnation of the veneration of images and the intercession of the saints in 730. The
pope sustained the deposed patriarch, St. Germanus, and condemned iconoclasm.
Imperial persecution. Definitive proclamation of iconoclasm in 730 was followed by

systematic persecution. Episcopal signatures were exacted, and for the most part readily
obtained from the compliant Byzantine hierarchy. Though the secular clergy for the most part
conformed to the imperial edicts, violent resistance appeared among the monks and nuns, led by
the Studite Monastery in Constantinople. Despite repeated coercion and exile, these monks
defied imperial decrees and allied themselves with the Holy See. Throughout the iconoclast
controversy they remained consistent foes of court policy, and the struggle developed into a
contest for the independence of the Byzantine church from the state-a contest unfortunately lost
by the clergy. The laity, though less articulate, were in the main iconodule; the court drew its
support from the army and the civil service, especially among the eastern nationalities. Public
destruction of icons induced many to emigrate, and the emperor had to rely on ignorant and
lawless elements to execute his decrees. The death penalty was sparingly used, but resort was
had to imprisonment, corporal punishment, exile, and confiscation. Iconoclasm's chief literary
foe, St. John of Damascus, remained out of reach in Saracen territory.
Antipapal measures. In Italy, the imperial edicts were rejected indignantly and angry
messages sent to Constantinople. Pope Gregory III continued, however, to preserve formal civil
allegiance for the exarchate, now reeling under the blows of Liutprand of Lombardy. By 731 Leo
had prepared his instrument of retaliation: a powerful fleet was sent against Italy. But it was
wrecked on the Adriatic, and thereafter the emperor was powerless against the pope's person.
He retaliated as best he could by declaring the Illyrian provinces detached from the Latin
patriarchate and annexed to the Byzantine.
(2) AGGRAVATION OF THE SCHISM (740-80)
Constantine V Copronymos (740-75), Leo's son and successor, was challenged by his
brother-in-law, Artavasdus, general of the Onsequian theme. During the usurper's year of power
in the capital (741-42). the iconodules constrained Patriarch Anastasius to favor their position.
When Constantine regained power, Artavasdus was executed and Anastasius disgraced.
Iconoclast persecution resumed though for a decade the emperor was distracted by the problems
of an Armenian campaign.
Synod of Hieria (754). After the outbreak of civil war in the Caliphate (750), Constantine
V felt free to secure conciliar sanction for iconoclasm. The patriarchal see had just been vacated,
and with this prize dangling before their eyes a synod of ambitious and subservient prelates
assembled on February 10, 754, in the Palace of Hieria, near Chalcedon. Though neither the
pope nor any of the patriarchs were represented, the 338 bishops declared themselves an
ecumenical council under the presidency of Theodosius of Ephesus. On August 8 they published
the required decrees: the manufacture, use, and veneration of images of Christ were condemned
with arguments savoring of Monophysitism; images of saints were rejected as idolatrous; the
destruction of all sacred images in churches was decreed. Failure to obey these canons was to
be punished by deposition for clerics and excommunication for laymen; Sts. Germanus and John
Damascene were posthumously anathematized. The Synod did, however, refrain from endorsing
the emperor's still more radical views against the intercession of the saints.
Extreme persecution followed these decrees. Imperial commissions executed them

ruthlessly at great cost to piety, art, and good order. Whereas the secular clergy again
conformed, the monks persisted in their opposition. Against them Constantine now sometimes
used the death penalty. Peter Blakbernite and Andrew Kalybites were scourged to death in the
circus, and Abbot John of Monagria was cast into the sea in a sack for refusing to trample upon
an image of the Blessed Virgin, Monasteries were forbidden to receive novices, and disobedient
abbots mutilated and executed. Religious houses were rifled of sacred vessels and relics,
buildings confiscated or profaned, and monks and nuns expelled. But though Constantine could
intrude iconoclasts into the Byzantine patriarchate, the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and
Jerusalem reaffirmed Catholic doctrine at the Synod of Jerusalem, while Pope Stephen IV did the
same at the Lateran (769).
Leo IV Chazar (775-80), Constantine's son and successor, had married an Athenian lady,
Irene. She was deeply attached to images and her husband yielded to her pleas to mitigate the
persecution. Paul IV, the new imperially named patriarch of Constantinople (780-84) was also
favorably disposed toward images, though he did nothing to revoke the official decrees. Leo IV
died on September 8, 780, leaving Irene regent for their infant son Constantine VI (780-97).
(3) SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTROVERSY
Iconoclasm, last heresy sponsored by Byzantine Caesaro-papism, was in part aimed at

realizing the perennial objective of imperial unity. Actually the campaign proved a political
boomerang, for "iconoclasm alienated Italy and the papacy and was one of the main causes for
the final breach in the Church in the ninth century. The coronation of Charles the Great in 800
brought about still greater estrangement between the pope and the Byzantine Empire." In the
East, court control of the Church was itself imperiled by the rebellion of the monks. In the West,
iconoclasm proved to be the last straw in the alienation of the loyalty of the Latin subjects of the
Byzantine monarchy. Soon they renounced allegiance to what they deemed an incorrigibly
schismatic, alien, and decadent empire.
66. Iconodule Triumph (787-843)
IX
67. ICONODULE TRIUMPH
A. Oriental Orthodoxy (787-843)

(1) RETURN FROM SCHISM (780-87)
Empress Irene retained the regency for her son until 790. Though something of a
Jezebel, her religious instincts were toward iconoduly. Outwardly, indeed, she had conformed to
the iconoclast edicts during her husband's lifetime. Nor could she at once revoke existing
statutes after his death. She was forced to proceed cautiously, for she had to secure herself from
many officials of the former administration, and protect Byzantine frontiers against reviving
Saracen power.
St. Tarasius (784-806) succeeded to the patriarchal see when Paul IV, troubled in
conscience, resigned. The new patriarch had accepted Irene's nomination, however, on the
express condition that the Catholic doctrinal position would be sustained by an ecumenical
council. Accordingly negotiations were opened with Pope Adrian I toward the close of 784. The
pope in October, 785, objected to the use of the title of "ecumenical patriarch," but acceded to the
request for papal legates. Arrangements were at first made for convocation of the council during
786, but they had to be postponed by reason of the opposition of veterans of the praetorian
guard. It required Irene a year to paralyze this opposition by replacements and transfers. By
September, 787, the Basilica of Hagia Sophia was ready to receive the 300 to 400 bishops who
arrived to attend the seventh ecumenical council.
(2) SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL OF NICEA (787)
First session. The Council of Nicea was opened on September 24 by an address of

Patriarch Tarasius, who urged the assembled prelates to be righteous and brief. Pope Adrian
was represented by Archpriest Peter and Abbot Peter of St. Sabas. They received the
recantations of various prelates tainted with iconoclasm, absolved them, and assigned them
seats in the council.
Second session. During this meeting the Catholic doctrine, presented through a
dogmatic letter from Pope Adrian, met with the general assent of Patriarch Tarasius and the
majority of the members of the Council.
The third session was entirely concerned with the recantation and rehabilitation of other
bishops guilty of iconoclasm during the preceding schism.
The fourth and fifth sessions were consumed by discussions on the compilation of
Scriptural and traditional proofs of the Catholic teaching.
The sixth session was the completion of the negative work of the Council by the detailed
repudiation of the Synod of Hieria and the nullification of its decrees.
The seventh session on October 7 voted the doctrinal decree: "Bowing or prostrating
oneself before an image, which is simply a token of love and relative honor due to the original,
should not be confounded with adoration due God alone. Christians do not call images gods, nor
place their hopes of salvation in them, nor expect future judgment at their bands. But while
refusing to pay them the honor due to God, they salute them out of respect to the memory of
those they represent, and as a token of the love they entertain for the originals." At the same time
latria or adoration due God was distinguished from dulia, the veneration paid to saints.
A final session on October 23, 787, was held in the imperial palace at Constantinople in
the presence, of Constantine VI and his mother. Twenty-one canons designed to restore clerical
discipline were enacted, and after a number of formalities the Council ended its labors.
(3) ICONODULE RIVALRIES (787-813)
Empress Irene resigned her regency in 790 to her son, but still tried to control the
government. After a brief assertion of independence (790-92), Constantine yielded to her malign
counsels. His headstrong temperament and his marital difficulties soon rendered him unpopular.
It is even alleged that Irene fostered rather than restrained Constantine's aberrations in order to
displace him. In 795 Constantine divorced his wife Maria and induced the priest Joseph to
witness his union with his mistress Theodote. When St. Theodore, abbot of Studion, accused the
patriarch of subservience for not disciplining Father Joseph, Irene sided with the Studites,
appealed to the army, and in 797 deposed and blinded her son. With the assistance of her
former prime minister, Stauracius, Irene was able to regain power, but after his death in 800 her
regime revealed its bureaucratic graft and military incompetence. A revolt in 802 deposed Irene
and relegated her to a convent where
she died the following year.

Nicephorus I (802-11), made basileus by the rebels, tried to bring the Studites into
subjection. In 809 a managed synod absolved Father Joseph for his assistance at Constantine's
marriage, for obviously Caesar could do no wrong. St. Theodore in exile protested vehemently
and was sustained in his anti-Erastian stand by Pope St. Leo III. In 811 Nicephorus and his son
were defeated by the Bulgars at Adrianople and mortally wounded.
Michael I Rhangabe (811-13), Nicephorus's son-in-law, followed briefly on the throne.

Though popular with the iconodules and the better element, he succumbed to a revolt and with
his son Ignatius was
confined in a monastery.
(4) ICONOCLAST REACTION (813-42)
Leo V the Armenian (813-20), champion of the uneducated and turbulent iconoclasts,
now seized the crown. When in 814 he tried to revive iconoclasm he was opposed both by St.
Theodore Studite and Patriarch St. Nicephorus (806-15). The former was exiled and the latter
deposed in favor of three successive iconoclast intruders (815-42). The decrees of Nicea were
declared null and those of Hieria again in force. Destruction of images and persecution of
iconodules, especially the Studite monks, recommenced and continued with ferocity until Leo's
reign terminated abruptly with his assassination at Christmas, 820.
The Arnorian Dynasty now secured the throne with Michael II the Stammerer (820-29).
Though he left official iconoclasm in possession, the new ruler was not at first an active
persecutor. He released St. Theodore Studite from confinement but did not permit his return. St.
Theodore died at Nicomedia in 826 and the Byzantine monastic independence movement
practically expired with him. The abortive revolt of the iconodule Thomas in 822 somewhat
stiffened the court policy toward the venerators of images. Persecution, though seldom to death,
was renewed and continued under Michael's son Theophilus (829-42). On his deathbed the latter
extorted an oath from his wife Theodora to maintain the iconoclastic edicts.
(5) FINAL RESTORATION OF ORTHODOXY (842-43)
Empress Theodora assumed the regency for her five year old son, Michael the
Drunkard-"as yet of milk." Once again a persecutor's wife repudiated his policy. This time the
change entailed less difficulty. In March, two months after Theophilus's death, the iconoclast
patriarch John VII was replaced by the iconodule St. Methodius (842-47). He assembled a synod
which repudiated iconoclasm and reaffirmed the Nicene decrees (842). Prelates who had bowed
before the court now readily followed the new orthodox tune of Caesaro-papism.
The Feast of Orthodoxy was magnificently celebrated by patriarch and people in solemn
procession on the First Sunday in Lent, March 11, 843. The feast has been preserved in the
Byzantine church ever since on the same Sunday, and has given it its popular distinctive name.
Though intended to commemorate the triumph of iconoduly over iconoclasm, its meaning might
be extended to a celebration of the final victory of the original Nicene faith over the many heresies
of Arianism, Nesiorianism, Monophysitism, and Monotheletism which had disturbed the Oriental
church. Since that time it has been rather on disciplinary than dogmatic matters that the Greek
church has differed from Rome, though of course the Great Eastern Schism involves the
repudiation of the papal primacy subsequently defined at the Vatican Council.
B. Occidental Misunderstandings (790-880)

(1) THEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES
Libri Carolini. By way of appendix certain repercussions of iconoclasm in the West may
be treated here conveniently. The Franks had not participated in the second Nicene Council and
learned of its transactions only through the translation of an envoy who, according to Anastasius
the Librarian, "knew neither Latin nor Greek." This was enough to confuse the Franks; as a matter
of fact their amateur theologians made matters worse. At the request of Charles the Great, about
790 one or more of them published a scathing Capitularium De Imaginibus, popularly known as
the Libri Carolini. These asserted: (1) both Hieria and Nicea were in error, for (2) adoration is due
God alone, and (3) the saints receive merely "opportune veneration." (4) Bows and kisses are
acts of veneration among men, but only for sake of salutation; but (5) even this type of homage
ought not to be paid to manmade images. Though these may be retained as ornaments, (6) they
are unnecessary so that Nicea erred in anathematizing those who did not revere images. (7) In
the West images were never on a par with the cross, Holy Writ, sacred vessels and relics, and (8)
it is foolish to burn lights or incense before them or (9) put them in dirty places along the road, as
the Greeks do.
The ensuing controversy "was first occasioned by a defective translation of the acts of
Nicea, which had been sent to Charlemagne in 788. Touching the veneration of images, it stated:
'I receive and honorably cherish the holy and venerable images according to the worship and
adoration which I pay the consubstantial and vivifying Trinity; and those who are not of like mind
nor glorify (the sacred images) I segregate from the Holy and Apostolic Church and
anathematize'; whereas the original had: I accept and reverently kiss the holy and venerable
images; but latreuical worship I reserve exclusively for the supersubstantial and vivifying Trinity'."
The substance of the Caroline objections was incorporated in the decrees of the Council of
Frankfort (794) which protested against Nicene proskynesis which the Franks interpreted as
latreuic adoration instead of mere prostration.
Papal explanations. Pope Adrian, apprised by his legates of the Franks' objections, acted
diplomatically. Adroitly he affected to regard the Frankfort resolutions as so many questions
addressed to the Holy See for clarification. He then proceeded to give the correct answers.
Without repudiating Nicea, which "be had received," the pope gave orthodox interpretations.
Though most of the wiser theologians made use of the graceful exit provided them by the pope,
others persisted in their complaints at the Synods of Cividale (796) and Paris (825). All
misunderstanding was not removed until the papal secretary, Anastasius the Librarian, prepared
a more accurate Latin version of the Nicene acts (c. 872-882), and Walfried Strabo popularized
this explanation by the close of the ninth century.
(2) POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS
Western independence may be traced directly to Byzantine iconoclasm as an occasion.

That heresy induced the emperors to menace the a ac and refuse assistance against the
Lombards. By thus abdicating its sovereign duties of protection the Byzantine monarchy
practically absolved the Italians of their allegiance. Later emperors could not legitimately
complain if the popes finally assumed the sovereignty over Rome that they had so long sought to
avoid.
Western imperialism is also closely connected with events connected with iconoclasm.
The Carolingians did not forget that Constantine had jilted Charles's daughter Rotrude to marry
Mary of Paphlagonia, only to divorce the latter for his mistress. Constantine's contempt for
matrimony incurred the strictures of Studites and iconodules and provoked Irene's coup d'etat.
These Byzantine intrigues cost the court prestige and the unprecedented usurpation of the throne
of the Caesars by a woman could be regarded by interested parties as invalid. At any rate, the
Franks blithely extended their own ne mulieres regnant in terra salica to the Golden Horn, and
Charles' imperial coronation followed within three years.

68. Oriental Life and Liturgy
IX
68. ORIENTAL LIFE AND LITURGY
A. The Eastern Patriarchates

(1) ANTIOCH
The patriarchal city on the Orontes in Syria was the place where the Savior's followers
were first called Christians. It could claim St. Peter as first organizer of its hierarchy. The bishop
of Antioch was at first obeyed throughout Syria, Phoenicia, Aragia, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and
Cyprus. But episcopal rivalries lopped off Cyprus and Palestine in the fifth century and national
diversities weakened the control of the Antiochene patriarch. Nestorianism entrenched in Persia
destroyed his influence in these regions, though he had a dutiful subject in Caucasian Georgia.
Antiochene theological schools had an unfortunate history. That of Lucian produced

Arianism, and the later school of Diodore of Tarsus, Nestorianism. The promising School of
Edessa founded by St. Ephraem also fell into Nestorianism. The rivalry among Melkite,
Nestorian, and Jacobite claimants for the patriarchate reduced its prestige considerably by the
time that Omar and the Moslems captured Antioch in 637.
The Syrian liturgy is the first to be found formally drawn tip in the fourth century "Apostolic
Constitutions." The latter elaborated upon St. Hippolytus's "Apostolic Tradition" which may
represent an original unified liturgy. A redactor, it would seem, formalized the usage of the Syrian
capital, if not as an obligatory formulary, at least as a norm to which the celebrant might refer.
This so-called "Clementine Liturgy" has readings from the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and
the Gospels. After dismissal of catechumens and penitents, the kiss of peace is given. The
offerings are brought in and there follows a lengthy preface. After the words of consecration
came the anamnesis, epiklesis, and intercessory prayers. There was at first no Pater Noster, but
the 33rd Psalm was recited during the people's communion. Thanksgiving and episcopal
blessing followed. This liturgy, enlarged by St. John Chrysostom, and eventually translated into
Greek became part of the Byzantine Rite. In western Syria, the so-called Liturgy of St. James
perseveres to this day in the use of the Syriac vernacular. Supposedly originating in Jerusalem, it
was adopted by the Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Both Catholics and Jacobites use this
liturgy, though after the Saracen conquest the Arabic vernacular was substituted for the readings
and litanies.
(2) ALEXANDRIA
The Patriarch of Alexandria, it is said, was once termed by the exasperated St.
Chrysostom the "Christian Pharaoh." Certainly the bishop of Alexandria ruled a great city, the
second of the ancient empire and the port of Egypt. St. Mark the Evangelist was claimed as the
first bishop, by delegation from St. Peter himself. The fame of the great catechetical school of
Alexandria has already been noted. "The last cause of the great position of the bishop of
Alexandria was the compactness, the strong national feeling, and the faithful obedience of his
provinces. He was the chief of Christian Egypt. From his throne by the sea he ruled over all the
faithful of the Roman provinces of Egypt, Thebais, and Libya; from his city the faith had spread
throughout the country; he ordained all the bishops; under him were nine metropolitans and over
one hundred bishops. South of Egypt and outside the empire were the two Churches of Ethiopia
and Nubia, each of them founded from Alexandria, where their metropolitans have always been
ordained." But the advance of Constantinople threatened Alexandrian leadership of the Orient,
and then the Monophysite heresy broke it into warring factions and the Saracen conquest isolated
it from Christendom. Melkite and Copt patriarchs contended for Egyptian favor which, aside from
renegades to Mohammedanism, was eventually given to the latter.
The original liturgy of the Egyptian church is that ascribed to St. Mark. One of the earliest
authentic witnesses, however, is the fourth century Euchologion of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis.
"The list of Mass prayers begins with a prayer for a fruitful reading of the Scriptures. There
follows a prayer 'after standing up from the homily,' then a group of formulas for the general
prayers of the Church: for the catechumens, for the people, for the sick. To each of these groups
is appended a cheirothesia, a blessing by the bishop for a good crop, for the church, for the
bishop and the Church, and finally a 'genuflectional prayer,' probably a closing benediction. . . .
The Eucharistic prayer begins: 'Fit it is and proper, to praise, to glorify and to exalt Thee, the
everlasting Father of the only-begotten, Jesus Christ.' . . . Petition for a fruitful Communion
passes over into an intercessory prayer for the dead (presupposing a reading of the names) and
for the living. The prayer then closes with the doxology. Then follows the breaking of the bread,
to the accompaniment of a prayer by the celebrant, and then the communion of the clergy, a
blessing of the people, their communion, and finally a closing thanksgiving prayer spoken by the
celebrant." Monophysite Copts adopted the ancient native language and subsequently Arabic
and Ethiopian vernaculars were admitted to partial use.
(3) CONSTANTINOPLE
The rise of this see is already well known from previous topics. A bishop of Byzantium
appears to history only before the General Council of Nicea, though later St. Andrew the Apostle
was claimed as the first bishop. This assertion, however, has been traced to a forgery attributed
to the fourth century Dorotheus of Tyre. What really made Byzantium prominent was its
transformation into Constantinople at the beck of the great Constantine. Then as bishop of "New
Rome" the Byzantine prelate freed himself from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea,
assumed patriarchal rank, and finally claimed to have the second place in the Church, barely
inferior to "Old Rome." But though he might style himself "ecumenical bishop," the patriarch was
merely first servant of Caesar.
Byzantine liturgy was a hybrid affair. The original element was a modification of the
Syrian rite by St. Basil the Great. He amplified it and enhanced it with more awe-inspiring
expressions. "The change in expression coincides clearly with the veering in theological attitude
from the struggle with Arianism. . . . It is therefore no mere accident that precisely in the Orient
the celebration of the mysteries took on an ever greater splendor. The activities at the altar
became the object of the awesome gaze and wonder of the assembled congregation. The clergy
appear in splendid vestments, lights and incense are introduced into the service, an external
ceremonial with bowings and proskynesis is gradually evolved. Forms broaden out, following the
pattern set by the emperor and his highest officials on festive occasions. The bearing of gifts to
the altar, and of course, the procession for their distribution in Holy Communion are turned into
solemn parades of the clergy, who appeared like the legions of the heavenly spirits (as the festive
hymns expressly declare)." As a result of the iconoclast controversy the separation of the
sanctuary from the people became more marked, eventually taking the form of the ikonastasis or
rood-screen.
St. John Chrysostom shortened the liturgy for ordinary days, though the Basilian formula
is preserved for certain feasts. A third liturgy, a "Mass of the Presanctified" celebrated on all
Lenten weekdays except Saturday, is called the Liturgy of St. Gregory Dialogos, that is, Pope
Gregory the Great. The Byzantine rite has subsequently been translated into several Slavonic
vernacular languages. During the last third of the sixth century the grand entry and the chose
were added to the liturgy. Hymns enhanced the Divine Office, those of Andrew of Crete (d. 740)
being outstanding. The iconoclast persecution seems to have led to the use of the antimenses or
portable altars.
Popular devotion expressed itself in the repetition of the same prayers: octaves and
litanies, in veneration of relics, and pilgrimages. The Sign of the Cross was in continual use. At
Constantinople a large piece of the True Cross was preserved before which people swore to
fulfillment of their contracts; smaller relics of the True Cross might be worn round the neck. Holy
water was available for the blessing of houses, ships, etc.; it was obtained by pouring water into a
chalice and out again. Oil lamps burned before the icons, and those who did not receive Holy
Communion were eager to receive blessed bread. The metanoia, prostrations made while
reciting the Kyrie eleison, was a popular devotion. Unfortunately pagan superstitions survived in
the Carnival, the May Festival, and other rites. Magic flourished and quacks professed to cure
disease and find riches. The court and city were unfavorably affected by wealth and luxury, but a
society which survived so long could not have been all bad.
B. Oriental Magisterium
(1) CLOSE OF THE GREEK PATRISTIC AGE (590-750)
The Monothelete controversy with its affirmation of a single will and operation in the God-
man, provoked refutations of the new heresy by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and St. Maximus
the Confessor. The former concluded from the duality of natures in Christ to a duality of
operations, though he at the same time dissipated Sergius's specious phantasm of two discordant
operations in Christ. St. Maximus explicitly affirmed what St. Sophronius had merely implied: that
in Christ there are two wills, though only One who willed. This assertion St. Maximus upheld by
his personal sufferings and acute philosophical reasoning, building on the theology of Leontius of
Byzantium.
The iconoclast controversy proved even more harassing to Oriental theologians. While
the imperial attack on veneration of images was chiefly combated by St. John Damascene,
mention should also be made of two other defenders of iconoduly. St. Germanus (635-733),
patriarch of Constantinople, resisted the heresy at its outset, even to exile. In addition to three
letters justifying the Catholic tradition on images, the patriarch composed seven noteworthy
panegyrics on the Blessed Virgin. St. Theodore Studite (759-826) upheld the Catholic doctrine on
images and defended the papal primacy and infallibility in the Byzantine capital itself.
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749), monk and priest, was the great doctor of the Church
of the period. His "Three Discourses On images" made the points that: (1) though God cannot be
represented by an image, Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints could be depicted with
approximate fidelity; (2) it is licit to revere images, provided that the veneration transcends the
material icon to the prototype; (3) it is profitable to revere images, which can instruct, inspire, and
exercise a certain intercession with God; and (4) that to avoid error one ought to distinguish
between strict worship paid to God alone, and veneration of a person or thing as related to God.
St. John, moreover, terminated the patristic era of theology by an able summary of Greek
theology: his "Fountain of Knowledge." This masterpiece is divided into three parts: (1)
"Philosophic Chapters" in which he relies to an unusual degree on Aristotle; (2) the "Book of
Heresies," an apologetic extension of St. Epiphanius's Panarion; and (3) the positive presentation
of theology in the "Orthodox Faith." The latter section, posthumously subdivided by medieval
Scholastics into four books to correspond with the divisions of Peter Lombard's Magister
Sententiartim, served St. Thomas and others as a handy summary of Greek theology.
(2) CANONICAL LEGISLATION
During the patriarchate of John the Scholastic (565-77) a synthesis of civil and canonical
legislation was compiled, the semiofficial Nomocanons. In 692 the Synod in Trullo had issued
102 canons which became the basis of Byzantine canonical codes. These regulations revealed a
decreasing respect for religion in the empire: the laity were rebuked for remaining away from
Mass on Sundays, for talking, eating, and even trading in churches. In rural districts, animals
were sheltered in the churches, and cases of orgies, magic, and superstition attest the survival of
pagan customs.
The patriarch of Constantinople had increased his jurisdiction from 424 suffragans in 650
to 600 in 829. The Melkite patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria became
nonresidential for a century following the Saracen invasion. Married men were admitted to the
clergy, but the wives of bishops had to retire to a convent. Trullo fixed the ages for subdeacons at
twenty, for deacons at twenty-five, and for priests at thirty. The clergy wore a partial tonsure,
while monks were obliged to a complete cut. Monastic population increased, the age of
admission being fixed at ten by Trullo. The laity were now forbidden to communicate themselves
in the presence of priests. Matrimonial legislation castigated adultery, rape, and incest, and
annulled mixed marriages involving Catholics. Unfortunately there does not seem to be much
evidence of either parochial or monastic catechetical schools.
Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 X. Formation of the Dyarchy (754-843)

69. Foundation of the Papal State (715-843)
X
Formation of the Dyarchy
69. FOUNDATION OF THE PAPAL STATE
A. Preparation (715-52)
Introduction: The remote preparation for the establishment of an independent Papal

State and of the Germanic Empire consisted in three developments: the alienation of the
Byzantine monarchy culminating in Irene's usurpation; the evolution of the papal administrative
authority under St. Gregory's successors; and the rise of a strong military power in Frankland
under the Carolingian mayors. Attention may now be given to more proximate antecedents.
(1) RISE OF THE LOMBARD MENACE (712-41)
Liutprand, prince of the Lombards (712-43), put an end to a protracted series of civil wars
among the Lombard dukes which had lasted since the death of Prince Rothari in 653. Liutprand
could now resume the systematic reduction of Byzantine territory in Italy. He was successful in
capturing Ravenna in 727, but definitive Lombard triumph was delayed for a quarter century by
the intrigues of the last exarcb, Eutychius (726-51). Having taken refuge at Venice, Eutychitis
profited by a revolt of the Lombard dukes of Spoleto and Benevento to recapture his capital in
729. Liutprand had to devote the remainder of his reign to subduing the rebels and to destroying
Byzantine power in central Italy.
Relations with Rome. Pope St. Gregory II (715-31), as has been previously noted,
remained loyal to the empire despite the provocation received from the iconoclast ruler, Leo the
Isaurian. Since Liutprand was a Catholic, the pope had more to fear from the exarch, who had
orders to seize him, than from the Lombard prince. The revolt of the dukes of Spoleto and
Benevento, however, strained relations, since Liutprand accused the pope of abetting these papal
neighbors. But Rome survived, chiefly through the rivalry of Eutychius and Lintprand: though
each wished to take the city, neither desired the other to profit by its capture. Gregory III (731-
41), while upholding his predecessor's condemnation of iconoclasm, also continued to retain the
Romans in Byzantine allegiance. Destruction of the Byzantine armada on the Adriatic in 733
removed danger of reprisal from Constantinople, but new trouble with Liutprand arose in 738
when Duke Trasimund of Spoleto fled to Rome to escape Liutprand's vengeance. When the
Lombard prince attacked Roman territory, the pope appealed to Charles Martel, mayor of the
Franks. Martel replied evasively and the Roman pontiff purchased reprieve by payment of tribute.
When Lintprand resumed his attacks in 740, the pope again asked Martel for aid. This time the
mayor of the Franks remonstrated with the Lombard prince regarding four towns which he had
seized from the papacy. Before anything could transpire, both pope and mayor died in 741.
(2) LOMBARD CRISIS (741-52)
Pope St. Zachary (741-52), an Italo-Greek, was consecrated on December 10, 741,
without the exarch's confirmation. Yet it was in the name of Emperor Constantine V that the pope
in 742 signed the Truce of Terni with Liutprand. This secured the return of the four towns which
had been seized, and the pope in a personal interview with Liutprand prevailed upon him to desist
from a contemplated attack on Ravenna. Liutprand died in 743 and the pope negotiated a twenty
year peace with his successor, Prince Ratchis (743-49). Papal diplomacy continued to be
exercised on behalf of Ravenna, and by money payments its immunity was secured. In 749 the
pious prince abdicated and became a monk, first at Rome, and later at Monte Cassino.
Prince Astolf (749-56), Ratchis's brother and successor, was an entirely different
character. Ambitious and treacherous, he was resolved to put an end to Byzantine rule in Italy
which, indeed, had continued for the past decade more on Lombard sufferance and papal
intervention than on its own strength. Since Constantine V continued to refuse assistance to
Ravenna, Exarch Eutychius had no alternative than to surrender the city to Astolf in 751. All
imperial authority north of Rome was at an end in Italy, and Astolf prepared to invade the
Patrimony of St. Peter.

St. Zachary's diplomacy, however, preserved peace in his time. At Constantinople the
restored Constantine V was grateful to the pope for his loyalty during the usurpation of
Artavasdus. The Byzantine monarch even bestowed two estates on the Patrimony. Toward
Astolf, St. Zachary repeated the money payments that had kept the Lombards away before,
though he must have been aware that this could be only a temporary expedient. Providentially an
ally appeared during 751 when the Frankish embassy headed by Bishop Burkbard of Wiirzburg
arrived at Rome. Their pleas were to the effect that the pope sanctioned the deposition of the
Merovingians in favor of mayor Pepin, who had succeeded Charles Martel in 741. The pope's
reply was favorable, and Pepin became king of the Franks "by the favor of the Holy See," as well
as the people's choice. The papal decision, reasonable and just in itself, also proved highly
politic. St. Zachary, who had also sustained St. Boniface in his reform labors, died on March 22,
752.
Pope Stephen II (752). Before proceeding to the historic pontificate of Pope Stephen
Constantini, note should be taken of Stephen Chrysogoni. On March 23, 752, this Roman priest
was elected to the papacy, but he died two days later before receiving episcopal consecration.
Some annalists therefore omit him from the list of the popes and style his successor, the Roman
deacon Stephen Constantini, elected on March 26, Pope Stephen II. It seems to us consistent to
style the latter Stephen III, and this enumeration will be observed for the succeeding popes of the
same name.
B. Establishment (752-57)
(1) PAPAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (752-54)
Pope Stephen III (752-57) promptly sent his brother and advisor, Archdeacon Paul, to
treat with Astolf. A forty-year peace was conceded, but nonaggression pacts meant no more to
Astolf than to twentieth century dictators. Within four months he was again on the warpath.
Another papal embassy beaded by Abbot Optatus of Monte Cassino was curtly dismissed. Arrival
of a Byzantine envoy, John the Silentiary, was utilized by the pope to send a third plea to Astolf
through Archdeacon Paul. When this also failed, Stephen made a final appeal for aid to
Constantinople: "We beseech the imperial clemency, that as we have so often written, he come
with an army to protect these regions of Italy with all the means at his disposal." This last explicit
acknowledgment of imperial suzerainty by the papacy produced no effective assistance.
Negotiations with the Franks. Doubtless from past papal experience, Stephen III had
realized the futility of expecting military aid from the Byzantine court. He organized penitential
processions in Rome and during the winter of 752-53 sent an appeal to Pepin of the Franks by a
returning pilgrim. When Pepin sent word the following spring that he was willing to help, the pope
requested an escort through Lombard territory to Frankland. The royal envoys, Bishop
Chrodegang of Metz and Duke Autchar, came to Rome in 753. Stephen left Rome in their
company in October, and went first to Pavia for a personal interview with Prince Astolf. The latter
refused to abandon his hostile designs on Rome, but feared to harm the pope, especially since it
would involve an overt insult to the Franks. Consequently he allowed the pope a passage
through Lombardy and the party arrived safely in Frankland during January, 754.
The Quiercy Declaration. King Pepin met the pope at Ponthion, prostrated himself before him,
and led his horse by the bridle--a first instance of the subsequent ceremonial of the Holy Roman
Empire. The pontiff proceeded to the royal villa at Quiercy-sur-Marne. Here Stephen III
requested Pepin and his nobles for aid: "It is to none other than to your beloved and apostolic
person or to your sons and to the nation of the Franks that, with the permission of God and of
Blessed Peter, we have confided the defense of the Holy Church of God and of our own Roman
people." At Easter, April 14, 754, the papal-Frankish mutual assistance pact was solemnly ratified;
in the history of the Papal State it is the closest analogy to the American July 4, 1776. The pope
anointed Pepin and his sons, Charles and Carloman, and bestowed on them the titles, "our
patricians of the Romans." It is significant that after 754 the imperial dux Romae is never again
mentioned; henceforth the popes acted as temporal sovereigns and the Franks as their allies and
protectors. It yet remained to give substance to these revolutionary declarations.
(2) VINDICATION OF PAPAL INDEPENDENCE (754-57)
First Frankish invasion. The pope's illness and four fruitless peace missions to Astolf delayed
intervention until autumn. Then Stephen III parted from Pepin at Maurienne to return to Rome
while the Franks besieged Astolf at Pavia. Astolf, who had vainly tried to stir up trouble for Pepin
by drawing the latter's brother Carloman from the monastery, was not prepared for war and
quickly asked for terms. On his promise to restore all of his conquests, the Franks retired to their
own country. But Astolf had merely resorted to his familiar ruse; no sooner had the Franks
departed than he repudiated his oath and resumed his advance on Rome.
Second Frankish invasion. Throughout 755 Stephen III redoubled his appeals to King Pepin for
assistance, for "in recommending ourselves to your gracious protection, we have confided to your
hands all the interests of the Prince of the Apostles. Under the inspiration of God, you have
deigned to accede to our request and you have promised to maintain the rights of St. Peter and to
constitute yourself defender of the Holy Church of God." Fortunately Pepin was a man of honor,
and again led his Franks into Lombardy. By April, 756, Astolf was once more besieged in Pavia.
At this inappropriate time Byzantine envoys reappeared: the silentiary John and the secretary
George demanded that Pepin hand over the territory soon to be recovered from Astolf to the
Empire. Pepin's indignation remains on record: he retorted: "Not for the Greeks have the Franks
shed their blood, but for St. Peter and the salvation of their own souls. Neither will I break my
word for any earthly consideration." This time the Franks persevered until Astolf was reduced to
abject surrender. The Lombard prince now guaranteed fulfillment of his former pledges to the
Holy See, surrendered hostages, and submitted to an occupation force until the terms of the
treaty had been executed. Astolf could not renege again; before the end of the year be was
dead.
Erection of the Papal State. By the terms of the treaty, Astolf was required to surrender to the
Holy See not merely the Roman territory known as the Patrimony of St. Peter, but Ravenna and
the former exarchate, subsequently known as the Romagna. Apparently the areas were to be
connected by a narrow corridor. In view of the resurgence of Byzantine claims, the transfer of
territory seems to have been made with some ceremony. At least we are told by Anastasius the
Librarian that in the autumn of 756 "Fulrad, Abbot of St. Denis, and Pepin's plenipotentiary, visited
all the cities enumerated in company with the Lombard deputies, from whom he received the keys
of each place and laid them on the tomb of St. Peter." The exact boundaries of this new Papal
State cannot be established, but it evidently began a sovereign existence which through many
vicissitudes endured until General Kanzler surrendered to the Italian troops, September 20, 1870.
(3) DOCUMENTARY BASIS OF PAPAL INDEPENDENCE
Constantine's Donation. Before examining the authentic record of the establishment of

the Papal State, some attention must be paid to a mythical one. During the Middle Ages a
"Donation of Constantine" was widely accepted. According to this legend, Constantine the Great
had been cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester at the intercession of Sts. Peter and Paul. The
emperor had then been baptized by the pope and had proclaimed Christianity the official religion.
In his gratitude, not merely did the emperor confirm the pope's spiritual jurisdiction over all
bishops, but be awarded him use of the imperial insignia: a diadem, a purple cloak, golden
sandals, a crown, and a white horse. Silvester I was given the palaces, towns, and provinces in
Italy and all western islands-in general, a vague temporal supervision over the West. Not until
Lorenzo Valla in the fifteenth century was the supposed donation exposed as a forgery. The
document has been quite certainly traced to the eighth century, and it is not impossible that the
author was the papal notary Christopher. This able and unscrupulous diplomat may have
invented it as a spur to Pepin's liberality. At any rate, the donation was accepted as genuine by
Pope Adrian in 778; it passed through the "Isidorian Decretals" and Gratian's "Concordance" into
the corpus of medieval canon law. Not until 1054 did a pope rely on this "Donation," however, as
an argument, and then merely for a secondary ad hominem confirmation of papal primacy.
Donation of Pepin. Quite different is the status of Pepin's Donation. True, the document
itself no longer exists in original form, but we have reliable testimony to its existence in the next
century from Anastasius the Librarian, who consulted it. Apparently it was drawn tip on the
occasion of Pope Stephen's visit to Frankland. The essential portion was Pepin's pledge to
restore to the pope the respublica Romanorum, civitas et ducatus Romae. To this were
subsequently added-at least in promise-territories in the former exarchate of Ravenna, and a strip
of connecting territory. Certain Lombard towns seem to have been enumerated in detail-among
them Ravenna, Rimini, Urbino, Bobbio -as "donated to St. Peter, to the Church, and to the Roman
Republic." Though there is some uncertainty about Charles the Great's subsequent confirmation,
there can be no doubt that the original cession of the core of the Papal State rests on sound
historical evidence.

70. Organization of the Papal State (757-95)
X
70. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPAL STATE

A. Precarious Inaugural (757-72)
(1) POPE ST. PAUL I (757-67)
Lombard affairs. Pope Stephen III died in April, 757. During the same month a faction
tried to intrude Theophylactos Byzantinos, a deacon, to succeed him, but desisted when the pars
sanior opted for the late pope's brother, St. Paul. The new pope, who had been employed on
diplomatic missions by his brother, was consecrated on May 29, 757. All of his experience was
needed to meet the problems of administering the new papal state. St. Paul's zeal for the
interests of the poor equaled that of his brother, though he is accused of over-indulgence toward
certain exactions of his temporal agents. But be firmly repressed the lawlessness among the
Roman nobles and the brigands flourishing in the country districts. In so doing he antagonized
Duke Toto of Nepi who postponed his vengeance until after the pope's death. In 758 the pope
had an interview with the new Prince Desiderius of Lombardy (757-74) with whom territorial
disputes continued. Desiderius raided the Campania but took care to perpetrate no serious injury
that might invite further intervention of the Franks.
The Greeks resented the papal independence and Constantine V rejected St. Paul's
invitations to end the Iconoclast schism. Instead in 761 the emperor tried to win over the Franks
and Lombards to join in an antipapal alliance. Desiderius, however, reached an understanding
with the pope (764) to resist a threatened Byzantine invasion. Disaster to the Greek fleet in 767
postponed Byzantine projects of reconquest.
The Franks had been notified by St. Paul, while still "deacon and in the name of God
elect of the Holy See," of his promotion to the papacy. His predecessor's pact was ratified and
relations between pope and king remained cordial throughout the pontificate. In 758 St. Paul
forwarded Desiderius's request for the return of Lombard hostages on condition that the treaty
terms would be fulfilled; on Pepin's demand, the prince yielded some disputed lands in 760.
Pepin completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania in 759 and reduced Aquitaine to
obedience. When Tassilo of Bavaria revolted, papal intervention reconciled him to Pepin in 763.
In place of St. Boniface, St. Chrodegang, bishop of Metz (d. 766), discharged the office of
apostolic delegate. Though somewhat more "Gallican" than St. Boniface, St. Chrodegang
continued his work of organization and reform, holding councils, upholding episcopal jurisdiction,
and enforcing clerical discipline. King Pepin, who had acceded to the papal-Lombard defense
pact against the Greeks in 766, died on September 24, 768. He had been ailing for a year and
this fact, together with the initial rivalry of his sons and successors Charles and Carloman,
deprived the Holy See of the help of the Franks during the critical years that followed Pope Paul's
death, June 28, 767.
(2) RELAPSE INTO TURBULENCE (767-68)
Toto of Nepi, advocate of baronial autonomy, prepared to seize control as soon as St.
Paul's mortal illness became known. His faction met on the very day of the pope's death in Toto's
Roman residence to designate Toto's brother Constantine as pope. Constantine was a layman
and the action may represent an anticlerical reaction to the recently founded papal theocracy.
Then Constantine was forcibly introduced into the Lateran and the Cardinal-Bishop, George of
Praeneste, induced to consecrate him, July 5, 767. The antipope shrewdly assured the distant
and sick Pepin that he had been canonically elected and that the Roman situation was safely in
the capable bands of the Nepi brothers.
The notary Christopher, however, had not yet been defeated. This remarkable man, a lay
chamberlain, had become a member of the papal curia at least as early as Stephen III's
pontificate. He rose to the position of primicerius, or chief archivist and notary, and in that
capacity is suspected of having forged the "Donation of Constantine." His ability was
unquestioned and he had retained office under Pope Paul, and had introduced his son Sergius as
a treasurer. Apparently the family was ambitious and the Nepi faction had taken care to exclude it
from the new administration. Christopher was imprisoned, but in April, 768, along with his son,
made good an escape and took refuge with Desiderius, prince of the Lombards. Christopher was
able to furnish information of the crass usurpation by the Nepi brothers. His appeal to Desiderius
to put an end to the scandal at Rome found ready acceptance, for the prince was looking for an
excuse to establish his influence at Rome and restore Lombard fortunes.
Counter-revolution. Returning with a Lombard army, Christopher utilized his contacts

within the city to obtain admission within Roman walls on July 30, 768. In the following struggle,
Toto of Nepi was killed and Constantine was captured. For a moment it remained uncertain
whether Christopher could control the Lombard auxiliaries that be had summoned. A faction
among the Lombards uncanonically designated the priest Philip from the Roman Abbey of St.
Vitus, and installed him in the Vatican. But the next day Christopher rallied the Romans against
this new antipope, and Philip made no difficulty about returning to his monastery. On August 1,
768, Christopher as primicerius convened a full assembly of the Roman clergy and people to
provide a legitimate pontiff. The cardinal-priest of St. Cecilia, Stephen Olivi, was canonically
elected and consecrated on August 7. At a subsequent synod in April, 769, Constantine's acts
were declared null, lie was formally deposed and degraded from holy orders, and confined in a
monastery for the rest of his life. Christopher, more influential than ever, resumed his post in the
papal curia.
(3) SHIFTING DIPLOMACY (768-72)
Pope Stephen IV (768-72) was a worthy, learned, but weak cleric who now found himself
in a difficult position between the omnipotent primicerius and "pope-maker" Christopher, and the
latter's many foes, led by Paolo Asiarta, another papal chamberlain. Both intrigued with Prince
Desiderius, who was delighted to see his influence on Roman affairs increase. Indeed, it seemed
the heyday for lay notaries, for during 770-71 the lay notary Michael usurped the see of Ravenna
from the canonically elected Archdeacon Leo, and held it until the people heeded papal protests.
The Lateran Synod of April, 769, must be regarded as an effort to counteract this trend.
Besides disciplining the antipope Constantine, the assembled bishops forbade future choice of a
layman to the papacy. Eligibility for the papal office was to be restricted in the future to the
cardinal priests and deacons, now so called formally for the first time. The laity were excluded
from the election of a pope, but this prohibition could not be upheld: in 824 lay participation was
again partially tolerated. Iconoclasm was again condemned, with the approbation of twelve
bishops present from Frankland. From decrees of Pope Stephen IV it is learned that at this time
the cardinal bishops numbered seven, there were from twenty-two to twenty-five cardinal priests,
and seven cardinal deacons; the latter were increased to eighteen by 1059.
Exit Christopher. The reign of the over-mighty primicerius, meanwhile, was approaching
its end. During 771 Christopher and Sergius alienated Desiderius by upholding papal
prerogatives and territorial claims. The prince threw his lot definitively with their enemy, Asiarta,
who promised to deliver them up to him. Ostensibly to make a Holy Week pilgrimage, Desiderius
approached Rome in force. Christopher suspected trouble, for he closed the gates and mustered
the Roman guard. The pope conferred with the prince in the interests of peace, but was
prevailed upon to surrender Christopher and Sergius as the price of Roman tranquillity.
Thereafter the Lombards blinded Christopher and Sergius and put them in prison; their deaths
were reported shortly thereafter. Accounts differ as to the pope's responsibility. The Liber
Pontificalis placed the blame exclusively upon Asiarta; the "Caroline Code" reported a letter from
Stephen IV to Charles the Great in which he declared that the two curialists had been detected in
an antipapal plot. This letter, however, might easily have been written under compulsion, for
Christopher and Sergius, whatever their faults, had always been zealous defenders of papal
interests, and were later honorably reinterred by Pope Adrian I. Whatever their culpability,
Stephen IV gained a reputation for weakness. His prestige was destroyed and Desiderius was
encouraged to believe that he might intervene in Roman affairs at will. But Stephen IV died
during January, 772, and a pontiff of sterner character succeeded him.
B. Reorganization (772-95)
(1) END OF THE LOMBARD PERIL
Pope Adrian I (772-95), reputedly of the mighty Colonna family, was elected to succeed
Stephen IV on February 3, 772. An able diplomat and vigorous administrator, be was determined
not to submit to Lombard domination. As a member of the Roman nobility, moreover, Adrian was
better able to command their respect.
Lombard troubles soon appeared despite the fact that Adrian indicated his desire to
remain at peace by retaining Desiderius's friend, Paolo Asiarta, in the curia. While professing to
treat for a papal alliance, the prince continued to appropriate Roman territory. Papal admonitions
seem to have been softened by their bearer, Asiarta. The pope ordered Asiarta's arrest, but the
chamberlain fled to Ravenna where the archbishop executed him on his own authority.
Desiderius announced another "pilgrimage" to Rome, but the pope collected troops for the city's
defense, and threatened the prince with excommunication if he should invade papal territory.
Desiderius abandoned his design for the moment, but his persistent antagonism had become
quite evident.
Frankish intervention was accordingly invited by Pope Adrian. By 773 Charles the Great
had become complete master of the kingdom. His brother Carloman was dead, and Desiderius's
championship of the latter's sons could only be regarded as an unfriendly act. When Charles in
771 repudiated Desideria, the Lombard prince's daughter whom he had chosen as his bride,
relations became strained. As soon as Charles's first Saxon campaign was over, the king of the
Franks invaded Lombardy in the fall of 773, and blockaded Pavia until June, 774. During the
siege, Charles had time to visit Rome and assist at the closing Holy Week services. Pepin's gift
was confirmed, and Charles in turn acknowledged by the pope as patrician of the Romans in
succession to his father.
Lombard collapse followed speedily upon the surrender of Pavia in June, 774. Charles
deposed Desiderius and sent him as a captive to Frankland. The king of the Franks now himself
took the Lombard crown, and thus inaugurated that connection of northern Italy with the German
monarchy which endured through the Middle Ages. To be sure, Charles claimed the overlordship
of the whole of Italy, but he never conquered the Byzantine possessions to the south, and
enjoyed little more than suzerainty over the Lombard dukedom of Benevento. There could be no
doubt of the permanence of the Frankish conquest, however. In 781 the king brought his sons
Pepin and Louis to Rome to be anointed by the pope as heirs apparent of the Lombard
principality, and in 788 Charles's forces defeated and killed Adalgis, Desiderius's son, who had
attempted to regain the throne with Byzantine assistance.
(2) THE PAPAL STATE IN A NEW ENVIRONMENT
Charles's Donation. When Charles had come to Rome in April, 774, the Liber Pontificalis
reported: "The pope held a conference with the king in St. Peter's Church. He asked the king to
confirm the Donation which his father King Pepin, and Charles himself and his brother Carloman
had made at Quiercy to Pope Stephen. The king had the act read to him, and after approving it,
along with all the lords, ordered a like one to be drawn up by Etherius, his chaplain and notary,
and signed it with his own band." This places papal title to the Patrimony and Exarchate beyond
reasonable doubt. It is a matter of considerable dispute whether Charles at this time added
Tuscany, Benevento, and Corsica to Pepin's concession. Amann regards Charles's promise as
established. The question fortunately is academic, for the Holy See never was in effective
possession of these areas. In 787, however, Charles did cede small territories around Viterbo
and Farfa which proved a relatively permanent addition to the Papal State.
Papal-royal relations were for the most part cordial. Charles sometimes overstepped the
bounds of mere protection by intervening in economic and political affairs, but the diplomatic
pontiff knew bow to co-operate without rancor or servility. Pope and king were in alliance against
the Beneventans, the Greeks, and the Bavarians. Despite some difficulties on its southern
frontier, the Papal State remained in comparative peace. Pope Adrian took advantage of this to
promote the rebuilding and extension of both ecclesiastical and secular edifices at Rome.
Churches, walls and aqueducts were restored, sometimes with the help of Charles's gifts. In the
temporal administration the pope made use of the services of his nephew Pasquale--a first
instance of the nepotism that would plague the Papal State for centuries. From time to time royal
commissioners and judges meddled in pontifical

71. Foundation of the Holy Roman Empire (768-800)
X
71. FOUNDATION OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
A. Carolingian Preparation
(1) THE IMPERIAL CANDIDATE
Charles the Great (742-814) succeeded his father Pepin as king of the Franks on
September 24, 768. Though until 771 he had his brother Carloman as colleague, even during his
lifetime Charles overshadowed him. Charles's secretary has left this portrait: "Charles was large
and robust, of commanding stature and good proportions, measuring in height seven times the
length of his foot. His bead was rounded, his eyes large and lively, his nose a bit long. He had a
full head of gray hair, and his face was bright and pleasant. Whether seated or standing, he
displayed presence and dignity. If his neck was thick and too short and his abdomen too
prominent, these defects were effaced by the good proportions of his members. His tread was
firm, his deportment manly. His voice was clear but not as loud as one would expect from so
strong a physique. Until the last four years of his life, be enjoyed good health; then he suffered
fevers often and was lame in one foot. Yet he still preferred his own way to his doctors' advice,
refusing to substitute the boiled meats for the roasts which he loved. . . . While dining he listened
to music or books: history and heroes' exploits especially. . . .
Besides his native language, he gained enough knowledge of Latin to make a speech in
that tongue, though Greek be could understand better than speak. . . . He also tried to learn to
write, but made little progress in an exercise begun too late in life. . . ."
Charles's imperial qualifications were outstanding in a world of imperfect men. Though
his private morality left much to be desired, he had a sincere devotion to the Catholic Faith. He
became a sturdy defender of the Holy See, if be did imbibe some Caesaro-papism in the process.
The political system of ancient Rome could not have been restored in its entirety; rather Charles
was the political genius for his times. While his regime would lack the elegance of
Constantinople, it had a refreshing humanity: a German Kaiser, however self-assertive, always
had a certain bluff Western democracy that distinguished him from an Oriental demigod like the
Basileus. As a general, Charles might be termed the greatest since Julius Caesar. At least his
were the conquests and organization that made Western Europe. Certainly he sketched the
secular pattern for the Middle Ages. Compared with the Dark Ages immediately preceding and
following his reign, his career was brilliant; his figure, grown a bit vague in historical detail,
continued to be the medieval political ideal.
(2) WESTERN RESTORATION
Consolidation of Frankland. Under Charles the original lands of the Franks, Austrasia,
and Neustria, were more thoroughly united than they had been since the Teutonic invasions. This
unity was at first threatened by rivalry with his brother Carloman. Their mother, good Queen
Bertha, was a restraining influence, and Carloman's early death prevented further difficulty.
Charles excluded his brother's infant sons from the succession and thereafter ruled alone. He
completed his father's work of reducing Aquitaine to obedience, abolishing the autonomous
duchy.
Lombard conquest. As has already been mentioned, Charles added the Lombard
principality to his realm in 774, thus extinguishing the last rival among the Teutonic states. For his
lifetime Italy remained under his control. Lombardy became one of his kingdoms, the Papal State
enjoyed his protection, and Benevento acknowledged his suzerainty. Only Byzantine fragments
in Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, together with Venice, remained outside his frontiers.
Spanish reconquest. The Visigothic monarchy had fallen under Moorish onslaught at the
opening of the eighth century. Its only relic was in the minute Principality of Asturias which
seemed destined to be absorbed in time. It proved of great importance for Spanish history that
Prince Alfonso II of Asturias (791-842) became Charles's beneficiary. In response to various
appeals from warring factions in the peninsula, Charles waged a number of campaigns in Spain
from 778. His own conquest did not reach beyond the Ebro, but it made possible the creation of
the County of Catalonia with its capital at Barcelona. At first attached to Frankland and its
successor France, this state evolved into the Kingdom of Aragon, one of the chief elements of the
modern Spanish state united by Ferdinand and Isabella. Charles's campaigns had created a
diversion which enabled the Asturians to expand into the plains of what later became the
Kingdom of Castile. Though Charles by no means annexed a large part of Spain as medieval
romance suggested, he and his paladin Roland passed into folklore and he left behind a very real
inspiration for the subsequent Reconquista of Spain from the Moors.
British overlordship. Though the petty states in the British Isles were never directly
subject to the great Charles, they came to acknowledge his imperial suzerainty. The first unifier
of England, Egbert of Wessex, was trained in Charles's court, followed his lead, and remained in
close contact with Frankland. Even Grand Prince Hugh the Legislator, ard-ri of Ireland (795-816),
according to Einhard, paid Charles's empire some deference.
Roman unity, then, was to a considerable degree restored in the West in the person of
Charles; he was a fit candidate to renew the imperial title.
(3) EASTERN EXPANSION
Drang nach Osten. When Charles secured the vote of the Franks at the Mayfeld of 772
for his first campaign against the Saxons, he initiated an enduring German policy of expansion
toward the east-the drang nach Osten. Carried on by Charles's successors, this movement was
to bring Christianity and civilization-and incidentally German domination-to the Slav nations of the
East that had never come into lasting contact with the ancient Roman Empire.
Saxon conquest. Charles's own chief contribution to this drive was the conquest of
Saxony. The pagan Saxons were troublesome neighbors of the Franks. They inhabited the
woods and swamps of northern Germany, where they could take refuge, and whence they would
emerge with tireless regularity once a punitive expedition had retired. Though without high
civilization or political unity, in their struggle for independence they acknowledged Wittekind as
their war chieftain. At the Thing of Worms, 772, Charles mustered troops for a conquest of
Saxony. The campaign was in appearance speedily victorious, but soon after the Saxons
rebelled. Eventually thirteen years and five complete campaigns were needed before the Saxons
had been thoroughly subjugated, Though partial and sporadic risings occurred even later, the
conquest may be regarded as definitive with the baptism of Wittekind and many of his men in
785. Unfortunately Charles often unduly hastened the slow process of absorption into
Christendom by forced conversions; and it is a curious, though probably not a significant fact, that
Saxony became the first German state to leave the Catholic fold for Lutheranism. Wittekind,
however, was a sincere convert and is the reputed ancestor of the Saxon imperial dynasty of Otto
the Great.
Bavarian incorporation. Thuringia, Alsace, and Swabia had been incorporated into
Frankland by Charles's predecessors, but the Bavarian dukes still enjoyed considerable self-rule.
But when Duke Tassilo displayed insubordination on several occasions Charles simply deposed
him and annexed Bavaria outright to his own dominions. Thus under Charles the core of
medieval Germany came under the direct rule of the Franks, greatly augmenting the Teutonic
element in his state. Charles and his son were able to hold this extensive realm together, but in
less than a century racial, linguistic, and feudal differences had destroyed this unity.
Slavic overlordship. By the Saxon and Bavarian annexations, the Bohemians and
Moravians became neighbors of the Franks. When they invaded Bavaria in 791, as was their
wont, Charles took the field against them, defeated them, and imposed tribute on them. He
thereby began the erection of a line of buffer states to the cast of Teutonic frontiers. These lands
were not immediately ruled by the Germans, but the latter kept a sharp eye on them and
repeatedly intervened to enforce acceptance of German missionaries, and somewhat later,
colonists. Eventually the Saxon Nordmark (Brandenburg) and the Bavarian Ostmark (Austria)
became the German frontier bastions in this direction.
B. Coronation
(1) PAPAL INITIATIVE (795-800)
Pope St. Leo III (795-816) presented a contrast to his predecessor. Leo Atyupii, cardinal-
priest of Santa Susanna, who was elected on December 26, 795, was of plebeian birth. Though
an able and diligent spiritual leader, his social background and temperament seem to have fitted
him less for temporal administration. He dated his pontificate from the regnal year of King
Charles rather than of Emperor Constantine, an omen of the change to come.
Papal ordeal. On April 25, 799, patrician discontent with the new pope's rule became
manifest. During a Rogation procession, Pasquale, nephew and primicerius of Adrian I, led an
attack on St. Leo's person. An attempt was made to blind him and cut out his tongue; either it
was unsuccessful or the pope recovered miraculously. With the help of the Frankish missi
dominici at Rome, Duke Winichis and Abbot Wirund, the pope escaped from his place of
confinement to Spoleto. From there he went on to Paderborn in Bavaria where he conferred with
King Charles. The king provided an escort back to Rome. St. Leo's enemies demanded that he
be brought to trial. This move had no more success than the attack on Pope Symmachus, for the
clergy replied: "We do not dare judge the Apostolic See which is the chief of all the churches of
God, for we are all judged by this See and its Vicar, but this See is judged by no one, according to
ancient custom. Let the sovereign pontiff himself judge and we will render canonical obedience."
After Charles himself had arrived in Rome, the pope resolved to dispel lingering suspicions by a
voluntary exculpation. He mounted the pulpit on December 23 to assert under oath that he was
not guilty of the crimes invented against him by his foes. This act, the pope made clear, was
taken without obligation and without creating a precedent for his successors. Charles and all
well-disposed Romans were now satisfied; the others perforce had to remain silent.
Ave Caesar! Two days later, "on the most holy day of the birth of our Lord, the king went
to ',mass at St. Peter's, and as he knelt in prayer before the altar, Pope Leo set a crown upon his
bead, while all the Roman populace cried aloud: 'Long life and victory to the mighty Charles, the
great and pacific emperor of the Romans, crowned of God.' After he had been thus acclaimed,
the pope did homage to him, as had been the custom with the early rulers, and henceforth he
dropped the title of patrician and was called emperor and Augustus." 2 It was Christmas, 800-for
then the Teutons reckoned the new year from Christ's birth-birthday of the "Holy Roman Empire
of the German Nation," which then began its millennium of existence: 800-1806. Whatever the
motives of the participants, it is clear that de facto, as Pope Innocent 111 was later to declare and
most people of the Middle Ages to believe, "Pope Leo had transferred the supreme imperial
dignity from the Greeks to the Germans," thereby reversing Constantine's shift of the political
fulcrum from the West to the East.
(2) SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CORONATION
Imperial view. While the basic fact of the coronation is beyond question, annalists
stressed different details according to their viewpoints. It will be noted that in the foregoing
account the imperialist Einhard gave prominence to the pope's acts of deference to the new
emperor. He also hinted that Charles had been taken by surprise and was not altogether
pleased. If this displeasure was real, it must have been Charles's unwillingness to receive the
imperial crown from the pope lest a precedent be set for an imperial debt to the Sacerdotium. A
few months before Charles had been assured by Alcuin: "You are the support of the Church,
avenger of crimes, consoler of the afflicted. . . . Your pious care to protect Christ's churches and
purge them of all perverse doctrine within your dominions is equaled only by your solicitude to
safeguard and defend them without against pagan devastation's Alcuin here evidently grooms
Charles the Great for Constantine's role. Incidentally, this seems to contain the first allusion to
the "two swords," a medieval symbol of the spiritual and secular powers. Alcuin in 799 awards
both swords to the emperor; St. Bernard about 1150 gives one each to pope and emperor; Pope
Boniface VIII in his bull Unam Sanctam (1302) would claim both for himself.
Curial view. Anastasius the Librarian on the other hand gives a curial version of the
coronation which enhances the pope's part: "The pontiff did with his own bands crown Charles
with a very precious crown. Then all the faithful people of Rome . . . did by the will of God and of
Blessed Peter, the keeper of the keys of the kingdom, cry out with one accord . . . and he was
chosen by all to be emperor of the Romans. Thereon the most holy pontiff anointed Charles with
holy oil . . . and after Mass the most serene lord emperor offered gifts." Here the pope is clearly
accorded the initiative as representative of God and of St. Peter-with a hint also of popular
election in his temporal role as Roman spokesman. Nothing is said of any papal homage; rather
the emperor humbly receives anointing and offers gifts.
Conclusion: The medieval contests between the papacy and the empire are
foreshadowed in these varying accounts of the coronation of Charles the Great, and later
propagandists for Sacerdotium and Imperium would go back to the reports of the imperial
inaugural in search of arguments for one or the other's temporal pre-eminence. But the loftier
ideal of co-operation of the spiritual and secular heads of Christendom was emphasized in the
mosaic erected by Pope Leo III in the Lateran. This depicted Christ giving the keys of the
kingdom of heaven to St. Peter, and the labarum to Constantine the Great, while to the side, St.
Peter transmitted to Pope Leo III the pallium and to Charles the labarum.

72. Prosperity of the Dyarchy (800-843)
X
72. PROSPERITY OF THE DYARCHY

A. The Carolingian State (800-40)
(1) EMPEROR CHARLES THE GREAT (800-14)
Charles's empire comprised the Kingdom of Frankland, including modern France,
Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, and northern Spain. This, together with the Kingdom of
Lombardy with its attached protectorate over the Papal State and suzerainty over Benevento,
was ruled directly by Charles as king. His imperial title gave him a vague supremacy over all the
other Western rulers: the princes of the Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Scandinavians, and Slavs.
Relations with the Byzantine Monarchy were naturally difficult, though Charles and Basileus
Nicephorus exchanged envoys and maintained formally polite communications. Eventually
Charles's title was grudgingly allowed, though the highly civilized Greek state, however reduced
in size, never regarded the Teutonic empire as much more than an upstart barbarian chieftaincy.
The only other great power outside the confines of Christendom was the Caliphate of Bagdad.
With this there could be no lasting amity, though Charles exchanged envoys and gifts with the
enlightened Haroun al Raschid. The emperor secured from the Mohammedan ruler some
restricted privileges of Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Charles's imperial reign was relatively uneventful. The work of conquest was for the most
part completed, and throughout his immense realm peace and prosperity were the rule.
Disturbances on the Danish, Saxon, and Moravian frontiers scarcely affected the interior of the
empire, and Charles could safely delegate their suppression to his sons. The emperor devoted
himself to organization, supervision, and farsighted legislation. Strenuous efforts were made for
ecclesiastical reform and the revival of learning. Missionary labors were encouraged and
protected. Insofar as a medieval monarchy had a capital, Aachen served as Charles's
headquarters. It was the imperial shrine and coronation place for emperors-elect. Charles was
everywhere master, for as the capitulary of 802 affirmed, "he has commanded that every man in
his whole kingdom, whether cleric or layman, each in keeping with his vow and occupation, shall
now pledge him as emperor the fidelity which he had previously promised him as king." Intensely
German in habits, preferences, and outlook, Charles the Great nevertheless appreciated Roman
culture and tried to fuse the best Teutonic and Roman elements into a new civilization. Energetic,
enlightened, ubiquitous, Charles, despite his lapses into sensuality and cruelty, was the "First"
and the "Great" among all the medieval German emperors.
Imperial succession. The emperor named his sons, Charles, Pepin, and Louis,
respectively viceroys of Neustria, Lombardy, and Aquitaine. In 806 he decreed that Charles
would succeed to the imperial title and all the Frankish lands, while the younger sons would retain
their subordinate positions. The deaths of Pepin and Charles junior in 810 and 811 nullified this
provision, so that in 813 Charles with his own hands crowned Louis as his sole heir. On January
28, 814, the great emperor died.
(2) EMPEROR LOUIS THE PIOUS (814-40)
Louis the Pious, though he lacked his father's genius, proved to be no faineant.
Throughout most of his reign the peace and prosperity established by Charles endured. More
strict in sexual morality than his father, Louis banished certain lax counselors and at first took
advice from his cousins, Abbots Adalard and Wala, together with St. Benedict of Aniane.
Apparently uneasy about the validity of his secular coronation by his father, Louis reemphasized
the papal prerogative in this respect by receiving anointing and coronation at Rheims from Pope
Stephen V in 816. Throughout the greater part of his reign, until 833, Louis was in the main
competent for the lesser role of sustaining what his father had founded. While the following years
were troubled by rebellions of his sons, Louis proved capable of regaining and holding the upper
hand until his death on June 25, 840.
Family rivalry followed Louis's second marriage with the ambitious Judith Welf in 819.
Previously he had had three sons, Lothar, Pepin and Louis, by his first wife Ermingarde (d. 818).
The Partition of Aachen in 818 assigned these sons vice-regal supervision of the Lombard,
Aquitainian, and Bavarian lands respectively. Lothar was likewise promised the imperial crown.
This arrangement antagonized the emperor's nephew Bernard, who had hoped to obtain his
father Pepin's vice-royalty of Lombardy. His revolt was easily suppressed, but not its
consequences. Bernard was punished with blinding, of which he died. The emperor later felt
remorse for his excessive rigor and performed public penance to atone for it. The remorse and
penance continued, verging on morbidity, and may account for Louis's excessive leniency to his
rebellious children. New rivalries were generated in 829 when he promulgated a new system of
inheritance in favor of Judith's son Charles. The elder half-brothers objected to surrendering
portions of their designated inheritance in favor of Charles, but their uprising was suppressed and
pardoned.
A critical stage in the family strife was reached in 833 when the elder sons gained the
upper band in June, deposed their father, imprisoned their stepmother and stepbrother, and
seized power. Though Louis at first meekly acquiesced in this action in atonement for his sins, lie
was induced to reassert himself a few months later when public opinion turned against the filial
usurpers whose inexperience and friction were notorious. By 834 Louis was back in power, but
the rest of his reign was filled with new schemes of division and abortive revolts of his undutiful
sons. The emperor remained strong enough to repel a Danish invasion to the Rhine in 836, and
just before his death be allied himself with Lothar to defeat his younger sons. Dying he left the
imperial inheritance to Lothar, but within three years the Treaty of Verdu would put an end to the
unity and prosperity of the Carolingian Empire
B. The Carolingian Church (800-44)

(1) COMPARATIVE PAPAL TRANQUILLITY (800-24)
St. Leo III (795-816) survived the entire imperial reign of Charles the Great. The
protection of the mighty emperor freed him from external dangers, though it threatened internal
interference. St. Leo encouraged Charles's zeal for ecclesiastical reform and clerical discipline,
and allowed the well-meaning ruler some mild Caesaro-papism in disciplinary matters. But when
there was question of doctrine, the pontiff showed himself both firm and prudent. At one and the
same time Leo III resisted the Franks' interpretation of iconoclasm, and refused to insert the
Filioque into the Roman liturgy lest the Greeks be needlessly antagonized. If, then, St. Leo
seems hidden behind the titanic figure of Charles the Great, it probably is because be cared little
who received the credit for the good work of the pontificate, provided that it was done. In 815 St.
Leo detected a new plot against his life and promptly executed the culprits. Emperor Louis
remonstrated that he should have been consulted, but was mollified after an investigation. St.
Leo died June 12, 816.
Pope Stephen V (816-17), elected on June 12, and consecrated ten days later, had been
a cardinal deacon. The new pope directed the Romans to take an oath of allegiance to Emperor
Louis, "saving the obedience which they owed to their apostolic lord," i.e., the Roman pontiff.
This renewal of the papal-imperial alliance was probably designed to overawe the factious
Roman nobility which had caused St. Leo so much trouble. The saving clause indicated that it
involved no abdication of papal sovereignty over Rome. Pope Stephen anointed and crowned
Louis and Ermingarde at Rheims in 816, but died shortly after his return to Rome, January 24,
817.
Pope St. Paschal I (817-24), formerly cardinal priest of San Prassede, was elected and
consecrated on January 25, 817. Like his former patron, St. Leo III, the new pope was of lowly
birth and experienced unusual difficulty in ruling the Roman nobility. He saw fit to obtain from the
emperor a guarantee of the freedom of papal elections, though it was made plain that the imperial
missi dominici should not intervene unless asked against the Roman potentiores. In 823 St.
Paschal anointed and crowned Lothar, the imperial heir apparent. Later in the year Lothar
complained that he had not been summoned when the pope suppressed another plot. St.
Paschal's reputation must have been injured, for be resorted to St. Leo's device of asserting his
innocence under oath. Popular disturbance was not allayed and it was becoming menacing when
the pope died, February 11, 824.
(2) PAPAL VICISSITUDES (824-27)
A disputed election followed when a faction thrust forward Sisinnius against the
canonically elected cardinal archpriest of Santa Sabina, Eugenius Bohemundi. Fortunately the
antipope yielded without violence, and Eugene was consecrated in May, 824. The incident,
however, lent urgency to imperial proposals for a new concordat to safeguard papal elections.
Pope Eugene II consented to the pact which is known by the name of Louis's son and viceroy,
Lothar.
The Constitutio Romana Lotharii (824) throws considerable light on contemporary papal-
imperial relations. Lothar declares: "We have decreed that they [Roman subjects] shall observe
lawful obedience in things pertaining to the administration of justice. We forbid any further
encroachments of the kind which have been frequently made up to this time, whether the pope be
living or dead. . . . We desire that none, free or not, shall dare participate in papal elections to
hinder the Romans to whom the custom of choosing the pontiff was granted in olden days by the
decision of the holy fathers. If anyone shall dare oppose our command, he shall be exiled. We
desire that inspectors be named by the apostolic lord and by us, who will have the duty of
reporting to us each year on the way in which leaders and judges are dispensing justice to the
people and executing our decree. . . . We wish that the Roman people be asked under which law
it desires to live; . . . if they offend the law, they shall be subjected by the pontiff and ourselves to
the law which they professed." A new oath of allegiance to the Empire-"saving the faith which I
have promised the Apostolic Lord" -was appended to this edict.
Eugene II (824-27) thus revived the privilege of imperial confirmation of papal elections
once accorded to Justinian the Great. It would plague the Holy See during the Dark Ages, but
pass into desuetude after the election of St. Hildebrand in 1073. In 826 Pope Eugene assembled
62 bishops in council at Rome to enact stern legislation against simoniacal elections, decrees
also unfortunately forgotten during the Dark Ages. At least the popes of the Carolingian Era had
done what they could to prepare for trouble. An epoch-making event of Eugene's pontificate was
his bestowal of canonical mission on St. Ansgar for the evangelization of Scandinavia. Eugene III
died August 27, 827.
Pope Valentine (827), who had been his predecessor's archdeacon, was chosen by
acclamation and consecrated during August, 827, but died within forty days; by September or
October his interment is recorded.
(3) UNSUCCESSFUL PAPAL MEDIATION (827-44)
Pope Gregory IV (827-44), formerly cardinal priest of San Marco, was elected during the
fall of 827 but was not consecrated until March, 828, a first instance of delay for imperial
confirmation due to the Lotharian Constitution. Pope Gregory's pontificate fell in hard times.
Saracen raids on the Italian coast were beginning. The pope erected the first papal fortress at
Ostia, a measure which was soon proved inadequate. He had to intervene in a dispute between
Archbishop John and Duke Bonus of Naples, while in Lombardy long-standing discord between
the sees of Grado and Aquileia was fanned by Lothar's intervention.
In the distracted Empire, Gregory IV tried to act as peacemaker. In 829 he denounced

the alteration of the imperial partition as a source of conflict, though in 830 he decided that
Empress Judith need not remain in the convent where she had been confined by her stepsons.
During the 833 crisis, the pope went to Lothar's camp in an effort to reconcile the rebel sons with
their father. His action was termed interference by the sons, to which the pope retorted: "You
forget that the government of souls which belongs to the supreme pontiff is greater than the
imperial power which is of the temporal order." Nothing daunted, Gregory journeyed to Louis's
camp and returned with peace proposals. These Lothar rejected and by guile seized his father's
person. Disgusted with this "Field of Lies," as it has been called, the pope returned to Rome.
Gregory did not sanction Louis's deposition and hastened to congratulate him on the recovery of
his liberty. His subsequent efforts to mediate were rebuffed and be lived to see the threefold
division of the empire at the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The pope may not have been a skillful
diplomat, but be seems to have done his best. Probably in the existing condition of things discord
was irreconcilable, for a new and dark era had opened when Gregory IV died in January, 844.

73. Carolingian Ecclesiastical Institutions
X
73. CAROLINGIAN ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTIONS
A. Church-State Relations
(1) IMPERIAL POLICIES
Charles's piety. The emperor was eager to express outwardly the reverence which he felt
for the Christian religion. He took special pains to build a basilica at Aachen, which he
ornamented with the most precious utensils and decorations then obtainable, and even imported
marble from Italy. And be himself was diligent in attending ecclesiastical services when at
Aachen. When he visited "his" church, be inspected it carefully for cleanliness and decorum, and
laid down specifications for the chant and the ceremonies. This piety extended to churches
elsewhere and to the poor supported by the Christian community.
Caesaro-papism, however, is manifest in the ideals expressed both by Charles the Great
and Louis the Pious in their documents. The Libri Carolini declared on behalf of Charles that the
defense and exaltation of religion had been imposed on him, "to whom it has been committed to
rule the Church." The emperor, moreover, condescendingly addressed the pope: "Our role is, with
God's help, to defend the Church everywhere against pagan and infidel onslaught and to furnish
a rampart for the acknowledgment of the Catholic Faith both within and without; yours is to
elevate your hands with Moses and second our struggles with your prayers to heaven in order
that our Christian folk may be everywhere victorious under God's lead and help." Nor did Louis
the Pious, despite his greater deference toward the clergy entertain a lower concept of his
position: "Since it has pleased divine Providence to designate our unworthy person custodian of
Holy Church and of this Kingdom. . . .
(2) IMPERIAL LEGISLATION
The Carolingian capitularies were edicts for the direction of all the subjects of the empire.
Many of these dealt with ecclesiastical discipline and clerical conduct, and long remained norms
for conciliar legislation. The following excerpts are taken from the general capitulary of 802.
"Bishops and priests shall live by the canons and teach others to do likewise. Bishops,
abbots, and abbesses, who have the care of souls, shall devotedly strive to surpass their subjects
in this solicitude and take care not to oppress them with harsh or arbitrary rule. Rather with
sincere affection they ought to guard the flock committed to them with care, consideration, charity,
and good example. . . . Let no bishops, abbots, priests, deacons or other clerics dare keep dogs
for hunting, nor hawks, falcons, or sparrow hawks; let each pay careful attention to the canons or
rule of his state. Should anyone dare violate our command, he will forfeit his office and be liable
to such penalties for his presumption that others will fear to have such things. . . . And if priests
have several wives (successively), or shed the blood of either Christians or pagans, or violate the
canons, they shall be excluded from the sacerdotal office. . . ."
"Monks shall live in faithful and strict observance of their rule. . . . Let them not meddle in
secular affairs. Only in case of grave necessity may they be permitted to go outside their abbey,
and the bishop of the diocese shall watch out for habitual vagrants outside monasteries. When it
shall be necessary for a monk to leave the monastery, be should do so only with the advice and
consent of the bishop. He shall be armed with a letter of recommendation lest he be suspected
of evil or the object of malicious rumor. The abbot, after obtaining the bishop's advice and
consent, shall designate a Christian who is not a monk to oversee the external property and
business of the monastery. But monks ought to avoid business profits and worldly concerns. . . .
Let no one dare provoke strife or disputes inside or outside the monastery; if anyone presume to
do so, let him be severely disciplined according to the rule. . . ."
Other regulations obliged the faithful to pay tithes to their parish churches, attend Mass
on Sundays, observe fast and abstinence, learn their catechism and prayers, and comply with
matrimonial regulations. Sacrilege and neglect of baptism could merit the death penalty.
B. Dogmatic Controversies
(1) THE FILIOQUE DISPUTE (767-810)
Remote origins. Christ explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and
this truth was incorporated into the Creed by the First General Council of Constantinople in 381.
Though Christ equivalently affirmed that the Holy Spirit also proceeded from Himself, Scripture
does not say this expressly and the Council did not elaborate. Theologians, however, were not
slow in deducing this conclusion. The Latins, following Tertullian, preferred the formula, a Patre et
Filio procedit; while the Greeks inclined to a Patre per Filium procedit.
Proximate origin of the dispute may be traced to the use in Spain of the phrase, a Patre
Filioque procedit in the Creed. This formula, appearing in the writings of the fifth century Bishop
Pastor, was endorsed by the Council of Toledo of 589. The usage spread from Spain to
Frankland, and by the end of the eighth century the Libri Carolini accused the Byzantine
patriarch: "Tarasius is not orthodox because be does not say, according to the Nicene Creed, that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but from the Father through the Son."
Likewise in 796 the Council of Cividale in Lombardy heard a defense by Archbishop Paulinus of
Aquileia of the addition of the Filioque. He hinted that the Greeks should not be considered
orthodox if they refused to follow the same course. Refuse they did, for the Greeks generally
rejected the addition as unnecessary; some even termed it an illegitimate revision of an
irreformable decision of an ecumenical council.
Papal mediation was with difficulty accepted by the embattled factions. Both formulas
were basically orthodox, and Pope Adrian in his reply to the Libri Carolini, reminded the Franks
that Tarasius ought not to be criticized, "because be has done nothing but borrow the words of the
ancient fathers." Western misgivings, however, were not put to rest, and about 806 the dispute
broke into the open again. When Greek monks violently attacked their Latin brethren who
persisted in chanting the Filioque, at Mt. Olivet monastery in Palestine, the latter appealed to
pope and emperor. Charles mustered his bishops and theologians at Aachen during 809 where
they produced a collection of patristic texts in favor of the Filioque. Meanwhile Pope Leo III tried
to calm the excitement. He stated definitely that all Catholics must believe that the Holy Spirit
proceeded from both the Father and the Son, but deemed it imprudent to require any liturgical
addition at the time. Though he allowed the Franks to continue reciting their Filioque, he refused
to admit it into the Roman usage. The Franks submitted, but eventually had their way in the
eleventh century when Pope Benedict VIII inserted the Creed with the Filioque into the Roman
Mass at the request of Emperor St. Henry II. But even this belated recognition by Rome
antagonized the Greeks who made it one of their pretexts for the Cerularian schism later in the
same century.
(2) THE ADOPTIONIST HERESY (782-809)
Origins. Islam had caught up the dregs of old Oriental heresies into its speculations, and
the Moorish conquest seems to have introduced some of these into Spain. About 782 a certain
Migetius revived the Sabellian error of three divine phases in one divine person, which he
regarded as successively incarnate as the Father in David, as the Son in Christ, and as the Holy
Spirit in Paul. He was of course corrected by the hierarchy, but in his refutation Archbishop
Elipandus of Toledo (780-809) went too far in the opposite theological direction. Elipandus
claimed that a distinction must be made in regard to Christ: as the Word, He was indeed the
natural Son of God; but as Jesus the man, He was also an adopted Son of God. This explanation
the archbishop communicated to his suffragan, Bishop Felix of Urgel, who defended the theory
with new arguments and propagated it in his diocese which extended on both sides of the
Pyrenees. As so presented, Adoptionism made so great a distinction between a natural and
adopted filiation in Christ, that it approximated a revival of Nestorian dualism of persons.
Carolingian opposition. About 785 two Spanish foes of the doctrinal innovation appeared
in Bishop Heterius of Osma and Abbot Beatus of Libania. Though the extent of their activity is not
fully known, they seem to have denounced the heresy to the Holy See, for in that year Pope
Adrian addressed a warning on the subject to the Spanish hierarchy. Deeming this insufficient,
Charles the Great intervened to enforce the papal directive. Since Urgel was part of his
dominions, the king cited Felix to give an account of his teaching before a council at Regensburg
during 792. Of the proceedings all that is known is that Felix was condemned, that he submitted,
and was sent to Rome for punishment. The pope treated him leniently and in 793 permitted him
to return to his diocese.
Council of Frankfort. Once back in his native land, Felix soon relapsed. Thereupon in
794 a plenary council was held at Frankfort under papal and royal patronage. This assembly got
out of band by its strictures on Nicean iconoduly, as already Doted. But in regard to Adoptionism,
the synod declared correctly enough: "With the fathers we profess that Jesus Christ our Lord is
true God and true man in one person. The person of the Son persists in the Trinity. After it
assumed human nature, it continued to remain one person, God and man; not a deified man and
a humanized God, but God-man and man-God in virtue of the unity of person-, the only Son of
God is perfectly God and perfectly man, and the tradition of the Church points to the existence of
two substances in Christ, that of God and that of man." The conciliar pronouncement was
confirmed by the Holy See and communicated to the Spanish hierarchy.
(3) SUPPRESSION OF ADOPTIONISM
Adoptionist obstinacy continued unabated. Not only were the Frankfort decrees ratified
by Pope Leo III in a Lateran synod in 799, but Felix was cited to appear at another council at
Aachen in the same year. Here Alcuin is said to have converted him, though some doubt persists
regarding the sincerity of Felix's recantation. At any rate he was deposed and confined at Lyons
until his death in 818. In the year following his deposition, Alcuin and his associates conducted a
mission in Urgel which resulted in the reconciliation of 20,000 members of the sect. As far as
Frankland was concerned, Adoptionism seems to have ended.
In Moorish territory, beyond Charles's reach, Elipandus of Toledo presumably continued

to maintain his error. His party also declined, however, and was virtually extinct when be died in
809.
Vestiges of Adoptionism recurred in the twelfth century when Abelard advanced a similar
doctrine. This Neo-Adoptionism, as it is called, was later repudiated by its penitent protagonist,
and formally condemned by Pope Alexander III in 1177. Scotus, Durandus, and Suarez later
engaged in speculation on the use of the expression "adopted Son of God" in a qualified sense.

74. Carolingian Secular Institutions
X
74. CAROLINGIAN SECULAR INSTITUTIONS
A. Political Status
(1) CIVIL GOVERNMENT
Central administration. The emperor was also Rex Francorum et Langobardorum,
representative of the German nation. His monarchy was hereditary without primogeniture-
eventually a fatal defect. From Pepin's time coronation and anointing inaugurated a reign, and
royal insignia of scepter, lance, and staff were in use, together with a simplified court etiquette. In
law and in fact, the king was keeper of the peace, guardian of justice, source of bans or edicts,
and recipient of oaths of fidelity. Even during the centuries of feudal anarchy that succeeded the
Carolingian Empire, these royal prerogatives theoretically survived. The Merovingian seneschal,
butler, marshal, and chamberlain had become largely honorary officials in Carolingian days. Now
the real work was done by the palsgraves at the bead of the courts, the notaries, beaded by a
chancellor who was invariably an ecclesiastic, who prepared documents and kept archives, and
the quartermasters supervising the estates whence royal revenues came. The Mayfield or Thing
was ceasing to be a popular assembly, and narrowing into a council of notables advising the king
at irregular intervals.
Local government. The emperor's chief deputies were his sons who served as viceroys.
Under them the medieval hierarchy of nobility was developing, though still a nominated body of
officials rather than an hereditary caste. The highest of these was the dux or hertzog, originally a
general, but sometimes an extraordinary governor or tribal chief. The standard local governor
was still the graf, ruler of a county. On the frontier, several counties might be united under a
mark-graf, a great count or marquis. The count's assistants were the viscounts. Barons were
originally not officials, but royal friends rewarded with an estate immediately held of the king. As
such, one was a "baron" or "man"; i.e., a real man or person of consequence. These landlords
came to exercise petty justice over their tenants and in feudal times usurped high justice as well.
Supervision was regularly carried on by royal missi dominici. They formed a commission,
normally including a count and a bishop, that traveled on fairly regular circuits four times a year to
audit accounts, examine records, and hear appeals. Successors to the Roman agentes in rebus,
they were the emperor's eyes and ears, and might advise removal of an unsatisfactory local
official. Charles, and to a lesser extent Louis, also went on personal tours of inspection to verify
the reports of these missi. This institution collapsed with the onset of feudalism, which its neglect
had done much to foster.
(2) ECONOMIC SITUATION
Royal revenue was derived from the royal villas and estates, from a series of tolls,
mineral rights, presents, fines, and tribute payments. There was scarcely any regular taxation in
the modern sense, since military and civil officials were alike compensated by the award of
estates whence they could gain support in kind. As long as these estates were large and well
managed, they afforded the king ample resources for both his official and personal wants. This
theory of revenue was expressed by the medieval axiom, "the king must live off his own." The
royal villa and manor thus became a unit of political consequence, and royal stewards performed
a vital fiscal function in seeing that revenues were exacted, usually in kind, from animals, forests,
rivers, and fields. On the other hand, should the royal estates be notably diminished or
mismanaged, or should the lands confided to royal servants escape royal disposal by becoming
hereditary, the monarch would become impoverished and in no position to compete with his
nominal subjects. Charles the Great, therefore, was a sound business man and detailed
instructions to the stewards of the royal estates survive. His successors, however, were to
dissipate their holdings as the Merovingians had done before them, and prepare the way for
monarchical impotence in feudal times.
Financial transactions were necessarily rudimentary. It has been remarked that already
during the later Roman Empire, Western Europe was experiencing a shortage of money, in part
because of the demand for Oriental luxuries. The Teutonic invasions had immensely aggravated
the trend to a closed rural barter system. Saracen expansion cut off Western Europe from the
Orient and diminished contact with Constantinople. The Carolingians, then, had to face a closed
economy in which barter became a major means of exchange. Money, indeed, did not entirely
disappear, but it was too scarce to provide adequately for everyday exchange. Charles the Great
established the monetary scale that prevailed in Western Europe until the commercial revival of
the thirteenth century. He made the standard unit a silver pound of 491 grams, subdivided into
240 deniers, pence, or denarii, each weighing about two grams. Half pence were called oboli.
There were other monetary units, though not actually coined, such as the sou, shilling or solidus
of twelve pence, and the libra, livre or pound of twenty sous. Only the Byzantine monarchy
continued on a gold standard. Until Venice, prospering by reason of its Greek and Turkish
commerce, reintroduced "sound money" in 1192, the West had to be satisfied with a rudimentary
coinage. During the feudal anarchy to come even this minimum was subjected to the monetary
schemes of hundreds of local lords who debased coinage and imposed chaotic regulations, as
they exacted tolls at every few miles of frontier.
(3) MILITARY ARRANGEMENTS
Military service was based on wealth. Each landlord was obliged to provide servants and
horses, and freemen were liable to the bannitio ad hostem, service in the militia at the count's
behest. Failure to appear at muster could be punished by fine; desertion, by death. Charles tried
to make military service proportionate to the economic condition of his subjects, and his
arrangements were promulgated several times a year in the counts' courts. Armor was granted to
or required of all who could discharge the trinodian necessitas: repair of roads and bridges,
attendance at muster, and advice to the king-all at private expense. "Every freeman who has four
mansi (about 540 acres) of his own property or who has them as a benefice from another shall
equip himself and go to the army." Those who held but one manse or so had to co-operate with
others in furnishing one fully armed soldier for each four mansi. Prelates were bound by these
regulations, though they might provide a substitute for personal military service. Since the poor
were unable to meet these requirements and were of little use as raw militia, they gradually sank
into a class of serfs under the protection of their wealthier neighbors.
B. Cultural Renaissance
(1) CAROLINGIAN REVIVAL
Charles the Great was the prime mover in a revival of learning often termed the
Carolingian Renaissance. He was thoroughly convinced of the need for education and set out to
patronize existing monastic schools and to establish new schools of his own. Some time
between 780 and 800 he issued a directive, addressed to Abbot Baugulf: "Dioceses and abbeys
placed under our rule by the favor of Christ ought to be diligent, not merely for the monastic rule
and religious observances, but also in the cultivation of learning, teaching those capable of it
according to each one's ability. . . . Do not neglect the study of letters; rather pursue it earnestly
and humbly for the sake of a more facile and accurate understanding of the mysteries of Holy
Writ." In 788, moreover, the king issued a circular to bishops and abbots entitled, "A constitution
of schools to be established in each diocese and monastery." They were accordingly urged "to
gather and train not only children of serfs but those of freemen. In every diocese and abbey let
them be instructed in the Psalms, notes and chant, arithmetic and grammar. . . . Establish schools
to teach boys to read, and correct carefully the Psalms, letters, chant, calendar, and grammar. . .
."
(2) PALATINE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
The Palatine Academy was set up in Charles's own court to direct this educational revival
and to develop higher studies. In 781 the king had met Alcuin of York (735-804) at Parma and
had persuaded him to undertake the direction of education in Frankland. From 782 to 796 Alcuin
actively served as first rector of Charles's school. Alcuin, who seems to have remained a deacon,
was teacher and administrator rather than an independent scholar. He assisted Charles in
procuring a faculty of international composition and renown. This included Paul Warnefrid,
Lombard historian, Peter of Pisa, Agobard, a Spanish theologian, later archbishop of Lyons,
Theodulf, later bishop of Orleans, and Einhard, Charles's secretary, subsequently abbot of Fulda.
Alcuin was particularly concerned with the standardization of the Gallican liturgy which be
strove to harmonize with the Roman. Indeed, the basic aim of the Carolingian Renaissance
seems to have been to preserve Latin as the vehicle of learning. In this it had but partial success.
Latin survived among the clergy and the Romano-Gallican rite remained the hub of ecclesiastical
learning. But the clergy remained almost the only learned class, for by 800 Latin had ceased to
be the vernacular even in former imperial territory, and the lay nobles were illiterate. Charles
himself was an exception, and the term breviary has been traced to Alcuin's description of an
abbreviated office book prepared for the emperor's use. The emperor provided inspiration by
studying with the scholars in his leisure moments. Besides correcting the liturgical books, Alcuin
issued an emended version of St. Jerome's Vulgate. After 796 Alcuin went into semiretirement as
abbot of St. Martin's Monastery at Tours.
Alcuin's disciples carried on his work. Theodulf at first took his place as director of the
Palatine School. He gave special attention to the primary schools, and is the reputed author of
the Gloria, laus, et honor Tibi sit of Palm Sunday liturgy. Another disciple of Alcuin, Rhabanus
Maurus (784-856), was an encyclopedist; later he was abbot of Fulda and archbishop of Mainz.
He was in turn master of Walfrid Strabo, abbot of Reichenau, and expert on pedagogy and poetry.
From Ireland came a later rector of the school, Clement (d. 826). Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres (d.
862), was an indefatigable collector of classical manuscripts, as was Adelhard of Corbie. Men
like these spread the educational revival to the monastic schools, of which Fulda, St. Gall, Old
and New Corbie, Trier, and Utrecht became famous. Each of these schools developed its
scriptorium, substitute for the printing-press, which preserved, replaced, and multiplied the chief
theological and liturgical works, without entirely neglecting the classics of pagan antiquity.
(3) CAROLINGIAN CURRICULUM
The Seven Liberal Arts had appeared in the fifth century allegory of Martianus Capella,
"Nuptials of Mercury and Lady Philology," itself an abridgement of Varro's "Nine Books of
Discipline" written in the first century before Christ. Of these, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics
were known as the Trivium; the Quadrivium, comprising arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and
music, went back to Boethius's De Institutione Arithmetica (1, 1). To this classical foundation, the
monastic teachers added theological studies based on the Latin Vulgate and the writings of the
fathers. An intense but amateur theological movement arose, abortive birth pangs of
Scholasticism. Papal and conciliar collections of canon law circulated, of which the most famous
were the Hadriana and Hispana. The Carolingian capitularies constituted a corpus of civil law
which monopolized the field until the revival of the study of the Justinian Code in Lombard
schools of the eleventh century.
Conclusion: In content, then, the Carolingian Renaissance seems mediocre, but the
magnitude of its achievement under adverse circumstances in preserving cultural traditions for
the future can scarcely be overestimated. By 900 the revival had lost most of its forward
movement, but it never entirely died out and meanwhile the patient work of conservation for a
more tranquil era continued in many a quiet monastery.

75. Western Life and Liturgy
X
75. WESTERN LIFE AND LITURGY
A. Jurisdiction
(1) THE PAPACY
Papal spiritual primacy was increasingly manifest. Not only did no emperor reside in
Rome after 395, but during the period just reviewed his representatives in the ancient capital
came under the direction of the Roman pontiff. The disappearance of the exarchate in 751 left
the pope without a de facto temporal sovereign, and he was careful not to raise up a new one in
the rulers of the Franks. The Teutonic invasions necessitated the reconversion in large part of the
Western dioceses, so that Rome became a second time a mother. St. Patrick departed on the
Celtic mission with papal canonical mission, and this delegation was repeated in the case of St.
Austin for Britain, St. Willibrord for Holland, St. Boniface among the Germans, and St. Ansgar in
Scandinavia. Most of these missions were conducted with the assistance of Benedictine monks,
staunchly loyal to Rome by virtue of their observance of their father's rule. The new missions
were also bound together and with Rome by the slender cords of the pallium, metropolitan
organization, and the institution of apostolic delegates. Surely none in the West would question
Pope Gelasius's assertion that "the priesthood is as much above royalty as the soul is above the
body."
The temporal position of the popes changed considerably from the accession of St.
Gregory the Great. The bishops of Rome proved exceedingly conservative in their allegiance to
the Byzantine monarchy despite repeated schism and heresy at its court. But the Italian people
had had enough by the eighth century and gently but firmly urged the Roman pontiffs toward a
new political alignment with the Franks. The realization of papal independence has been
narrated. While the papacy thus acquired civil jurisdiction over many Italians, it retained
important proprietary rights. The Roman Patrimony was administered in sections known as
saltus, fundi, massae, castra. Rectors of diaconal or subdiaconal rank were charged with the
inspection of local conditions and of reporting these to Rome. Settlers included conductores or
tenant farmers, whether free or servile, who were bound by contract to a certain yield. The
system of emphyteusis was a sort of "plantation" in which the renter was supposed to improve the
estate. Coloni were not slaves, though often bound to the land; strict slavery did exist on the
patrimonial domain, but the Church favored emancipation, which followed ipso facto on ordination
or monastic profession. Hospices (xenodochia) and asylums (ptochia) provided indispensable
social services.
(2) THE EPISCOPACY

Social position. The most striking fact is that during the Teutonic upheaval the bishop
came to be a person of great social consequence as administrator of an agglomeration of real
and personal property donated by kings, nobles, pious persons, and penitents. Not only did he
protect the oppressed, the aged, the poor, the orphans and widows and refugees of all kinds, but
often be undertook the repair of roads and bridges, the clearing of forests, and the draining of
swamps. Teutonic codes accorded him a special legal status, and usually entrusted to him some
supervision of the secular administration, of which as chancellor, be was often a member. This
enhancement of the bishop's worldly position made his office an object of ambition to unworthy
men. The Merovingians and some of the early Carolingians co-operated in intruding men of
considerable secular experience and wisdom, but lacking in spiritual qualities. It is not surprising
that bishops usually came to be chosen from the nobility. In a lawless age this may have been
expedient to preserve respect for the office, but there was a danger that many would regard the
bishop more as "lord" than as "father."
The episcopal curia was a necessary adjunct to the bishop's administration. The
archdeacon became prominent. In the city be was often chancellor, principal vicar, the bishop's
alter ego. In rural areas be took care of judicial districts. Though generally only a deacon in
orders, he exercised sway over rural pastors, sometimes in arrogant fashion. The Plenary
Council of Frankland warned in 745 that "bishops ought to take care lest the cupidity of
archdeacons does not nourish their faults."
The episcopal patrimony resembled the papal, though on a smaller scale. The bishop
administered the domus ecclesiae, the cathedral; subsidiary churches also gained property rights:
the domus basilicas. Rural areas were served by priests with right to baptize and preach, and
grouped under rural deans or archpriests. The Council of Rheims (630) ordered: "Let no layman
be nominated archpriest in the parishes." From the seventh century donors or patrons of these
rural churches encroached on episcopal rights of administration and supervision. Donations,
moreover, were burdened with obligations, spiritual or temporal. Sometimes patrons kept rights
to revenues from the principal, precaria; this term was also applied to pensions from church
goods granted clerics during their lifetime. Another form of financial assistance was the
exemption of church goods from taxes and other obligations. These concessions were, however,
legitimate in view of the bishop's maintenance of many public works: roads, aqueducts, canals,
walls; or his support of certain public charges; e.g., prisoners, paupers, the sick.
(3) THE CLERGY
Parochial clergy. During the Teutonic migrations the city went into relative eclipse, so that
it was necessary to provide for the rule of villages and country districts. The chorepiscopate had
been found wanting; hence the parish ruled by the priest had already come into its own. Some
parishes were directly set up by the bishop in the towns or vici, whence their rectors were known
as vicars. These often had an archpriest or dean at their head, and usually supervised a number
of subordinate chapels. Among the latter, some were erected on the villas as private oratories or
missions, for the use of the landowner, his tenants and serfs. In exchange, the landlord was
supposed to supply the clergy who served the chapel with food and clothing. Patronage thus
took its rise. The clergy were still supposed to be trained in the bishop's household or by a parish
priest, but the turbulence of the times sadly lowered standards. in England these had apparently
fallen so low by 747 that the Council of Cloveshove merely required that candidates for priestly
ordination be able to recite from memory "the Apostles' Creed, the Our Father, and the formulas
used in administering the sacraments." Some clerics had no qualifications whatsoever; others
had to support themselves by manual labor to the detriment of their service to their flock. But
whatever the abuses, the ideal of the Church continued to be a holy and learned clergy. The
Council of Avergne protested: "Let each one look carefully to the worth of the Lord's flock in
selecting priests that he may know the worth of the pastor to be appointed. . . . Let him not
employ the patronage of the mighty, nor let him induce some to sign the decree by bribes with
deceitful ardor, or compel others by fear."
Monastic clergy. The monasteries sheltered earnest men, from whom ardent
missionaries were often chosen. The chief rules, the Columban and the Benedictine, have
already been analyzed. Since the former eventually yielded to the latter, Dom David Knowles is
substantially correct in describing these as the "Benedictine Centuries." His analysis is worth
citation: "For some six hundred years (c. 550-1150) in Italy and the countries of Europe north and
west of Italy-with the important exception of the Celtic civilization-monastic life based on the rule
of St. Benedict was everywhere the norm and exercised from time to time a paramount influence
on the spiritual, intellectual, liturgical, and apostolical life of the Western Church. In other words,
during these centuries the only type of religious life available in the countries concerned was
monastic, and the only monastic code was the rule of St. Benedict. . . . St. Benedict's monastery
is a microcosm. It holds all types, all classes, and all ages. Children, brought almost in infancy
by their parents, ex-serfs, sons of the poor and noble, clerics and priests, the highly intelligent as
well as the Goth pauper spiritu and those who will not or cannot read-all are there, and among
them there is no distinction whatever save in the service of the altar. . . . As long as the chaotic,
transitional period lasted in Europe-that is, till the emergence of the perfect feudal state in the
eleventh century-the conception of a monastery as a little world . . . continued to endure.
B. Magisterium
CLOSE OF THE LATIN PATRISTIC AGE: 590-735
St. Gregory the Great (540-604), doctor of the Church as well as Roman pontiff, is the
last Latin father of the first rank, and even he is scarcely original. But he had the humility and the
penetration to understand that what his decadent age required was not so much new speculation
as forceful and popular presentation of the best theological learning already formulated. Before
all else, St. Gregory was a pastor and practical man more than the secluded student. He was
content to adapt St. Augustine's theology to the needs of his flock, and in so doing he despised
the niceties of rhetoric and the paraphernalia of scholarship-not that he was not as qualified in
these as any of his day. His Magna Moralia on job constitutes a sort of moral theology, and be
furnished ascetical-moral guidance by his numerous Homilies on Ezechiel and the Gospel, the
Dialogues, which are popular hagiography, and the Pastoral Care, a guide for bishops and
priests. Finally 848 extant letters are invaluable for knowledge of the law, history, and problems
of St. Gregory's time. He would have been great in any age; in his own darkening scene be
loomed as a giant.
St. Gregory of Tours (538-93), bishop of Tours during the Merovingian period, was
another ecclesiastical writer carrying on courageously in the face of overwhelming odds. Though
he had received the best education available in the Gaul of his day, St. Gregory was well aware
that his diction was far from classical. Yet be did the best he could to provide his people with
edifying tales. "I have written ten books of Histories, seven of Miracles, one of the Lives of the
Fathers; and I have made a Commentary on the Psalter in one book, and one book on the Offices
of the Church." His Historia Francorum, from the tenth chapter of which this list is taken, is St.
Gregory's most remembered work.
St. Isidore of Seville (560-636), bishop of Seville, displayed encyclopedic learning rather
than theological originality or profundity in his numerous works. It was his task, as that of all the
ecclesiastical writers of the period, to collect the teachings of the fathers. in so doing be rendered
a valuable service for the Scholastics of the later Middle Ages, for many of the fathers were
known only through St. Isidore's labors.
St. Bede of Jarrow (673-735), monk and priest of Anglo-Saxon England, is generally
designated as the last of the Latin fathers. He was also in the line of compilers, historians, and
synthesizers of previous patristic learning, though there is frequent evidence that he often curbed
considerable individuality. Exegetical writings constituted the greater part of St. Bede's works-
some fifty homilies are considered authentic and besides there were commentaries on most of
the books of the Old and the New Testaments. To pass over miscellaneous literary works,
attention should be fixed on his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, a durable
masterpiece, which set a higher standard of historical criticism than most medieval annalists
reached. St. Bede introduced into England the style invented two centuries before by Denis the
Little, that of dating from the birth of Christ. With the Anglo-Saxon missionaries this custom
passed to the Continent and became general.
C. Liturgy
(1) SACRAMENTAL DISCIPLINE
Baptism. The catechumenate having lost its primitive nature during the fifth century, the
abuse of delaying baptism until mature age also died out. The Pelagian controversy had focused
attention on the need of sanctifying grace even for infants, and Pope Innocent I had refused to
admit to the clerical state those who had culpably delayed their baptism. During the latter part of
the seventh century the Councils of Toledo required that baptism be administered within thirty
days of birth. Whereas previously the sacrament had normally been conferred only by the bishop
in the Paschal and Pentecostal seasons, now priests administered it at need in the parish
churches. Since immersion continued to be a general custom, a baptistry appeared attached to
the parish church.
Penance. Since public and arduous penance did not at all suit the Teutonic converts,
mitigation was gradually introduced into the exomologesis. Frequent confession became the
practice and penitential books were issued as a guide to the priests in imposing suitable
penance's. Though confession and absolution were private, public satisfaction was still often
imposed for notorious crimes. Failure to accept such a penance might entail excommunication
and civil penalties as well, such as the deprivation of the right to bear arms, restriction of liberty,
and interdiction from contracting marriage. Ecclesiastical penance's in vogue included long
prayers, severe fasts, almsgiving, and the redemption of captives.
Holy Eucharist. The increasing solicitude for children was also evident in some places in
the Eucharistic discipline. For a time First Holy Communion was even given infants after baptism,
and children under the age of reason were sometimes given the remainder of consecrated
species to consume after Mass. Yet this also argues to a falling off of adult communicants. St.
Bede complained that even devout persons were receiving Holy Communion only three times a
year: at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Communion was still administered to the laity under
both species. The precious blood was often consumed through a reed, though in the seventh
century the intinctio panis came into use in some places: dipping the host into the precious blood
by means of a spoon. Already the need of preventing desecration had led to restrictions, and St.
Columkil directed that the young and more uncouth were not to be admitted to receive the
precious blood. Liturgically, the fusion of the Roman and Gallican uses was under way. The
latter was thereby molded into greater uniformity and universality, but the former acquired certain
new elements: prayers were multiplied, the offertory modified, the clergy and laity more widely
separated, the use of unleavened bread begun in some places, and lay reception of a single
species prepared.
(2) POPULAR PIETY
The Teutons manifested after conversion a lasting fondness for some pagan rites.
Veneration of relics was easily debased by superstition and magic, in which efficacy was attached
to certain precise formulas. Though paganism was officially banned in Frankland in 585, two
centuries later St. Boniface made the statement, partly rhetorical, that only the prince's power
kept paganism from resuming control. The missionaries continually complained of the prevalence
of drunkenness, sexual immorality, murders on slight provocation, and violation of oaths: St.
Gregory of Tours bore ample witness to all this in his Historia Francorum. There was a
disposition to buy one's way to heaven by gifts, so that the Council of Cloveshove reminded
Anglo-Saxons: "Alms are not to be prescribed to lessen or change satisfaction by fasting or other
penitential works canonically prescribed by the priest for crimes, but more to increase
amendment so that the divine wrath provoked by demerit may be the sooner appeased."
Christianity proved its divinity by leading barbarians to morality out of a welter of

confusion. But the Church had to work slowly and often could but modify or restrain deeply
rooted customs. Thus the right of asylum in a church or abbey placed a curb on arbitrary justice.
Pagan trials or ordeals, which were essentially naive demands for a divine verdict, the Church
offset as much as possible by religious ceremonies. No wonder, then, that Charles the Great was
tempted to command sternly in his capitularies: "All shall be obliged to learn the Creed, the Lord's
Prayer, and the Sign of the Cross, and sermons shall be preached to the people explaining very
exactly the Catholic Faith, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed of Faith."
Feudal Anarchy (843-1059) XI. Eclipse of the Dyarchy (843-962)

76. Social Eclipse: Feudalism
XI
Eclipse of the Dyarchy
76. SOCIAL ECLIPSE: FEUDALISM
A. Elements of Feudalism
Introduction: Feudalism is a generalization for a complexity of varying customs prevalent
in Western Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. It can scarcely be called a system.
At worst, it was little better than legalized anarchy; at best, it was the substitution of private
contract for public authority in major social relationships. The following survey describes not so
much a social order as a posthumous codification of the common elements of a bewildering
series of institutions varying in time and place.
(1) FEUDAL ORIGINS
Roman elements. Tendencies toward feudalism already existed in the later Roman
Empire. Nobles had long maintained economically underprivileged citizens as clients. To these
they accorded legal and economic patronage in exchange for adulation, votes, or personal
services. With the growth of despotism and an official caste, this practice became increasingly
common and even necessary for clients. In rural areas, moreover, extension of latifundia worked
by slaves forced the small free farmers who were still surviving to become tenants. Retired
soldiers, impoverished freemen, emancipated slaves all found it expedient to lease plots from
wealthy and powerful landlords in return for their livelihood as money became scarce. These
coloni were eventually forbidden by law to leave their essential occupations when the decadent
empire regimented its economy.
Teutonic elements. The comitatus of early Teutonic invaders was based on personal
loyalty to war chiefs. Once Roman territory had been occupied, these "companions" were given
lands or governorships. Often they supplanted Roman landlords or officials and took over their
clients or coloni. With the breakdown of imperial administration, such relationships became more
personal and were based on force, contract, or economic need. During the Merovingian period
capitalism yielded to agrarianism and the "system" became well-nigh universal.
Carolingian imperialism, it is true, interrupted this inchoate feudalism. Charles the Great
attempted to fuse the Roman concept of public authority with Teutonic ideals of personal
allegiance into a new imperial polity. But his renaissance of order proved too brief to halt the
process of feudalization permanently. During the civil wars that disrupted the Carolingian Empire,
while the viceroys resisted the imperial authority, their own governors made themselves
independent of royal control. Missi dominici no longer rode circuit, and offices and private
landownership fused into hereditary fiefs. The nearest thing to a precise date for the triumph of
this gradual transformation is the Capitulary of Quiercy in 877 when Emperor Charles II
"legalized" what he could no longer prevent.
(2) FEUDAL BASES
"The fundamental fact of feudalism was the fusion of a paramount ownership of the land
with sovereignty or suzerainty, and the grant of land to vassals in return for a tribute or symbol of
subjection, with a bond of fealty which chiefly expressed itself as military service . . . based as it
was on personal loyalty and the military mould in which society was cast. Knighthood was its
typical product, which, originally individualistic, became corporational at the time of the First
Crusade."
"The economic basis of this feudal society was agriculture. The tendency in western
Europe for seven hundred years had been toward a more thoroughly agrarian organization, thus
bringing the population into two sharply distinguished classes: an aristocracy of landowners and a
peasantry of cultivators. The typical member of the latter class held an allotment of soil and in
return owed labor service and rents in kind. So the great estate could be administered for an
indefinite period with only exceptional recourse to payments in cash. At the same time the
practice became increasingly general for kings and princes to reward their official and noble
retainers with grants of land instead of salaries in money. Especially under the Merovingians,
members of the aristocracy often obtain benefices from wealthy patrons-lands held in return for
some sort of honorable service. When, like most other sources of income, the benefice became
an hereditary possession it was regularly called a fief, Latin feudum, from which is derived the
word feudal."
Political basis. The preceding remarks shade into the political aspect of feudalism, for it
was also a sort of system of government. Its chief characteristic was the assumption of sovereign
prerogatives, either by former subordinate officials who had rendered their positions hereditary, or
by landowners. The latter, originally private citizens, used their economic power to appropriate
governmental functions by force or to coerce the king into granting what he dared not deny. This
is simple gangsterism or economic czardom; whatever the precise origin of their titles of nobility,
the new lords assumed the right to levy taxes, exact military service, raise fortifications,
administer justice, as well as collect rents. Governor, landlord, employer, judge-all their functions
were merged into a single person.
Military aspects. This could not come about without might: the lack of police power by
public authority and the exercise of violence by individual citizens. If land became the capital of
feudalism, fighting was its business, for thus could the principal be increased and dividends paid.
In such competition only the large and bold operator could succeed, one who could erect a
stronghold and muster a mailclad troop impervious to the fists and clubs of ordinary folk. Those
neither rich nor strong had to seek or accept unwanted "protection," which was granted only in
return for services. Freemen thus tended to sink into serfdom, while slaves, barred from military
service, rose to it. Lords and serfs-these became the standard classes.
(3) FEUDAL HIERARCHY
Feudal law. The anarchy of the Iron Age would have led to mutual destruction had not
self-interest dictated some modus vivendi. This sentiment was utilized by the Church to introduce
a modicum of order. Hence a semblance of law emerged which later lawyers crystallized into a
feudal code. But feudal justice was crude: it was rendered not so much according to any written
and fixed norm, as in response to custom, whim, or popular emotion. Ordeals, by combat or
corporeal trial, resisted episcopal and royal stricture until the thirteenth century.
Monarchy. Leaving aside the empire now in eclipse, the apex of the feudal pyramid
remained the king. It was largely through the Church that an anointed king still enjoyed a sacred,
if ineffective role. Theoretically he was protector of the oppressed, guardian of justice, and
fountainhead of rights, privileges, and charter. From him ultimately emanated all offices and
diplomas of land title. Yet often these had been wrested from him by what the English called
"over-mighty subjects" whom he dared not contradict. Thus royal prerogatives usually slumbered;
but they were not dead and would revive in times to come.
Tenants-in-chief. According to feudal theory, immediately under the king were his great
vassals or tenants-in-chief, who held their fiefs from the crown. As vassals, these dukes,
marquises, or counts pledged themselves by an oath of fidelity in exchange for a ceremonial
grant of their lands-for often the king no more dared deny such a concession than a modern
monarch contradict his prime minister. From this rite of homage, however, arose mutual rights
and obligations which more honorable lords and vassals tried to observe, for they had promised,
'I will observe my homage completely against all persons in good faith and without deceit."
Sub-infeudation. Those who held land of the tenants-in-chief were the king's "rear-
vassals," their immediate lord being the "mesme" or middleman. Such might be viscounts and
barons of many types. These in turn usually had vassals in descending scale until it came to their
lowest fighting-man, the knight, who held that minimum of land needed to support military service
in full armor. Yet this description gives no idea of the complexity of the situation. For except for
the king at the top and the knight at the bottom of this hierarchy, all its members were
simultaneously lords and vassals, and not of one but of many. A classic case is that of the count
of Champagne who held twenty-six different fiefs from the king and nine other lords, including the
emperor, the duke of Burgundy, bishops, and abbots; in turn, he himself had some two thousand
vassals. Except in Norman England each vassal was bound to his immediate lord against
anyone else: a viscount could support a count against the king. If there were several lords,
moreover, a complicated series of priorities existed which usually afforded an unscrupulous
vassal a pretext for not keeping his oath and consequently doing pretty much as he pleased.
Though in theory there was right of appeal from lord to overlord, in practice this was seldom
feasible.
B. Feudal Society
(1) NOBLE TENURE
Forms. For the nobleman the most common contract of tenure was military, since it aptly
corresponded to the most pressing need of the day. This meant that a vassal held his land on
condition of rendering certain specified military services to his lord. Even ecclesiastics and
women were held by this contract, though they were allowed to perform their services by proxy.
In tenure of barony the vassal held land in exchange for discharging some office: an English
baron was not necessarily a landlord; he might be a royal official. Peculiar to ecclesiastics was
tenure by franc-almoyne (free alms), considered in the following topic.
Feudal services were a vassal's basic obligations. Primary was that of military service,
that is, provision of a stipulated number of fully armed knights to campaign with the lord or act as
castle guards. The period of service was often limited to forty days each year. In case a lord
required no military help during that period-a rare occurrence -he might use the vassals as
envoys or otherwise, or, especially in later centuries, commute it for a money payment: scutage.
Another service was "suite of court," that is, to follow the lord's vagrant domicile to give testimony
and advice-a germ of a medieval parliament. Finally, the lord enjoyed droit de gite: a vassal must
furnish him lodging and maintenance when he came to visit. Since few manors were self-
supporting, this was a fairly regular event. Customarily a lord visited vassals in turn; a tyrant
might "eat you out of house and home."
Feudal incidents supposedly included merely "incidental" obligations of vassals, but they
bulked large in the lord's revenue. They included relief, a sort of inheritance duty, a payment in
lieu of surrender of military equipment granted an ancestor by the lord and required of the heir.
Should there be no heirs, or if a vassal was convicted of high treason or violation of fealty, his
lands returned to the lord by escheat. Wardship was the right of the lord to administer the estate
of a minor vassal. Right of marriage enabled a lord to veto a vassal's marriage with an enemy.
This could be abused: King John Lackland arranged repulsive matches in order to extort
blackmail. Livery of seisen was a tax paid by the vassal on receipt of or recovery of his fief from
his lord. Fines were also exacted--if they could be collected.
Feudal aids, theoretically free and good-will offerings, were stabilized by convention into
regular charges. At least on three occasions a vassal was expected to give his lord financial help:
when the latter knighted his son, gave his daughter in marriage, or needed ransom from captivity.
The redemption of Richard the Lionhearted is a famous instance of the last; as to the others,
Magna Carta limited aids to the eldest son and eldest daughter.
(2) NONSERVILE TENURE
The freeman, neither lord nor vassal, was something of an exception in the Feudal Age;
but he did exist, especially in England. There were sturdy yeomen who owned allods, plots in fee
simple free of feudal obligations; there were socmen, renting land for a fixed sum without
personal servitude; and there were burghers, born in a chartered town, or refugee serfs who had
lived there for a year and a day: stadt luft macht frei. Many gradations of personal freedom
existed; the legalistic Normans deemed no one wholly free unless he could, without anyone's
leave, permit his son to become a priest, give his daughter in wedlock, and sell an ox. Free
tenure, then, if not the norm in the Middle Ages, remained as a pattern for modern status. Legally
all tenure became free in England in 1661, in France in 1789, in Germany in 1848, in Russia in
1863, in benighted America in 1865.
(3) SERVILE TENURE
The serf, then, was almost equivalent to the "common man." He had "gone under" and
had been forced to exchange freedom for protection from some gangster-lord. Strictly, the serf
was the Latin servus, a domestic slave, employed about the master's person. He enjoyed a
certain responsibility which sometimes led him to look down on the villein the rural peasant bound
to unlimited service in exchange for tenure of his little plot. Lowest in the scale of subjection was
the cotter, who, though bound by theoretically unlimited obligations, had no land for his own use,
and retained only a hut. All of the foregoing serfs, however, were alike in that they were bound to
a certain manor or estate where they were obliged to labor at the lord's discretion in exchange for
protection and sustenance. Personally free before God and the Church, the serf was
nonetheless economically a slave. This mitigated slavery was perhaps not worse than the lot of
the "wage-slave" of the early Industrial Revolution.
Servile obligations were heavy. The ordinary villein, besides eking out his own
sustenance from an assigned plot, had to perform week work for the lord: devote specified days
to tilling the lord's demesne. In addition he would often be summoned for boon work, overtime
without or with recompense to meet emergencies-and avaricious lords might declare
emergencies without due cause. There was also the corvee, forced labor in constructing roads,
bridges, ditches, etc. Then there were the banalites, fees for use of certain equipment on which
the lord held a monopoly: the mill, the bakeoven, the winepress, etc. Should the peasant amass
a transportable surplus, he would face tolls for use of road or bridge on the way to market. There
was, finally, the taille, a tax in kind. Theoretically the serf was taillable a merci, liable to any
imposition, but of course prudent lords would not exact more than the manor would bear. Self-
interest dictated that unless serfs were treated reasonably well, both they and the lord would
starve. And nobleman and serf lived together on the same estate and could not be perpetually at
daggers drawn. Finally there was the potent admonition of the Church which few disregarded all
their lives.

77. The Church under Feudalism
XI
77. THE CHURCH UNDER FEUDALISM
A. Bases of Ecclesiastical Status

(1) GENERIC INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM
Origin. "Land formed the greater part of Church property, and the economico-political
feudalism of the ecclesiastical system was at once effect and cause. Bishops and dignitaries of
the Church, abbots and abbesses, became in turn vassals and feudal overlords, for they too
needed support against their enemies or against their own subjects, and they too turned their civil
possession into political and military tenure. . . ."
Extent of problem. The Church thus became enmeshed in the feudal way of life,
necessarily participating intimately in its political, military, and economic aspects. Her prelates
were forced to give their attention to a multitude of temporal concerns which distracted them from
their spiritual duties. The papacy obtained feudal overlordship of Sicily, and at least on paper
enjoyed some suzerain rights over the rulers of Aragon and Portugal, England, Ireland, and
Hungary. In the Germanic Empire many of the bishops and abbots became palatine: temporal as
well as spiritual rulers of their territories. In Lombardy and in the Netherlands the communal
movement for a time clashed with episcopal overlordship of cities. Such common interests drew
the prelates of the Church to alliance with the nobility, and in time patronage ensured the frequent
choice of nobles for the sees and great abbeys. Wherever this choice overlooked the candidates'
spiritual qualifications utterly, the result was the worldly prelate who did not scruple to act the
layman and to endanger ecclesiastical independence by accepting feudal investiture from his
overlord. Ecclesiastical functions were neglected or delegated; concubinage and simony
practiced or condoned. There was danger that the Church would be suffocated by the feudal
"tenure."
(2) PECULIAR ECCLESIASTICAL ADAPTATIONS
Military tenure. The pagan invaders and even the more rapacious of Christian gangsters
had not spared ecclesiastical institutions during the Iron Age. Hence bishops and abbots also
needed military protection. Usually they held their lands by military tenure, or if they held official
positions such as that of chancellor, by barony. Occasionally a resolute prelate would take the
field in person, but normally bishops and abbots provided a captain to take their place. Naturally
this entailed a contractual subinfeudation.
Tenure by alms. Peculiar to the Church was another form of tenure, that of franc-
almoyne or "free alms." According to this arrangement, the lord protected ecclesiastics
gratuitously and they in turn offered Masses and other religious services for him. Obviously only
a pious lord was interested in such an exchange. This form of tenure had disadvantages from the
feudal viewpoint. Inasmuch as the ecclesiastical corporation never died, the land never
escheated. The episcopal or monastic chapter was said to hold the fief in mort main, "dead
hand." While furnishing no material return, the fief in question escaped dues incident upon
inheritance. It was in an effort to remedy these inequalities, rather than out of mere
anticlericalism, that later English statutes were devised, not so much to confiscate church
property, but to "refund the debt."
Palatine jurisdiction. Since bishops and abbots often had large estates and funds at their
disposal, they could gain jurisdiction over a large area. It was frequently advantageous to a king
or overlord to multiply such ecclesiastical fiefs. Not only was the average prelate more loyal and
pacific than a lay lord, but the law of celibacy prevented him from transmitting his lands by
inheritance. Thus sees and abbeys often became palatine, that is, exercised temporal as well as
spiritual jurisdiction over their subjects. The practice became common in Germany, where some
of these "prince-bishoprics" lasted until the French Revolution. The institution was less common
in France and England, though the palatinate of the bishopric of Durham became the model for
the proprietary rights granted to Lord Baltimore over Maryland.
Investiture. Ecclesiastical vassals were likewise expected to pledge fealty by the

ceremony of homage. Since it seemed inappropriate to present a bishop or abbot with the usual
sword or coronet in exchange for his oath, the custom may have arisen of giving prelates ring,
crosier, mitre, or some sign of their spiritual office. This is investiture, a ceremony which often
accompanied but was distinct from secular nomination to a benefice by a feudal lord. Lay
investiture involved bestowal by a layman of the insignia of ecclesiastical office upon a cleric of
any degree. Though clerical jurisdiction actually came in virtue of ordination and canonical
mission, an illiterate populace might easily be led to suppose by the investiture symbolism that
both spiritual and temporal powers of a prelate were derived from the secular ruler.
B. Consequences of Clerical Feudalization

(1) ADVANTAGES
Preservation of the state. As might be surmised from the foregoing description of

feudalism, the idea of the state as a natural and juridical society was obscured during the Dark
Ages. The notion of public authority for the common good was almost blotted out by contractual
arrangements in the private interest. Quite possibly this political eclipse might have been more
complete and lasting, had not the Church been intimately involved in the feudal framework. For
the Church was already old and preserved indelible memories of Roman law, forgotten or never
learned by feudal lords. These she refused to let die, and though she was often merely able to
preserve the theory and form of the state, yet these survived to be given practical substance at a
later date. Canon law remained almost the only organized code during this period, and its
principles and method eventually influenced civil law. The famous Anglo-Saxon law as
expounded by Bracton owed full as much to ecclesiastical canons as to the juridical skill of the
Norman monarchs. Clerics almost invariably filled what governmental offices feudal monarchs
and lords retained: from 1062 to 1340 the English chancellorship was occupied exclusively by
ecclesiastics. The church court, finally, performed many functions discharged by modern secular
bureaus: registration of births, regulation of marriage in all its legal phases, and probation of wills.
As guardian of morality, the Church had jurisdiction over cases of sacrilege, immorality, perjury-
and it must be remembered that the whole feudal network was founded on the sanctity of oaths,
vows, and pledges.
International ideals. When the Carolingian Empire collapsed during the ninth century, the
reality of international unity went into temporary eclipse. But though the Holy Roman Empire
lapsed for all practical purposes between the deposition of Charles the Fat (887) and the
coronation of Otto the Great (962), a rallying point for international order survived in the Holy See.
The Ottonian Empire, when it came, owed its origin and sanction to the papacy. It put to rout
many petty tyrants and reestablished some order in Western Europe. It is impossible to measure
precisely, moreover, the binding force of the common Christian and Catholic faith even during the
years of feudal confusion and clerical degradation. Churches and abbeys afforded sanctuary
which was respected more often than not. Christian piety still sent Peter's Pence to Rome to
support the only functioning international tribunal.
Popular liberty found its chief defender in the Church. The serf worked and fared hard,
but he could not be overworked. To Sundays the Church added more than fifty holy days of
obligation banning "servile work," and thus in irregular fashion there was a five-day or forty-hour
week, though of course wind and rain could not be scheduled. The ecclesiastical liturgy provided
drama and instruction within the church edifice; outside the folk usually stopped for conversation,
singing, plays, feasts. And because of Christian teaching the serf always preserved his human
dignity during the Iron Age, and in the worst of times he had hope of eternal happiness in heaven.
(2) THE RADICAL ABUSE: SECULAR DOMINATION
Secularization. Incorporation of dioceses and abbeys into the feudal way of life brought
their possessions under lay control. During the ninth and tenth centuries the claim of lordship
extended to parishes, which became conterminous with the manor. In some cases these were
set up by contributions of king or lord, while other persons "commended" their lands to the
Church, as had happened in the evolution of St. Peter's Patrimony about Rome. Overlords
frequently demanded precaria from ecclesiastical fiefs. Though these liens, mortgages, or
pensions were theoretically loans or advances, they amounted to confiscation. Feudal lords who
had founded a church on their dominions regarded it as a hereditary possession to be disposed
of by will. As a result of such divisions, some persons might claim title to half or a third of a
church; others railed off altars or shrines as their private preserve. By the eleventh century it had
almost become an axiom: "No church without its lord." The Council of Tours in 1056 implicitly
recognized this by distinguishing three kinds of churches: (1) those belonging to a bishopric; (2)
those administered by a convent or chapter; and (3) the most numerous category, those owned
by laymen.
Patronage. Though bishops and abbots were still legitimately elected by cathedral or
monastic chapters, kings and lords for the most part presumed to guide or coerce these electoral
bodies in their choice. Since the prelates were to become temporal vassals, the overlord was
interested in the candidate's political capacity and military prowess quite as much as in his
sanctity and learning. In the parishes the average priest was the manorial chaplain, administering
a church erected and supported by a lay lord. As often as not these manorial lords claimed and
vindicated for themselves the privilege of nominating the ecclesiastics who would administer the
churches or chapels; frequently these were drawn from their own serfs. Thus arose the institution
of lay patronage which later medieval reforms could never eradicate, though the 1918 code has
abolished it for the future and reduced existing privileges to careful supervision. Patronage never
quite stilled clerical independence, but it caused too many ecclesiastics to speak softly, to whisper
or to mumble.
(3) DERIVATIVE CLERICAL ABUSES
Simony. To a worldly man an ecclesiastical fief was clearly a good financial investment.
With ecclesiastical offices put on a level with secular ones, business norms were likely to follow:
dioceses and benefices would also be bought and sold. Grasping lords might sell prelacies to the
highest bidder, and the latter could compensate himself by selling in turn lesser benefices at his
disposal. We are told that once the abbey of Reichenau brought 1,000 silver pounds; that the
see of Narbonne was sold for 100,000 solidi, and that Archbishop Guido of Milan, who had
himself bought his see, calmly announced the tariff for ordinations: priesthood, 24 denarii;
diaconate, 18; subdiaconate, 12.
Plurality of benefices with attendant nonresidence resulted when a shrewd administrator

made money on his benefice, and invested the proceeds in the purchase of another. Eventually
he might turn up as a " chain-store prelate," enjoying the revenues of a dozen benefices, large or
small. He might himself "retire from business," leaving the actual administration of his dioceses
or abbeys to hired auxiliary bishops, nominated priors, impecunious vicars. Though titular of
several sees, he himself might not have received consecration or ordination; no matter, he could
employ substitutes to conduct his spiritual duties at a subsistence rate, or leave the work to those
generous clerical neighbors who might intervene for the love of God and of souls. Whatever the
arrangement or lack of it, the care of souls suffered under hirelings or overworked pastors.
Concubinage, finally, came to accompany these abuses. Men who entered the clerical
profession for worldly motives were not readily going to deny themselves any secular privilege.
Caring little for the law of clerical celibacy in its moral aspect, many such mercenaries were
content merely to maintain appearances while secretly living in concubinage. But as men
became brutalized and moral standards insensibly lowered, it became less necessary to maintain
appearances. Prelates openly took wives, defending themselves by "priority of the natural law"
over the ecclesiastical precept. They extended this privilege to their clerical subjects, and many
of these availed themselves of this "dispensation." In time, such became the ignorance of pastors
and even of prelates, that the law of celibacy was forgotten or looked upon as repealed. People
came to take much of this as a matter of course, and clerics made provision in their wills for wives
and children. Only the Holy See could enforce the law under such circumstances, but it will be
seen that for a time Rome came under secular domination itself. In 1022, it is true, a ray of light
pierced the clouds when Pope Benedict VIII spoke out in vigorous denunciation of these clerical
abuses. But this appeal did not have immediate success; not for another generation would an
aggressive papal campaign be launched against concubinage and simony.
Conclusion: Though many brighter colors must be mixed with this dismal scene, it was
this combination of clerical abuses stemming from lay domination that rightly fixes on these
centuries from the ninth to the eleventh the name of Dark Ages. It is significant that at the height
of the ensuing reform movement at the beginning of the twelfth century, Pope Paschal II cried
out: "The Church, redeemed and made free by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, must in no way
become a slave again." But many scandals would first have to be endured.

78. Imperial Disruption (840-888)
XI
78. IMPERIAL DISRUPTION
A. Causes of Disintegration
Introduction: The present topic finds the Carolingian Empire in a period of stress. From
843 to 888 its organization disintegrated until by the end of that time not even the name of
emperor survived. The eclipse of the Dyarchy, however, was not entirely contemporaneous: the
empire began to go to pieces at the Treaty of Verdun (843) and was utterly shattered by the time
of Charles the Fat's deposition (887). Yet during the same period the papacy survived in full
moral vigor and political initiative. The ordeal of the Holy See, however, began with the close of
the ninth century and lasted during the tenth, when the empire showed signs of reviving. Yet the
whole period from 843 to 962 is one of the darkest in the annals of Western Europe and there
was little peace throughout for either papacy or empire.
(1) FACTORS FOR DISRUPTI0N
The Carolingian inheritance system proved to be a major cause for the disruption of the
empire of Charles the Great. Although the Salic Law excluded women both from landownership
and government, it favored, on the other hand, succession of all male children to their father's
inheritance. Reasonable as this might be when applied to the division of private property, its
extension to a father's public office had already proved disastrous for the Merovingian dynasty:
while its princes engaged in civil wars, their subjects not only asserted their independence but
made puppets of them. Carolingian history had thus far presented several instances of the same
fatal predilection for division, though the emergence of a powerful personality in each generation
Charles Martel, Pepin the Short, Charles the Great-had quickly restored unity. Charles the Great
had intended to perpetuate this defective principle of succession, and only the accident that his
two elder sons predeceased him prevented him from so dividing his dominions at his death. But
chance would not save the Carolingians indefinitely from the consequences of their doting folly;
the application of the old Salic inheritance system by the numerous sons and grandsons of Louis
the Pious speedily reduced the Carolingian Empire to fragments.
Racial differences, moreover, were becoming more pronounced. Austrasia and Neustria
had always differed in their proportions of Teutonic and Roman blood and culture. The great
Carolingians were Teutonic in outlook, and Charles the Great had vastly increased the Teutonic
portion of the Frankish realm by conquest. Annexation of Lombardy had introduced another
divergent racial element. During the present period we have the evidence of the Oath of
Strassburg (842) that the Eastern Franks no longer understood the ordinary dialect of their more
Romanized Western brethren: a rudimentary German and French speech was appearing. In 843
the Treaty of Verdun effected a tripartite division which happened to coincide to a considerable
degree with these nascent nationalities: German, French, and Italian.
Foreign invasion threatened the empire thus internally weakened. Even a strong and
united state finds it difficult to defend itself against a war on two fronts. The Carolingian Empire,
precisely during its period of civil strife, had to meet roughly simultaneous invasions from three
directions. From the north now came Norse pirates, impelled by the unification of the
Scandinavian kingdoms to seek plunder abroad, and possessing a mastery of the sea which
enabled them to hit and sail almost at will. They descended upon the empire, the British Isles,
and on Russia, and in all three lands founded bases of operation: Normandy, York and Dublin,
and Kiev. Meanwhile from the east emerged a new Mongol disturbance, such as periodically
afflicted Europe. This time it was the Magyars or Hungarians who attacked Germany and Italy,
and even at times penetrated into France. It required a century before Hungary became their
fixed settlement, and not a mere lair whence they erupted for new raids. Finally, the distracted
Carolingian state was struck from the south by the Saracens, now masters of the Mediterranean
on three sides. First as pirates and then as conquerors they hopped islands until they occupied
southern Italy and raided the French Riviera.
(2) RECIPROCAL CONSEQUENCES
Feudal evolution proceeded apace during the civil wars between Louis the Pious and his
sons, and the subsequent rivalry among the Carolingian brothers and cousins. This process was
a vicious reciprocity: the more feudalism developed, the faster the empire fell apart, and imperial
disintegration encouraged the spread of feudalism. During the civil wars the Carolingian princes,
as the Merovingians had done before them, sought to attach adherents to themselves from
among their officials and governors by large concessions of immunities and privileges. Offices
became hereditary, the beneficium evolved into the feudum. Naturally when the central
government could no longer defend localities against invasion, vigorous personalities among the
local officials or residents were encouraged to seize alike the burden and rewards of political
power.
Feudal "law" emerged on imperial ruins, A lord, the "senior" or seigneur, might retain a
little of the authority originally delegated him by the Carolingian monarchs: this constituted his
droit seigneurial. As proprietor of his district, moreover, he exercised petty justice "within the
hedge," his droit foncier. In some places even certain vestiges of the ancient Roman law might
survive as the loi ecrit. In France, at least, all this resulted in a legal confusion that was not
entirely clarified until the Code Napoleon of the nineteenth century. In practice, however, as
already mentioned, the lord administered not the law of the land, nor of the king, nor of the
people, but of the fief. This was recorded in the register of the feudal court; should it fail to
enlighten, there might be an enquete par tourbe: a consultation of the elders to find out what the
immemorial manorial custom was.
B. Process of Disintegration (840-88)

(1) CAROLINGIAN DIVISIONS (840-55)
Partition of Verdun (843). At his death in 840, Emperor Louis the Pious had left three
surviving sons: Lothar, his imperial coregent and viceroy of Lombardy, Louis, soon called "the
German, " viceroy in Bavaria, and Charles the Bold, viceroy of Neustria. The fourth brother,
Pepin, had died in 838 and his young son of the same name had been excluded from succession
to his father's viceroyalty of Aquitaine. Lothar hoped to obtain his father's dominant position as
emperor and direct ruler of the bulk of the Frankish realm, retaining his younger brothers in
subordinate capacities. But Lothar lacked the ability and integrity to enforce this settlement
against the traditional system of partition. In 841 Louis the German and Charles the Bald allied
themselves against him, binding themselves the next year by that bilinguistic milestone, the Oath
of Strassburg. Though serious fighting did not follow, Lothar felt constrained to yield to this
combination. In 843 he consented to the momentous Treaty of Verdun which may be taken to
mark the beginning of the separate existence of France, Germany, and Italy. Lothar himself
retained his imperial title with nominal suzerainty over his brothers, but his direct rule was limited
to Lombardy, together with a narrow strip of territory extending northward to include the capital at
Aachen. The land to the east of this corridor became the Kingdom of the East Franks for Louis
the German. Charles the Bald was assigned the lands to the west; his realm was the Kingdom of
the West Franks, or France. Except for the trans-Alpine extension of Lothar's kingdom, this
partition has proved durable in the main. As for the corridor, later Lorraine and Burgundy, these
territories have been debatable ground between France and Germany down to modern times.
Tripartite Regime (843-55). Save for a brief, indecisive contest between Louis and
Charles in 854, the resulting tripartite regime of the brothers was free from civil war during the
lifetime of the eldest, Emperor Lothar I (840-55). The chief peril came from foreign foes who
began their incursions during the period of contention (840-43) and were never definitively
repulsed. For Lothar, the chief danger arose from the Saracens who settled in Sicily in 842. But
the emperor proved sluggish, more concerned with trying to dominate the papacy than with
defending Christendom. Louis the German, however, was fairly successful in warding off Viking
and Magyar raids, though the former were merely diverted against France and the latter to Italy.
But even Germany was invaded down the Elbe in 851. Charles the Bald proved least effectual
and Norsemen harried his lands almost at will. Paris, Rouen, and Bordeaux were plundered, and
by 850 the raiders had set up permanent winter quarters along the Seine. Down in Aquitaine,
Pepin the Younger took the field and built up a following. Though often defeated, he proved an
obstacle to peace until his death in 864. The imperial brothers, it is true, engaged in considerable
verbiage about imperial and fraternal unity; but far from aiding one another, they viewed another
triumvir's discomfiture with complacency. Lothar died in 855 without reaching the imperial status
of even Louis the Pious and his death opened the way for further breakup of the Carolingian
Empire.
(2) CAROLINGIAN SUBDIVISIONS (855-88)
Imperial Italy did not long survive Lothar's death. His heterogeneous realm was then
divided among three sons: the eldest became Emperor Louis II (855-75) and King of Lombardy;
the second, Lothar II (855-69), received the region henceforth retaining his name, Lorraine; and
the third, Charles, was given Burgundy. When he died in 863, his brothers divided his
inheritance. But when Lothar II also died without sons, Emperor Louis II was obliged to relinquish
Lorraine to his avaricious uncles of France and Germany. Thus restricted to Lombardy, Louis II
did do his duty. In alliance with Basileus Basil I, he inflicted a severe defeat on the Saracens in
871 and relieved the pressure from that source for a generation. But Louis's death without male
heir in 875 left Italy a prey to feudal anarchy. The imperial title passed to a series of Carolingian
princes who eagerly coveted its honors without discharging the duties attached to the imperial
office.
Franco-German rivalry, meanwhile, had become pronounced. In 860 Louis the German
attacked France, but was eventually beaten off Danes and Slavs became the only beneficiaries of
this contest. Lothar II discredited his rule by an attempted divorce from his wife to marry his
mistress-what Pope Nicholas the Great thought of this will be noted presently. When Lothar died
in 869, Louis the German and Charles the Bald renewed their struggle for Lorraine. For the
moment, neither was able to absorb the whole, and a truce was called in 870 by the Treaty of
Mersen. This pact partitioned Lorraine and a portion of Burgundy between Louis the German and
Charles the Bald.
Morcellation of the German and French territories followed upon the deaths of Louis the
German and Charles the Bald. The former subdivided his "Kingdom of the East Franks" among
three sons: Carloman ruled in Bavaria (876-80), Louis junior took Saxony for himself (876-82),
and the young Charles the Fat was assigned Swabia (876-88). Carloman challenged his uncle
Charles the Bald over the imperial succession to Louis II (875), but the latter won the empty title
by a hasty round trip to Lombardy. Back in France, Charles did nothing imperial before his death
in 877. Viking raids continued during the remainder of his reign, that of his son Louis II (877-79),
and of his grandsons Louis III (879-82), and Carloman (879-84). Paris was saved from the
Norsemen, but not by the Carolingians. Count Robert the Strong-armed beat them off and made
a reputation that his descendants enhanced until they, the Capetians, supplanted the
Carolingians on the French throne. Meanwhile in Germany Norse invasions spread as Louis the
German's progeny rapidly followed their father to the grave.
(3) CAROLINGIAN IMPERIAL FINALE (881-88)
The Last Reunion. Carolingian mortality gave the empire a last opportunity to restore
imperial unity. After Carloman's death Charles the Fat advanced his candidacy for the imperial
title, in abeyance since the death of Charles the Bald in 877. With some misgivings, Pope John
VIII gave it to him. In 882, the demise of Louis of Saxony enabled Charles the Fat to reunite
Germany. The West Franks, left in 884 with only the infant grandson of Charles the Bald, Charles
the Simple, also picked the new emperor as their king. For a time Charles the Fat reunited most
of the Great Charles's dominions. But he proved an utter failure in restoring order at home or in
resisting invaders. Against the latter his only expedient was payment of tribute, and this but
encouraged raiders to return. When in desperation he tried to muster an army, his vassals
refused him aid. Apologetic and weeping, Charles the Fat in 887 agreed to his deposition; a few
months later he died (888).
Final partition. Each of the chief realms of the Treaty of Verdun now went their separate
ways. The French chose Eudes Capet, son of Count Robert of Paris, whose descendants
opened a century of rivalry with the Carolingians for the French crown. The Germans elected
Arnulf of Carinthia, an illegitimate son of Carloman, who had somewhat distinguished himself
against the invaders. The Italian crown remained in dispute for years between two Carolingians
in the female line, Berengar of Friuli and Guy of Spoleto. Nor was this all: Rudolf Welf was
building another monarchy in Burgundy. The Carolingian phase of the Holy Roman Empire was
over.

79. Papal Survival (844-85)
XI
79. PAPAL SURVIVAL
A. The Saracen Menace (844-58)

(1) PAPAL UNPREPAREDNESS (844-47)
Pope Sergius II (844-47), the elderly cardinal archpriest, was elected in January, 844,
after a brief opposition from Deacon John, later confined to a monastery. The disturbance
provided the occasion for new grumbling by Emperor Lothar that his Constitution was not being
heeded. The emperor was placated by nomination of Bishop Drogo of Metz, a strong imperialist,
as papal legate for Frankland, and the coronation of Louis II. But in Italy the pope delegated
much of the temporal administration to his brother, Cardinal Benedict, who mismanaged the
Papal State and is accused of simony. When the Saracens attacked the area in 846, they
succeeded in laying Ostia to waste, sacked the churches of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome, and
endangered Monte Cassino. The situation was menacing when the pope died, January 27, 847.
(2) PAPAL DEFENSE (847-58)
St. Leo IV (847-55), a cardinal priest, was elected April 1, 847, and promptly consecrated
without awaiting imperial confirmation. For this haste St. Leo had ample justification in the need
of putting Rome in a position to resist the Saracens. The pope personally supervised the rapid
rebuilding of the Roman walls, now including the Vatican region, henceforth known as the
"Leonine City." Before the new walls were dedicated with prayers in 852, Leo IV had to beat off a
new Saracen raid on Ostia. In 849 the Romans and Neapolitans, helped by a providential storm,
repulsed the Saracen fleet. Besides his own energetic measures, St. Leo interested the young
coemperor Louis II in the idea of a major offensive against the invaders. This worthy pontiff died
on July 17, 855.
Benedict III (855-58), a cardinal priest, was chosen the same month, though he was not
consecrated until September because Emperor Lothar countenanced the candidacy of the priest
Anastasius, later known as "the Librarian." Though he incarcerated Benedict during August,
Lothar was forced by the Romans to release the legitimate pope and retire. Under a subsequent
pontificate Anastasius became pontifical librarian and performed useful services for the Holy See.
Once undisputed bishop of Rome, Benedict III had occasion to rebuke the hierarchy of the Franks
for passivity in repressing disorders. He continued his predecessor's defensive measures,
despite a flood of the Tiber. Churches were restored, some of them with the donations of Prince
Ethelwulf of Wessex who visited Rome in 855. Benedict's short pontificate terminated with his
death on April 17, 858. It is impossible to locate during it-or any other-the mythical "Popess Joan"
assigned by legend to 855, or 915, or 1087, or 1100. The legend originated in the thirteenth
century and has been completely exploded.
B. St. Nicholas the Great (858-67)

(1) PONTIFICATE OF ST. NICHOLAS
St. Nicholas, son of Theodore, belonged to the Roman nobility. Entering the clerical
state, he had been ordained subdeacon by Pope Sergius II and deacon by St. Leo IV. After a
second refusal of the papacy by Cardinal Hadrian of San Marco, St. Nicholas was elected and
consecrated on April 24, 858. He is the first pope of whom there is reputable evidence that he
received a crown: he is so represented in St. Clement's Church in Rome. With or without this
symbol, however, he was recognized as a leader during the dark days of the decline of the
Carolingian Empire. The Roman populace designated him by the title, "the Great," a distinction
they awarded but three popes in history. Diplomatic without being subservient, St. Nicholas
anticipated the popes of the medieval theocracy.
Papal primacy was vigorously asserted by this pope. To Basileus Michael he wrote: "By
God's power we have been born sons and heirs of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and though in
merit far beneath them, we have been constituted princes over all the earth, i.e., over the
universal Church." As will be seen in connection with eastern history, St. Nicholas did not hesitate
to reject Photius, intruded patriarch of Constantinople. In the West, moreover, he asserted that "it
is for the Apostolic See to judge metropolitans, whose causes have always been reserved to it;
moreover it has been its custom to condemn or absolve patriarchs, as the case may be; and it
has been its acknowledged and inherent right to judge all priests, inasmuch as it belongs to it by
special prerogative to make laws, issue decrees, and promulgate decisions throughout the whole
Church."
Execution of these claims found St. Nicholas disciplining leading prelates. Not merely did
he refuse to accept the deposition of St. Ignatius of Constantinople and Photius's intrusion; when
Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and quasi-primate of the Franks, summarily deposed Bishop
Rothade of Soissons in 861, the pope ordered and enforced his restoration despite the opposition
of Charles the Bald. But when Hinemar resisted the uncanonical intrusion of Hilduin into the see
of Cambrai, he found himself sustained by the pope. John X reigned at Ravenna, an
ecclesiastical gangster born a century too soon, who seized ecclesiastical and lay property at will,
deposed clerics as he pleased and defied conciliar mandates. Excommunicated, he refused
obedience to the pope. St. Nicholas went in person to Ravenna, confronted the archbishop with
his accusers, and required him to make restitution, Deserted by all, John X complied and kept the
peace as long as St. Nicholas was pope. The metropolitan jurisdiction of St. Ansgar over
Scandinavia was sanctioned by this pope, and the prince of the Bulgars instructed on the proper
founding of a Christian state. Undefeated in many contests, St. Nicholas died on November 13,
867.
(2) THE LOTHARINGIAN DIVORCE CASE (859-69)
The papal rebuke to Lothar II of Lorraine for defying the sacrament of matrimony was but
one of his acts, but particularly impressed itself upon posterity. Medieval Christendom long
remembered that even a king had been unable to extort a divorce from the Holy See.
The case. In 859 Lothar II of Lorraine, captivated by his lust for a former mistress,
Walrada, began to have scruples about his marriage to Theutberga. He began to circulate
rumors that it was null-on an unsubstantiated accusation of incest. A subservient civil court
subjected Theutberga to ordeal by hot water, but her champion underwent this successfully.
Then an equally submissive ecclesiastical court, under the presidency of Walrada's brother,
Gunther of Cologne, extorted a confession of guilt from Theutberga and declared her marriage
null (860). At Aachen another synod sanctioned Lothar's union with Walrada. But Theutberga
escaped, repudiated her confession, and appealed to Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims who
referred the case to Rome-he had already learnt his lesson at Soissons. St. Nicholas sent
legates to investigate, but these, Bishops Rodoald and John, were suborned by Lothar to approve
the local verdict. Theutberga's agent had given the pope her side of the case, however, and in
October, 863, St. Nicholas in a Lateran synod annulled the decrees of the local councils and
deposed the erring prelates. After a suitable admonition, the pope excommunicated the king.
This "insult" to Carolingian dignity was referred by Lothar to his big brother, Emperor Louis II, who
marched on Rome. But imperial troops found the streets filled with penitential processions. A
plague among his soldiers and the empress's intervention induced Louis to withdraw, and Lothar,
abandoned by his family, dismissed Walrada and agreed to receive Theutberga. But he so
mistreated her that presently she herself asked for an annullment. The pope continued
nonetheless to uphold the principle of indissolubility; he urged her to be loyal and brave and
ordered the hierarchy to sustain the papal verdict. Walrada and her defenders were put under
excommunication.
The sequel. After St. Nicholas's death, Lothar seems to have resumed his relations with
Walrada, after protestations of innocence. With his archepiscopal supporters, Gunther and
Theutgard, the king came to Lombardy and assured the new pope, Adrian II, that he had at long
last broken with Walrada and that all concerned were guiltless. After receiving their oaths, the
pope absolved them, but when Lothar died suddenly at Piacenza soon after, the popular verdict
was "guilty." Both Theutberga and Walrada retired to convents and lived happily ever afterwards.
C. The Papacy Amid Growing Anarchy (867-85)

(1) DECLINE OF PAPAL PRESTIGE
Pope Adrian II (867-72), the seventy-five-year-old cardinal of San Marco who had twice
declined election to the papacy, accepted on December 14, 867. Perhaps he should have
refused a third time. Though conscientious and resolute, he had an unfortunate pontificate. He
seems to have been rather facile toward Lothar II, and experienced defeat at Hincmar's hands.
For when the pope in 871 intervened to rebuke that prelate's deposition of his nephew, it was
discovered that the latter deserved his censure, and the pope could not do more than ease his
fall. When, moreover, the pope admonished Charles the Bald for his moral failings, Hincmar took
the king's part and branded the papal intervention as politics. But the greatest blow to Adrian's
prestige came from his own family. By a marriage previous to ordination, he had a daughter
whose hand was sought by Eleutherius, younger brother of Anastasius the Librarian. Failing to
secure parental consent, Eleutherius kidnapped the girl and her mother. Pursued by imperial
troops at Adrian's denunciation, Eleutherius killed both of his captives and himself. Adrian died
on the anniversary of his election, 872.
(2) HEROIC REVIVAL
Pope John VIII (872-82), the cardinal archdeacon, was elected and consecrated the
same day. He proved a stern disciplinarian for lawless times. He strove to halt the collapse of
the Carolingian Empire by providing it with leaders, or at least titular heads. On the death of
Louis II in 875, he invited and crowned Charles the Bald, but the latter proved of slight assistance.
Then the pope for a time favored Louis II's son-in-law, Boso of Provence. But the Lombards
seem to have objected to him arid Cardinal Formosus and other members of the Roman curia
were involved in some obscure political intrigues. In 876 the pope excommunicated the
malcontents, clerical and lay, but they survived to play at faction in after years. Personally or
through legates, the pope was indefatigable in reproving the feudality for plunder, rape, etc. The
archbishop of Naples was censured for traffic with the Saracens. In 881 John VIII spared history
an 'Emperor Boso" and instead granted anointing and coronation to Charles the Fat. But the
pope could not communicate his own energy to that sluggish monarch, and little improvement
followed. The vigorous pontiff played an important part in Byzantine and Moravian affairs,
sustaining Sts. Cyril and Methodius, as noted elsewhere. Repeatedly, however, he himself had
to flee from Rome, and finally the great pope succumbed on December 16, 882-assassinated by
thugs according to a somewhat dubious report.
(3) SHADOWY PONTIFICATES (882-85)

Martin II (882-84), previously bishop of Cervetri, was chosen on December 16, 882-the
first pope known to have been a bishop at his election since the first century. The Liber
Pontificalis reflects the darkness of the age, for there are few details of these pontiffs. Martin II
had an interview with Charles the Fat but obtained merely an unfulfilled pledge of help.
Formosus and his partisans were absolved. Papal correspondence with Constantinople and
England exists. The pope died in May, 884.
St. Adrian III (884-85), presumably a cardinal, was elected on May 17, 884. Invited to
meet the emperor at Worms, the pope died en route at Parma, during September, 885. With his
successor, Stephen VI, begins a series of events which led to the degradation of the papacy in
subjection for a time to feudal domination.

80. Intellectual Tensions
XI
80. INTELLECTUAL TENSIONS
A. Theological Controversies
(1) THE SCOTISTIC SYNTHESIS
John Scotus Erigena became the chief intellectual figure of ninth century Carolingian
Renaissance. He was its most profound, if not most correct theologian, and for a time was
vaguely regarded as an omniscient doctor. Scotus was certainly a Celt and probably an Irishman
who came to Frankland during the first part of the ninth century. Though one of the most
distinguished scholars of the later Carolingian period, the only chronological hint that can be
given is that he "flourished" at the palace school of Charles the Bald (843-77). While it may be
conjectured that Viking raids had begun to disturb his studies in the British Isles, only legend
relates that later he returned to Malmesbury in England to found a school. Here, they say, his
scholars murdered him; at least their exasperation is plausible.
Idealistic pantheism is the apparent and unintentional result of Scotus's endeavor to

reconcile Neoplatonic philosophy with Christian theology. Enjoying the then rare knowledge of
the Greek language, Scotus was able to translate the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
into Latin. Then he went on to a study of the latter's sources, the Neoplatonist Proclus in
particular. The fruit of these researches was his own brilliant but temerarious metaphysical
synthesis, De Divisione Naturae. Its ostensible principle, "all is God and God is all," was
theological dynamite, whatever Scotus may have meant by it. The trouble is that "Erigena speaks
Latin, but he thinks in Greek. The notion which in his mind answers the word participatio, is the
Greek notion of metousia, which does not mean 'to share being in common with,' but rather 'to
have being after,' and as a consequence of, another being. . . . When we read in Erigena that
'God and creature are the same thing,' we naturally label him a pantheist . . . yet Erigena only
means that each and every creature is essentially a manifestation, under the form of being, of
what is above being. "
Basic Scotism, however, was beyond the depths of contemporary theologians whose
philosophical background was meager. Hence although, as will be seen presently, Scotus's
errors on concrete theological points were rejected, his basic synthesis was hardly read or
understood so that a vast but unenlightened respect for the author survived. His masterpiece, De
Divisione Naturae, escaped explicit condemnation until 1215. There is every reason to suppose
that Scotus was not a formal heretic; in fact, he seems to have been a mystic contemplative. But
his mysticism did not have a solid philosophical foundation, and it transmitted from Pseudo-
Dionysius to Meister Eckhart an unusual and potentially dangerous terminology.
(2) FIRST EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY (844-60)
St. Paschasius Radbert (786-860) was a monk, deacon, and from 844 to 851 abbot of
Old Corbie Monastery near Amiens. About 831 he composed a treatise for the instruction of the
monks on the Eucharist. and in 844 a revision was published under the title, De Corpore et
Sanguine Domini. In his dedication to Charles the Bald, the author explained that he strove to
bring home vividly the doctrine of Christ's real presence in the Holy Eucharist. In his writing,
however, St. Paschasius made the following ambiguous assertion that led to controversy: "This is
precisely the same flesh that was born of Mary, suffered on the Cross, and rose from the tomb."
Ratramnus (d. 866), another monk of Old Corbie, was asked by the king to examine the
treatise. In a work of his own of the same title Ratramnus took issue with St. Paschasius. He
maintained that a distinction ought to be made inasmuch as the external appearance of Christ's
body in the Eucharist is not identical with the appearance of the body received from Mary. On
Hugon's authority, it may be conceded that both St. Paschasius and Ratramnus were basically
correct. But the former in trying to stress the real substantial identity of Christ's natural body with
His Eucharistic body, narrated some miracles which gave the impression that Christ was sensibly
visible in the Eucharist. The latter, on the other band, desired to emphasize that Christ exists in a
different state in the Eucharist than in the Incarnation, but used some terms which might suggest
that the Savior was not really, but only symbolically, present in the Eucharist.
Controversial ramifications. The debate between these principals soon became a

theological free-for-all. Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda, in 845 termed St. Paschasius's opinion
erroneous, and proposed to substitute an even more inaccurate statement: "To receive the body
of Christ is to unite oneself to Christ by faith so as to form with Him but one body." On the other
side, Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferri'eres, pronounced Ratramnus's work of dubious orthodoxy.
Amalrius, a priest of Metz, then contended that since the Eucharist was truly man's food, it was
subject to decomposition. John Scotus, the contemporary encyclopedia, next boldly plunged into
the fray to advance the view that the sacrament was merely "a memorial of the body and blood of
Christ," verbally an anticipation of the Zwinglian heresy.
The dispute ended about 860 without definitive solution, though St. Paschasius, who
issued a defense of his position about 853, seems to have won the greater number of adherents.
Pushed into the background during the feudal disorders, the controversy lingered on until in the
eleventh century it merged with the Second Eucharistic Controversy provoked by Berengarius.
Gerbert, later Pope Sylvester II, expressed the opinion that both St. Paschasius and Ratramnus
could be reconciled. Though the latter's treatise was placed on the Index in 1559 during the
Protestant Revolt, it was removed in 1900. Of the good dispositions of the contestants there
never was any serious question.
(3) PREDESTINARIAN CONTROVERSY (847-68)
Gottschalk of Orbais (805-68) was the son of the Saxon count Berno, possibly one of the
forced converts. Gottschalk himself claimed that he had been presented as a child to Fulda
Abbey and forced by its abbot Rabanus Maurus, into the monastic life. In 829 Gottschalk sought
dispensation from his vows from a synod at Mainz, but Rabanus succeeded in having his
decision sustained. The most that Gottschalk could obtain was transfer to Orbais Abbey where
he was ordained, presumably also under coercion. After 840 he left his monastery on pretext of a
pilgrimage to Rome. Some wandering years later, about 847, he attracted attention at Friuli in
Lombardy.
Predestinarianism, supposedly based on St. Augustine's teaching, was the fruit of
Gottschalk's studies. Since most of his works have been lost, his views cannot be ascertained in
detail. It would seem that his basic idea is summed up in his assertion that "there is a twin
predestination, whether of the elect to paradise, or of the reprobate to death." Without
distinguishing God's gratuitous predestination of the elect from His negative reprobation of the
damned in virtue of their freely chosen demerits, Gottschalk simply concluded that God assigned
men to heaven or hell and that there was nothing that men could do about it. Hence Gottschalk
decided that God did not really wish the salvation of all men, but only of a few.
Prosecution of this error began when Bishop Noting of Verona informed Rabanus
Maurus. Gottschalk's former abbot, now archbishop of Mainz, held a council (848) which
condemned the rash monk and handed him over to his metropolitan, Hincmar of Rheims, for
discipline. The latter decreed next year that Gottschalk be degraded from the priesthood,
severely flogged, and confined to a monastery for life. The flogging was so brutally inflicted that
Gottschalk seems to have been marked for life in soul as well as body. Some of Hincmar's foes
took the monk's part and Hincmar's criticisms of the hymn, Te Trina Deitas, exposed him to
ridicule. John Scotus was asked to intervene and came up with the opinion that there could be
no predestination at all since evil and sin are physical nonentities-not quite the question at issue.
While theologians divided, a number of synods proved unable to set the dispute to rest.
The Council of Thuzey (860), composed of fifty-seven bishops, finally reached

comparative unanimity. Four statements previously advanced by Hincmar were now endorsed:
(1) that there is but one predestination to heaven-omitting Gottschalk's predestination to hell; (2)
that human freedom requires prevenient grace for salutary action; (3) that God desires the
salvation of all men; and that (4) Christ died for all persons. St. Nicholas the Great, though
informed of the various conciliar decrees, does not seem to have intervened personally, save
perhaps to mitigate Gottschalk's sentence. That individual, so far as is known, did not recant
prior to his death-about 870.
B. Canonical Disputes
(1) CAROLINGIAN METROPOLITAN STATUS
Papal representatives. Mention has already been made of the intervention of the Holy
See, both in the establishment of the Carolingian kingdom and empire, and in the reorganization
of clerical discipline. St. Boniface, who had acted as apostolic delegate plenipotentiary, had been
most solicitous to promote metropolitan organization in close dependence on the Holy See, and
had insisted on the archbishops' seeking the pallium from Rome as the external symbol of this
communion. But after the death of St. Boniface, this latter practice seems to have again fallen
into disuse and the supervisory powers of metropolitans do not seem to have been consistently
exercised. The new papal representative, St. Chrodegang of Metz (d. 768), has been
characterized as less "ultramontane" and more "Gallican" than St. Boniface, if these
anachronisms have any meaning here.
Primatial pretensions, it might be expected, would be advanced once the Carolingian

Empire had been established. The see of Constantinople had claimed patriarchal rank as soon
as it became the seat of empire, and the archbishops of Ravenna had made extravagant
assertions during the heyday of the exarchate. There was danger, then, that demands for a
Frankish patriarchate might arise. The vastness of the territory and the divergence of the nations
involved in the new empire seem to have prevented this development from succeeding.
In Lombardy, Archbishops Tado (860-68) and Anspert (868-81) did try to profit by the
replacement of the exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombard kingdom. Both these prelates claimed
the title of "primate of Milan" and the latter defied the Holy See in presuming to crown Charles the
Fat as King of Lombardy. Though subsequent metropolitans of Milan and Ravenna repeated
such aspirations, the popes never abated their claims to be the only primates of Italy.
In Germany, the prestige of St. Boniface as archbishop of Mainz descended to his
successors Rabanus Maurus (847-56) and St. Lullus (856-86). But the ascendancy of these men
was largely personal, and no consistent primatial office arose until the archbishops of Mainz
became electors and archchancellors of the Ottonian Empire.
In France, however, the ninth century saw two ambitious prelates occupy the see of
Rheims. The notorious Ebbo (816-45) sided with the sons of Louis the Pious in their father's
deposition in 833, but was forced to retire when the emperor regained power in 835. Hincmar
(845-82) was more ecclesiastical in his tastes, but also intent on asserting his metropolitan rights
to the full. Not only did the popes, especially St. Nicholas the Great, restrain him, but his
overbearing conduct was resented by suffragans who took care to block his patriarchal ambitions.
(2) THE ISIDORIAN DECRETALS
The Decretals of Isidore Mercator, which began to circulate within the Carolingian realms
between 847 and 852, should be appraised against this background. They are a collection of
canons, some authentic and others apocryphal, attributed to early popes, ecumenical councils,
and other synods. Their authorship is unknown, though the compiler seems to have wished to
create the impression that they emanated from St. Isidore of Seville. Scholars incline to the belief
that the compilation originated in Frankland during the ninth century, and was probably drawn tip
by an ecclesiastic seeking to resist the assertion of supraepiscopal powers by Hincmar of Rheims
or other metropolitans. In order to defend bishops against the metropolitans, the redactor exalted
alike papal primacy and episcopal autonomy. He mixed together decretals attributed to early
popes, the "Apostolic Canons," authentic canons of Eastern, African, Gallican, and Spanish
synods from 325 to 619, the forged Donation of Constantine, and authentic decrees of popes
from St. Sylvester to Gregory II.
The history of this hodgepodge was long. Pope St. Nicholas cited them against Hincmar
in the case of Rothade's deposition; whereupon Hincmar retorted that they were false. Whether
Hincmar's charge was based on knowledge or conjecture is not known; possibly he suspected
what he could not prove. Since, however, the Decretals were in content in accord with canonical
tradition, they soon passed into general usage in that uncritical age and were later incorporated
into Gratian's Decretum. Though sometimes cited by the popes, the collection never received
their formal sanction. Their authorship was questioned during the fifteenth century by Cardinal
Nicholas of Cusa, and in the next century Protestants exploited the notion that papal primacy had
no other foundation than this forgery. Revival of scientific history began with Cardinal Baronius.
This, while exposing the Isidorian Decretals, also brought to light ample testimony of
unimpeachable historicity in favor of papal primacy.

81. Carolingian Exit (888-962)
XI
81. CAROLINGIAN EXIT
A. French Feudalization (888-987)

(1) CAROLINGIAN-CAPETIAN STRIFE (888-936)
King Eudes (888-98) had been elected by the West Franks on the dissolution of the
Carolingian Empire at the deposition and death of Charles the Fat. Eudes was recommended by
the success of his father, Count Robert the Strong-armed, against the Norsemen. He himself
repulsed the Vikings at Montpensier, capturing their chief, and he prevented Guido of Spoleto
from extending his rule into France. But Eudes's family, later called the Capetians, as yet
suffered from disadvantages. They could not enjoy the prestige of the surviving French
Carolingian, Charles the Simple, who had been passed over by reason of his youth. Eudes found
himself merely primus inter pares: he could not dominate the some 75 fiefs into which France was
now divided, and was barely able to preserve his crown until his death on December 31, 898.
Charles the Simple (898-923) had been brought forward as a rival to Eudes as early as
893 by Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, and several powerful feudal barons. On Eudes's death his
brother and heir, Robert, acquiesced in Charles's kingship. Charles the Simple was not without
ability, but the time for its exercise by a Carolingian was past. He could do nothing to repair the
domestic chaos, and expended most of his efforts in trying to seize the Duchy of Lorraine, long
disputed between France and Germany. He had initial successes but eventually had to yield to
reviving German power of Henry the Fowler. Meanwhile Norse raids had become intolerable in
France. Lacking force, Charles resolved to fight fire with fire. In 911 he ceded to Chief Hrolf a
section of northern France, henceforth known as Normandy. On condition of receiving baptism
and pledging feudal allegiance to the king of France, Hrolf was recognized as duke of Normandy.
Archbishop Herv'e of Rheims (900922) did excellent work in evangelizing the new settlers. The
Normans quickly took a vested interest in France and defended it from their erstwhile fellow
raiders. But they also entered feudal politics and supported Count Robert when he posed as
antiking in 922. Robert was on the point of victory when slain in 923.
Rudolf of Burgundy (923-36), Robert's brother-in-law, reaped the profits of this rebellion
when he treacherously seized Charles and kept him confined until his death in 929. Rudolf then
laid claim to the French crown, but found his reign disturbed by a would-be kingmaker, Herbert of
Vermandois. In this dynastic rivalry the metropolitan see of Rheims became a political football,
and the entire French clergy were plagued by partisanship and lay domination. Rudolf held the
crown, but little more, until his death in 936.
(2) PASSING OF THE CAROLINGIANS (936-87)
Louis IV (936-54). Under Rudolf royal power had sunk so low that at his death the
shrewd Count Hugh the Great, the next Capetian heir, declined to assume the throne and
preferred to wield power behind a Carolingian puppet. The empty but still magic title was
accordingly bestowed on Louis "Over-Sea," a son of Charles the Simple who had been sent to
England for safety. Though no weakling, the new king often found his effective rule reduced to a
single castle, Laon. Not only was Paris in Hugh's hands but he assumed the title of Duke of
Francia for territory in its vicinity-the new term "France" henceforth expanded with Capetian
growth. Count Hugh became a "mayor of the palace" and his family could contemplate the
prospect of supplanting the Carolingians as the latter had displaced the Merovingians. In 946
Hugh deprived the king of his one stronghold, but Louis IV complained to the bishops so
plaintively that they ordered Hugh under threat of excommunication to restore Laon. Hugh did so
but still held Louis at his mercy until his death.
King Lothar (954-86), Louis's young son, succeeded to the crown, but with the same
Capetian strings attached. Hugh the Great died in 956, but his son Hugh Capet continued his
shrewd diplomacy. Lothar tried to distinguish himself by reopening the Lorraine boundary
question, but in 978 the powerful German king, Otto II, invaded France and defeated him. At
home, Lothar struggled against the feudality. His nominee to Rheims, Archbishop Adalbert (969-
88), was long a supporter of Carolingian legitimacy, but was finally alienated by Lothar's restless
blundering. Meanwhile the rector of the cathedral school at Rheims, Gerbert d'Aurrillac, intrigued
with Hugh Capet against the king, and boasted that Lothar might be king in name but that he
himself would be such in fact.
Carolingian deposition. Archbishop Adalbert was still able to secure the succession of
Lothar's son, Louis V. This headstrong youth at once quarreled with the archbishop, accusing him
of enmity toward his father. This charge cannot be substantiated, though it is easy to see that
Gerbert's machinations may have brought his ecclesiastical superior under suspicion. The
Carolingian party thus repudiated their strongest support, the hierarchy. When Louis V died
childless the following year, Archbishop Adalbert as chancellor presided over the assembly to
choose his successor. Duke Charles of Brabant, Louis's uncle, claimed to inherit the throne, but
the archbishop retorted that the crown was properly elective. He persuaded the assembly that
Hugh Capet was worthier of the royal title than the Carolingian candidate. Thus with
ecclesiastical sanction again ratifying a popular election, the Capetians supplanted the
Carolingians as they had replaced the Merovingians. The Capetians would bold on to the crown
tenaciously until their scion, Louis XVI, mounted the guillotine in 1793.
B. German Tribalization (888-918)

(1) END OF THE CAROLINGIANS (888-911)
Arnulf of Carinthia (888-99), illegitimate son of Carlornan, not only succeeded Charles the
Fat as German king, but before his death momentarily received the imperial diadem. The Danes,
who had killed Archbishop Suderold of Mainz, were chased back to their own land. Bohemians
and Moravians were efficiently defeated, but Arnulf used in his campaigns some of the new tribe
of Magyars. After his death these mercenaries would turn on their employers. By 896 Arnulf's
prestige clearly overshadowed the position of Eudes in France and Berengar in Italy. Pope
Formosus invited him to come to the assistance of the Papal State and rewarded him with the
imperial crown. But shortly afterwards the new emperor suffered some sort of stroke and was
carried back to Germany to die. He never fully recovered and before his death in December, 899,
indicated his six-year-old son as heir.
Louis the Child (899-911) never exercised personal rule. Only the tarnished majesty of
the Carolingian name can account for the selection of a boy in the crisis now facing Germany.
The regency was assumed by Archbishop Hatto of Mainz, though his rule was not universally
recognized. Though tales about him were probably exaggerated by partisan rivalry, Hatto seems
to have been a worldly prelate. While the Babenberg and Franconian clans engaged in a blood
feud, German frontiers were breached. Charles the Simple raided Lorraine, and the Magyars
penetrated into Bavaria and Thuringia. In 907 Duke Leopold of Bavaria and three bishops were
killed by them; in 908 it was the turn of the duke of Thuringia and the bishop of Wurzburg; and in
910 another German force was ambushed and dispersed. When Louis the Child died the
following year, Hatto of Mainz induced the magnates to acquiesce in the extinction of the
Carolingian line in Germany.
(2) TRIBAL RIVALRY (911-62)
German "stem duchies" were a peculiar political feature. Unlike France, Germany was a
tribal confederacy made up of distinct though related nations. Except under Charles the Great,
these tribes had enjoyed considerable autonomy under elective or hereditary dukes, and this
system returned with the decline of the Carolingian Empire. Instead of the numerous and
relatively weak fiefs into which France was now partitioned, Gel-many was to enjoy relative order
under strong tribal states of Saxony, Franconia, formerly Austrasia, Thuringia, Swabia, and
Bavaria-Lorraine for a time made a sixth duchy, while Thuringia was later absorbed into Saxony.
The dukes of these states fiercely defended their "home rule" while aspiring to election to
kingship of the whole. For centuries, one or the other dynasty would obtain the prize and try to
impose its power on the others. Thus Duke Conrad of Franconia (906-18) was chosen king of
Germany in 911 but found his plans thwarted by Duke Henry of Saxony (912-36). In pique or
patriotism, Conrad recommended Henry for his successor; then the new King Henry found other
dukes in opposition. Little advance toward national unity was achieved before Henry's son, Otto
the Great, whose imperial coronation in 962 marks the end of the period of imperial eclipse.
C. Lombard Anarchy (888-962)

(1) IMPERIAL ASPIRATIONS (888-924)
Lombard rivalries. With the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire in 888, the Lombards
also had to provide themselves with a king. Because of the proximity of the Papal States, the
rulers chosen as kings were almost invariably tempted to claim to be its imperial protectors. in
888 the choice lay between Berengar, duke of Friuli, near Venice, and Guy, duke of Spoleto, near
Rome, both of them Carolingians in the female line. Guy or Guido was in a better position to
persuade or coerce the popes into bestowing the imperial title. In 891 he induced Pope Stephen
VI to grant him coronation. He then defeated Berengar's forces, and with his son Lamberto was
dominating the Italian scene when a new rival appeared.
German intervention. The interloper was Arnulf of Germany, whom the new Pope
Formosus had called in to free the Holy See from Spoletan domination. Arnulf had little difficulty
in driving the Spoletans into their bills and in rescuing Rome. Though he was then accorded
imperial coronation by the pope, this promise of good order was speedily blighted by his
departure. Lamberto re-emerged from his lair to wreak vengeance until his death without direct
heirs in 898.
Provencal intervention. Berengar, who had been lying low at Friuli, now claimed the
Lombard crown, but factions speedily supplied him with a rival. Louis of Provence, another
Carolingian in the female line, entered the arena in 900, drove Berengar back to Friuli, and
received imperial coronation from the pope in 901. But this "Emperor Louis III" was captured by
Berengar in 905, blinded, and sent back to Provence to eke out a long and helpless existence
until his death in 928.
The durable Berengar was again ruler of Lombardy-provided that he did not interfere with
the counts who had meanwhile made themselves practically independent. Imperial coronation in
915 did not greatly increase his power, though it may have inspired him to participate in the
defeat of the Saracens at Garigliano the same year. The Lombard general, however, was young
Alberic of Camerino. Berengar did not become mightier with age, and rival candidacies for the
Lombard throne were being discussed even before his death in 924. With him the phantom
imperial title-it had never meant anything beyond the Alps-ceased and until 962 not even the
name of "Holy Roman Emperor" survived. The eclipse had become total.
(2) PERPETUAL COMMOTION (924-61)
Disputed succession (924-33). Berengar's death found Count Hugh of Arles,

administrator for the blind Louis of Provence, contending with King Rudolf II of Burgundy. For
nearly a decade an indecisive contest raged both in Burgundy and Lombardy. Then a reasonable
accord was reached which left Hugh all of Lombardy in exchange for giving Rudolf a free hand to
organize Burgundy.
Arlate dynasty (933-50). Hugh learned that a free band in Lombardy could grasp little.
Strong vassals had risen in Tuscany, and the Tusculan dynasty dominated the Papal State. Hugh
became a shadow monarch, making futile attempts to subdue Lombard vassals and regain
Burgundy. Dying in 947, he left the throne to his son Lothar who quickly renewed the
Burgundian-Lombard pact, and sealed it by marrying Rudolf's beautiful and virtuous daughter, St.
Adelaide. But the Lombard horizon clouded again when Berengar's grandson Berengar II
challenged Lothar's crown. Lothar was already hard pressed when he died in 950.
German intervention (950-62). Berengar now hoped to gain undisputed possession of

Lombardy by forcing St. Adelaide to marry himself or his son Adalbert. St. Adelaide refused these
offers, barricaded herself in her castle, and appealed to King Otto the Great of Germany. Otto,
who had begun to put Germany in order, descended upon Italy in 951 with irresistible force,
liberated St. Adelaide, and in deference to romance, married her. Neither he nor Germany had
cause for regret for this part of the transaction. For the next decade Otto experimented with
Berengar as vassal prince of Lombardy. When the latter proved disloyal and engaged in intrigues
in central Italy, Otto returned to Lombardy. In 961 he himself took the Lombard crown, henceforth
annexed to the German until 1797. The following year he received the imperial crown at the
hands of Pope John XII and the new German phase of the Holy Roman Empire had begun.

82. Papal Eclipse (885-955)
XI
82. PAPAL ECLIPSE
A. Strife of Factions (885-904)

(1) SEEDS OF FACTION (885-96)
Pope Stephen VI (885-91), formerly a cardinal priest, was elected in September, 885, and
consecrated by Formosus, cardinal bishop of Porto, now fully rehabilitated after his
excommunication by John VIII. Pope Stephen seems to have been a virtuous man of mediocre
ability. During most of his pontificate the routine business of the papal curia continued. Efforts
were made to end the alienation of the Greek church, and questions of metropolitan jurisdiction
decided in the West. When consulted by Liutbert of Mainz, the pope condemned ordeals of hot
iron and hot water. Herman of Cologne was warned riot to usurp jurisdiction over Bremen-
Hamburg, and a disputed election to the see of Langres was decided by the Holy See. But in 888
the pope was deprived of even the feeble support of an imperial symbol at the passing of Charles
the Fat. Stephen VI felt the need of preserving at least the form of imperial unity. When Guy of
Spoleto defeated Berengar of Friuli in 890, the pope took what proved to be a hasty decision, for
in February, 891, he crowned Guy emperor. Though Stephen VI remained on good terms with
Guy during the few months of life left to him, he had unwittingly plunged into a den of faction. The
pope died in September, 891, and his too politically minded mentor, Fulk of Rheims, would be
assassinated in 900.
Pope Formosus (891-96). The papal election went in favor of Cardinal Formosus of
Porto on October 6, 891. The new pontiff was now over seventy, but retained the austere virtue
and immense energy that had distinguished his career. But though full of zeal, he seems to have
been quite tactless. He had already been involved in the intrigues of the faction of Boso of
Provence during the pontificate of John VIII; now he fell out with the Spoletan group. In 892 Guy
in peremptory fashion insisted on the coronation of his son Lamberto as coregent. The pope felt
constrained to comply, but resolved to free himself in the future from the Spoletan power. In 893
he began his appeals to Arnulf of Germany to come to his assistance. Arnulf's attempt to reach
Rome during 894 failed, but the following year he defeated Lamberto, Guy having died the
preceding year. On February 22, 896, the pope reversed his predecessor's course by crowning
Arnulf emperor. But the Germans retreated the same year bearing with them their stricken lord
and Formosus was left to face the vengeance of the resentful Spoletans. Fortunately for the
pope, he died on April 4, 896, before the Spoletans could reach Rome. About this time the
ancient Lateran basilica collapsed, apt omen of the somber days in store for the papacy.
(2) HARVEST OF ANARCHY (896-904)

Spoletan vengeance (896-97). While the Spoletan claimant was still outside Rome and
Arnulf's representative, Count Farold, as yet within the city, a certain Boniface was elected pope,
reigned fifteen days, and died-all during April, 896. There is, then, some doubt as to the
legitimacy of his pontificate, but he was recognized by contemporaries. Stephen, cardinal bishop
of Anagni, was chosen pope in May, and soon afterwards Farold fled as Lamberto and his mother
Agiltrude entered Ionic. Apparently they prevailed upon the timid pontiff to condone heir
vengeance on Pope Formosus. In January, 897, Stephen VII had 'is predecessor's body
exhumed and mounted for trial in St. Peter's. There followed a grotesque mockery of a trial,
during which the corpse was accused of the usual litany of invented or imagined crimes, including
that of leaving the see of Porto for Rome-a canonical infraction of which Stephen VII was equally
guilty. Condemned, the late pontiff's remains were stripped of sacerdotal vestments, mutilated,
and cast into the Tiber. But violence breeds violence; later in the same year Pope Stephen was
seized by the populace, strangled, and perhaps served as Formosus.
Carolingian reaction (897-903). It was apparently an anti-Spoletan faction now in control

of Rome which championed Arnulf and later Louis of Provence. In August, a certain Romanus
was elected. He died in November without further notice from the Liber Pontificalis. In
December, 897, another cardinal priest, Theodore, was elected pope. Of his twenty-day
pontificate it is known that he recovered the body of Formosus and gave it decent burial. In
January, 898, the Spoletans seem to have attempted a comeback by opposing Sergius, bishop of
Cervetri, to the canonically chosen Pope John IX (898-900). But they were unsuccessful: Sergius
was driven out of Rome and not long after Lamberto died. A lull in the anarchy permitted Pope
John to rehabilitate the acts and memory of Formosus, and terminate the Photian controversy at
Constantinople. John IX died in January, 900, and was succeeded by Pope Benedict IV (900-
903). The new pope invited Louis of Provence to be the Carolingian candidate for empire in
place of the deceased Arnulf. In 901 Benedict crowned Louis, but the latter was promptly
challenged by the long quiescent Berengar of Friuli.
Berengarian reprisal (904). Apparently the worthy Pope Leo V, elected in July, 903,
belonged to the Provencal faction. At least once Berengar had defeated and blinded Louis of
Provence. Leo V was also deposed and imprisoned by Cardinal Christopher. Mann considers
Christopher an antipope during his six months' occupancy of the papal throne. Meanwhile
Sergius, the antipope of 898, had gained the support of Adalbert the Rich, Marquis of Tuscany,
and the remains of the Spoletan faction. When the populace revolted against Christopher,
Sergius was emboldened to march into Rome and declare himself pope. The annalist Vulgarius
says that Sergius then put both Leo V and Christopher to death "out of pity." Other annalists fail to
mention this "papal euthanasia"; it is more probable that Leo had died in prison and that
Christopher was confined to a monastery.
B. Tusculan Domination (904-55)

(1) TUSCULAN INSTALLATION (904-14)
The House of Theophylact. Sergius had gained the mastery of Rome by the aid of a
Roman patrician family which was to dominate the Holy See for sixty years thereafter-and a
branch of the. family occasioned still more trouble later on. The founder of the family's power was
Senator Theophylact, papal chamberlain and magister militum as early as Pope Formosus's
pontificate. The key to Theophylact's power was the papal castle Sant'Angelo, of which he was at
first castellan, and then the effective lord. Though Theophylact himself died about 905, he
handed on his influence to his widow Theodora, who further strengthened her rule by contracting
a second marriage with the Marquis of Tuscany, Adalbert the Rich. Theodora, Donna Senatrix,
held the military and political power in Rome until her death about 914. Theophylact and
Theodora had two daughters, Marozia and Theodora the Younger. The latter may have been the
ancestress of the Crescentian branch of the family which later took its turn at harassing the
papacy. The elder daughter, Marozia, succeeded to her mother's position which she shared with
her first husband, the victor of Garigliano, Alberic (I) of Camerino, count of Tusculum, the modern
Frascati.
Pope Sergius III (904-11). Whatever the circumstances of his previous career, Sergius
was canonically chosen pope on January 29, 904. He had already received episcopal
consecration from Pope Formosus. He may have been a relative of the Tusculan family; at any
rate he was its ally or creature. A half century later, the annalist Liutprand of Cremona stated that
Sergius had illicit relations with Marozia and by her became the father of the subsequent Pope
John XI. Liutprand is known to have been politically biased, and is believed to have often
degenerated into a sensationalism that would transform the contemporary papal rule into a
"Pornocracy." In this instance Liutprand is almost certainly wrong; the contemporary annalist
Frodoard describes the John XI in question as "brother of Alberic" (II); hence in all probability son
of Marozia's husband, Alberic I. Rather than being guilty of incontinence, Sergius seems to have
been an energetic but unscrupulous politician with considerable ability, He rebuilt the Lateran and
upheld papal authority abroad in a vigorous fashion before his death in April, 911.
Obscure pontificates. Sergius was followed by two short-lived pontiffs of whom little is
known. Both are said to have been personally good men, but without political influence which lay
with Donna Senatrix. Pope Anastasius III reigned from April, 911, to June, 913, and advised
Prince Howard of Wales about a code of law. Pope Lando, elected in July, 913, died in February,
914. A coin proves his existence and little else.
(2) MAROZIAN DICTATORSHIP (914-32)
Pope John X (914-28) was an energetic pontiff who proved to be an able diplomat,
though his attempt to free himself from Tusculan domination eventually failed. He had already
been archbishop of Ravenna (905-14) when elected to the papacy in March, 914. Liutprand
thereupon offers the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that John had been Theodora's
concubine at Ravenna and that unable to bear his absence, she had him transferred to Rome. Of
this it is enough to say that in 914 Theodora was dying or dead. At Rome, the new pope took up
the work of rallying all Lombard factions against the Saracens, who since 882 had been raiding
from a stronghold near Capua. In concert with King Berengar, the pope mustered troops and
personally accompanied them to the field, though active command was entrusted to Marozia's
husband Alberic. The decisive Christian victory at Garigliano during the summer of 915 ended
the Saracen menace to central Italy. Berengar having proved inadequate to the imperial office,
the pope seems to have meditated an alliance with Hugh of Arles to free himself from Tusculan
domination. But Marozia installed in Castel Sant'Angelo itself showed herself too powerful. After
Alberic's death in 925, she promptly married Guido of Tuscany, son and successor of Adalbert the
Rich. In May, 928, her new consort killed the pope's brother and imprisoned John X, who
presumably died or was murdered soon afterwards.
Obscure pontificates followed once more from 928 to 931. While Marozia groomed her
still too young son for the supreme pontificate, she placed in the papal chair two worthy but
elderly "caretakers," Leo VI (928-29) and Stephen VIII (929-31). All we are told is that Rome was
"at peace," the oppressive quiet of an omnipotent dictatorship.
Marozian downfall. In 931 Marozia gambled for the summit of power and lost. During
March she had her son John, now in his twenties, elected as Pope John XI. He remained,
Frodoard says, "a man without authority, destitute of all worldly dignity, who merely performed the
sacred duties of his ministry." Since Marozia's second husband had died in 931, she now
proposed to wed the rising star of Lombardy, King Hugh, and have John XI confer imperial
coronation. Late in 932 Hugh came to Rome unescorted and celebrated his wedding with
Marozia. But the Senatrix had another son, Alberic II, who resented the intrusion of a new
stepfather, who, indeed, treated him with scant favor. On the very evening of the wedding
celebration Alberic struck. Hilarity had relaxed the guard on Sant' Angelo and soon Alberic II was
its master. Hugh was able to escape, but Marozia was captured and thrust into prison where she
lingered until her death, about 945. Alberic did not disturb his brother the pope, but merely
directed him henceforth to take all his advice in political matters from himself.
(3) ALBERIC'S ROMAN PRINCIPALITY (939-54)
Alberic II (932-54) remained master of Rome and the leading political power in central
Italy until his death. Papal temporal sovereignty. Papal temporal sovereignty was practically
abolished, for Alberic styled himself not merely "Senator and Patrician," but also "Prince of the
Romans." He had also succeeded his father as count of Tusculum and was strong enough to
beat. off two attacks by King Hugh. The events noted already in Lombardy-the weak reigns of
Hugh and Lothar, Berengar II's usurpation, and Otto's first intervention-all transpired without
affecting Alberic's position. Master of Sant'Angelo and a firm but not excessively harsh ruler,
Alberic gave Rome security without liberty.
Papal administration. Alberic nominated worthy, if not strong, ecclesiastics for the papal
see. He allowed his brother John XI to bestow privileges on the Cluniac monastic reform
movement, and to invite Abbot St. Odo to initiate the revival in Italy. The next pope was Leo VII
(936-39), who upheld Archbishop Frederick of Mainz in clerical reforms in Germany. Pope
Stephen IX (939-42) intervened in affairs affecting the French hierarchy. Pope Martin III (942-46)
rebuked Bishop Sicco of Capua for interfering with the Benedictines, and confirmed Frederick of
Mainz as papal vicar. Finally Pope Agapitus II (946-55), described by the annalists as
sanctissimus, vigorously sustained papal primacy in France. These details are not scintillating,
but they do show that Alberic's principate was not irreligious and that it would be an exaggeration
to imagine that even under the Tusculan domination the majority of the popes were unworthy
men.
Alberic's testament. In 954 Alberic in anticipation of his death exacted of his vassals a
solemn oath that they would acknowledge his son Octavian not merely as his successor as
prince, but also elect him to the papacy at the first vacancy in the Holy See. The vassals proved
all too faithful, and in December, 955, at Pope Agapitus's death, this eighteen-year-old youth was
chosen as Pope John XII (955-64). In this Curious way the temporal power returned to the
papacy, but only the Holy Spirit could preserve the spiritual power during the next pontificate.

3 Catholic Church History Viii-Xi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Catholic Church History Viii-Xi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catholic Church History

Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 VIII. Conversion of the west (590-754)

51. The Sacerdotium and Imperium

Conversion of the West

51. THE SACERDOTIUM AND IMPERIUM

A. The Medieval Dyarchy

B. Role of the Sacerdotium

(2) ECCLESIASTICAL AGENTS

(3) THE EPISCOPACY

(4) THE PAPACY

(5) RECOGNITION OF SACERDOTAL AUTHORITY

C. Role of the Imperium

(2) IMPERIAL PRACTICE

Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 VIII. Conversion of the west (590-754)

52. Teutonic Institutions

Conversion of the West

52. TEUTONIC INSTITUTIONS

(2) TEUTONIC LAW

Leges Barbarorum. A primitive stage of medieval, as distinguished from classical Roman

(2) CIVIL ADMINISTRATION

Merovingian origins. According to the Teutonic school of historians this administration

executed by its agency.

Popular government controlled the subdivisions of the shires, called hundreds or

military service to king, ealdorman, or bishop.

(2) ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS

53. St. Gregory the Great (590-604)

Conversion of the West

53. ST. GREGORY THE GREAT

(2) ST. GREGORY'S ROLE

Medieval "Keynoter." All agree in designating St. Gregory's pontificate as inaugurating a

Hub of conversions. Though it would be an exaggeration to trace the conversion of the

Imperial critic. Emperor Maurice (582-602) manifested Caesaropapism in 592 by

(2) TEMPORAL ADMINISTRATION

(3) ECUMENICAL SOLICITUDE

Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 VIII. Conversion of the west (590-754)

54. The Papacy and the Lombards (604-752)

Conversion of the West

54. THE PAPACY AND THE LOMBARDS

A. The Lombard Environment

(2) SURVEY OF LOMBARD HISTORY: 568-751

Consolidation. An interregnum (573-84) followed these incidents and allowed the

B. St. Gregory's Successors (604-752)

Lombard missions. To this period must be ascribed the substantial beginning of

(2) MONOTHELETE PREOCCUPATIONS (638-83)

(3) INCREASING PAPAL INDEPENDENCE (684-715)

(4) EVE OF PAPAL INDEPENDENCE (715-52)

Feudal Dyarchy: 565-843 VIII. Conversion of the west (590-754)

55. Visigothic Catholicity (589-713)

Conversion of the West

55. VISIGOTHIC CATHOLICITY

A. Visigothic Conversion (587-610)

(2) NATIONAL CONVERSION

B. Visigothic Theocracy (610-80)

(2) HISTORICAL SURVEY (610-80)

C. Visigothic Collapse (680-717)

(2) AND FALL (709-17)

(3) THE FAITHFUL REMNANT

56. English Christian Origins (597-750)

Conversion of the West

56. ENGLISH CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

(2) ANGLO-SAXON CONQUEST (450-800)

Gregorian inspiration. Anglo-Saxon conversion is linked by legend to St. Gregory's puns.