No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
A Roman Synod convoked by Charlemagne met on December ist of the year 800 for the purpose of investigating the accusations levelled against Pope Leo III. In the presence of the pope, the Frankish king presided over an assembly composed of ecclesiastics, Frankish and Roman nobles, including members of the Frankish episcopate — to wit, Arno of Salzburg, Theodulph of Orléans, Riculf of Mayence, Aaron of Angorra, the Saxons Witto and Fredugis, Alcuin's confidants — and other persons of consequence. The eldest son of Charlemagne, Charles, who together with his sisters had accompanied his father to Rome, was another participant.
1 Cf. Abel-Simson, , Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen 2 (Leipzig 1883) 224–229Google Scholar.
2 See the collection of sources by Dannenbauer, H., Die Quellen zur Geschichte der Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen (Lietzmann's Kleine Texte No. 161, Berlin, 1931Google Scholar). — I am indebted to Professor Heinrich Dannenbauer for a copy of his Quellen kindly sent to me in December 1954 in remembrance of his Historisches Seminar on ‘The Origins of the Pontifical State’ conducted at the University of Tübingen in 1931–32.
3 Études critiques sur l'histoire de Charlemagne (Paris, 1921) 236–238Google Scholar.
4 ‘Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935) 259Google Scholar.
5 The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne: Theories and Facts (Glasgow University Publications 79, 1949) 22–23Google Scholar.
6 ‘Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung 61 (1953) 387 ff.Google Scholar, especially pp. 317–320. — I am obliged to Professor Heinrich Fichtenau of the University of Vienna for a reprint of this valuable paper with whose results (with the exception of the ‘official protocols’) I gladly agree.
7 ‘Zum Kaisertum Karls des Grossen,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 49 (1930), 305 fGoogle Scholar.
8 Cf. Carl Josef von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte 3 (2nd ed. Freiburg i. B., 1877), 739; Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles 3, 2 (Paris, 1910) 1113–1116Google Scholar, speak of ‘the Roman Synod of the year 800.’
9 Levillain, Léon, ‘Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne,’ Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France 18 (1932) 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Huelsen, Christian, ‘Osservazioni sulla biografica di Leone III nel Liber pontificalis,’ Rendiconti della pont. accad. rom. di arch. I (1923) 107–119Google Scholar.
11 Cf. Wallach, Luitpold, ‘The genuine and the forged oath of Leo III,’ Traditio II (1955) 39fGoogle Scholar.
12 Mansi, Collectio X (Florence 1764) 617 f. Cf. Hans Barion, Das fränkischdeutsche Synodalrecht des Frühmittelalters (Kanonistische Studien und Texte ed. A. M. Koeniger, Bonn-Köln 1931) 55 ff. on the synodal ordines, 76 ff. on the seating order of the participants, 173 ff. on the authority of synodal decisions, 253 ff. on the Carolingian national synods. Cf. von Heckel, Rudolf, ‘Der Ursprung des päpstlkhen Registerwesens,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 1 (1908), especially pp. 398Google Scholar, 402, 404, on early synodal acts modeled on Roman ‘Gerichtsakten,’ and on the imitations of the Gesta of the Roman Senate in other synodal acts. Classen, Peter, ‘Kaiserreskript und Königsurkunde,’ Archiv für Diplomatik I (1955) 86Google Scholar questions this basic dependence, but the evidence is convincing as I hope to show in a future study dealing with the diplomatics of synodal acts.
13 MGH Concilia 2.1 (Aevi Karolini I.i Hannover 1904) 131.3. Subsequently always referred to as Cone. I.i.
14 Cf. von Heckel (above note 12) p. 404, also the Acts of the Roman Synod of 826, MGH Capitularia I.i (Hannover 1883) No. 180 p. 370 f.
15 MGH Concilia Aevi Merovingici ed. F. Maassen (Hannover 1893) 164.25.
16 See Schwartz, Eduard, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I.ii (Berlin-Leipzig 1925–6)Google Scholar, II.ii.1–2 (1936–7), III.iii.1–3 (1935–7). Subsequently always referred to as ACOE.
17 See above note II.
18 Cf. ACOE I.iii.52,17 ff., 99,1 ff., 119 f., etc.; II.ii.2.17,32 ff., II.iii.1.27 ff., 196 ff.; on the Symmachian councils see ed. Mommsen, Th., MGH Auct. Antt. XIII (Berlin 1894) 399–455Google Scholar. The ‘Diplomatics’ of synodal acts is still to be written. Von Heckel and Barion (see above note 12) have made a start.
19 Caspar, , Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschkhte 54 (1935) 226 fGoogle Scholar. recognized this fact. The censures of Caspar's statement by Adelson-Baker, , ‘The oath of purgation of Pope Leo III,’ Traditio 8 (1952) 61 fGoogle Scholar. are disproved by our investigation, also their denial of the synod's judicial significance (pp. 62, 67).
20 Ganshof, F. L., ‘Charlemagne et l'usage de l'écrit en matière administrative,’ Le Moyen Age 57 (1951) 1–25Google Scholar.
21 von Döllinger, J., ‘Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen,’ Münchner Historisches Jahrbuch (1865) 332 fGoogle Scholar.
22 See Traditio 11 (1955) 39f.
23 See Wallach, , ‘Charlemagne and Alcuin: Diplomatic Studies in Carolingian Epistolography,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 ‘Der Prozess des Eutyches,’ SB. Bayerische Akademie (1929 H.5) 66; see Plöchl (below note 40) p. 228 f.
25 ‘Der antike kirchliche Rechtsgang und seine Quellen,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanon. Abt. 23 (1934) 114Google Scholar.
26 Cf. Steinwenter, p. 73; Haacke, Rhaban in Das Konzil von Chalkedon 2 (Würzburg 1953) 96–98Google Scholar; Digest 22.3.2 ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat.
27 Cf. Koeniger, A., ‘Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur,’ in Festgabe für Albert Ehrhard (Bonn-Leipzig 1922) 273–400Google Scholar.
28 The assumptions of Adelson-Baker, , Traditio 8 (1952) 68Google Scholar that ‘In the LP Leo is cited as making the suggestion’ to swear ‘voluntarily’ an oath, misinterpret this passage; nor did Leo undertake the task on his own as is stated on p. 75. The pope clearly followed a suggestion made by the synod. See Ganshof, F. L., Histoire du Moyen Age 1 (Paris 1928) 455Google Scholar.
29 See on this literature Caspar, Erich, Geschichte des Papsttums 2 (Tübingen 1933) 107–110Google Scholar.
30 Cf. Abel-Simson (above note 1) 211 note 4.
31 See Alcuin's Epist. 177.
32 So also Kleinclausz, A., Alcuin (Paris 1948), 258Google Scholar.
33 See above note 23.
34 See Wallach, Luitpold, ‘The genuine and the forged oath of Pope Leo III,’ Traditio ii (1955) 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The opening sentence of the forged oath is modelled on Genesis 45.16 Auditum est et celebri sermone vulgatum.
35 The occurrence of scientiam habere in statements of innocence made by two popes is reminiscent of scientia as understood in Roman law, that is the knowledge a person has of certain facts. Scientiam habere is found, for instance, in Justinian's Digesta 37.1.10 and 144.1,3, but each time in a context different from our two cases. The assumption, however, that two popes actually expressed their innocence through a term of Roman law, at first appears to be untenable in view of the generally accepted fact that the Digest was unknown in the Latin West from the beginning of the seventh to the late eleventh century. The question whether an exception from this opinio communis might not be probable, as far as Italy is concerned, must remain undecided at present, although abridgments of Justinian's Code, the Institutes, and Novels, were extant in Italy during the periods in question. In addition, the Ducate with Rome (as also the Exarchy of Ravenna, Southern Italy, and Sicily) were in 769 nominally still under the rule of the Emperor at Byzantium, and therefore Justinian law was presumably the valid law of the territory.
36 Conc.I.i.82.9–13. The Synod of 769 is referred to by Nicholas I in a letter of 23 October 867, addressed to Hincmar of Reims and the Frankish episcopate, as the example of a Frankish synod held at Rome; see MGH, Epistolae VI (Karolini Aevi IV, Berlin 1925) 607. But even the official participation of Frankish representatives did not make the meeting of 769 a synod of the Frankish Church. Nicholas was only trying to entice the recalcitrant Frankish clerics to attend a Roman Synod planned by him.
37 Cf. MGH Gesta Pontificum, ed. Mommsen, Th. (Berlin 1898) Nos. 39, p. 84Google Scholar; 46, p. 96; S3, P. 121; for Pelagius see LP I 303.
38 Edgar Loening, Das Kirchenrecht im Reiche der Merowinger (Strassburg 1878) 499 note 1; the conclusions of Adelson-Baker, Traditio 8 (1952) 66 f. based on the assumption that Pelagius swore an oath are untenable.
39 Cf. Caspar, Erich, ‘Das Verfahren gegen Leo III. Dezember 800,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935) 255–257Google Scholar, who points out the distinctions between the trial of Symmachus and Leo's case.
40 Cf. Plöchl, Willibald M., Geschichte des Kirchenrechts I (Wien-München 1953) 228 f.Google Scholar: ‘Im Gerichtsverfahren galt grundsätzlich der Akkusations-Prozess, ein Prinzip, das aus dem römischen Recht übernommen wurde…. Der Prozess selbst lehnte sich an das römisch-rechtliche Verfahren an … Der römisch-rechtliche Prozess wurde als das subsidiäre Recht im kirchlichen Gerichtsverfahren angesehen;’ see also p. 381, and above notes 24, 25, and 26.
41 Cf. Plöchl, op. cit., I.134 ff., 297–299; and Hans Erich Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte I (Weimar 19S4) 49 f. See above note 19.
42 See above note 23.
43 Conc.I.i.131, quoted by Paulinus of Aquileia in the report he wrote against adoptionism in the name of the Italian episcopate assembled at Frankfurt: ‘Quid vobis videtur? Ab anno prorsus praeterito et ex quo coepit huius pestis insania tumescente perfidiae ulcu diffusius ebulisse, non parvus in his regionibus, licet in extremis finibus regni nostri, error inolevit, quem censura fidaei necesse est modis omnibus resecare.’ This is the only extant literal fragment of any of the many speeches delivered by Charlemagne.
44 Cf. generally Dvornik, Francis, ‘Emperor, popes, and general councils,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951) 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barion, Hans, Das fränkisch-deutsche Synodalrecht des Frühmittelalters (Bonn-Köln 1931)Google Scholar passim.
45 Cf. Voigt, Karl, Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem Grossen bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit (Stuttgart 1936) 321Google Scholar.
46 Delaruelle, Étienne, ‘Charlemagne et l'Église,’ Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France 39 (1953) 166–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 Adelson-Baker, , Traditio 8 (1952) 62Google Scholar maintain that Charlemagne himself ‘questioned’ the assailants of the pope; none of the sources warrants this assumption which, in addition, is contradicted by the above mentioned synodal procedures.
48 Epistle 179, addressed to Arno of Salzburg.
49 That the deposition of Leo was requested by his enemies is also known from the Annales regni Francorum ad a. 801 where we read of those who had deposed the pontiff in 800: ‘eos qui pontificem anno superiore deposuerunt.’
50 Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), 97Google Scholar and 117 f., still speaks — like other historians before him — of Leo's ‘rial,’ and maintains that Charlemagne sat in judgment over the pope. Neither of these contentions is borne out by the sources.
51 So also Haller, Johannes, Das Papsttum 2 (Stuttgart, 1951) 18 fGoogle Scholar.
52 See Percy Schramm, Ernst, ‘Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als Kaiser,’ Historische Zeitschrift 172 (1951), especially p. 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.