¹ This article grew out of the work which was done in a seminar dealing with the concep t of the Empire during the Middle Ages given by Professor Theodor E. Mommsen at Princeton University. The authors wish to express their thanks to Professors Theodor E. Mommsen and Stephan Kuttner for their very helpful suggestions in the preparation of this paper. While this article has been a co-operative effort, there was a general division of the work. The sections (II, III and V) on the manuscript and legal investigations are more particularly the work of Adelson, while the section (IV) on historical interpretation is more specifically the work of Baker. The paper as a whole, however, is the responsibility of both authors.Google Scholar

² Concerning these theses and others on the motive for the coronation, see Ganshof, F. L., The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne: Theories and Facts (Glasgow 1949).Google Scholar

³ The principal events are detailed in Böhmer, J. Mühlbacher, E., Die Regesten des Kaisereiches unter den Karolingern (2nd ed.) 155–64. The principal sources are cited in Abel-Simson, , Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen (Leipzig 1883) 163 ff. For this study the prime sources are the Frankish annals, the Liber Pontificalis, and the correspondence of Alcuin, Abbot of St. Martin's at Tours.Google Scholar

The most important annals are those edited in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (hereafter cited MGH) in Scriptores I (1826) ed. Pertz, , under the titles, Annales Laurissenses, Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, and the Annales Laureshamenses. The first two have been published separately in the Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum and edited by Kurze, F. with the title Annales regni Francorum (Hanover 1895). The importance of the Annales Laureshamenses has been underlined by Levillain, L., ‘Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne,’ Revue d'Histoire de l'Église de France, XVIII (1932) 8–9, and by Dannenbauer, H., ‘Zum Kaisertum Karls des Grossen und seiner Nachfolger,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte XLIX (1930) 305 n. 1. The general study of all the annals is in Halphen, L., Études critiques sur l'histoire de Charlemagne (Paris 1921) ch. 1.Google Scholar

The edition of the Liber Pontificalis used in this paper is that of L. Duchesne which has been published by the Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 2^e série, III, 2 vol. (1886/1892). Also by Duchesne is a critical examination of the Liber in his Études sur le Liber Pontificalis, in Bibl. des Écoles franç. d'Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 1 (1877).Google Scholar

The correspondence of Alcuin has been edited frequently, the latest edition is that by E. Dümmler in MGH, Epistolae IV (1895). Alcuin makes no pretense of knowing the full details but is tremendously useful for giving information concerning the turmoil which the attack on Leo roused among the higher clergy.Google Scholar

⁴ Those historians considering that Leo's oath reflected very little credit on the pope are Heldmann, K., Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen. Theorien und Wirklichkeit , in Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des deutschen Reiches, fasc. 2 of Bd. VI (Weimar 1928) 104–6; Caspar, E., ‘Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte LIV (1935) 228–9; Amann, E., L'Époque carolingienne, in Histoire de l'Église , ed. Fliche-Martin, VI (1937) 160; Jalland, T., The Church and the Papacy (London 1944) 376; Calmette, J., Charlemagne, sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris 1945) 126; Halphen, L., Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris 1947) 127; Kleinclausz, A., Alcuin (Paris 1948) 258; and Ganshof, , The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne 20–1.Google Scholar

Statements to the effect that the oath approximated an honorable solution to Leo's difficulties are relatively rare, but see Hoechstetter, M., Karl der Grosse, König, Patrizius und Kaiser als ‘Rector Ecclesiae,’ Diss. (Friedburg-Augsburg 1934) 48 ff., and Haller, J., Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit (Berlin 1939) II, part I, 17–8.Google Scholar

Works written before 1928 have been exhaustively analysed in Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum,Google Scholar

The Oath of Purgation of Pope Leo III in 800 a masterly study of this earlier literature. A brief summary of coronation theories since 1928 is given in Ganshof, , The Imperial Coronation. One of the earlier works which still seems important to us, however, is Duchesne, L., Les premiers temps de l’État pontifical (3rd ed. Paris 1911).Google Scholar

Other studies particularly helpful for this paper were those of Beaudouin, E., ‘Remarques sur la preuve par le serment du défendeur dans le droit franc,’ Annales de l'Université de Grenoble VIII (1896); Fournier, P. Le Bras, G., Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien, 2 vol. (Paris 1931/1932); Bresslau, H., Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik, in Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1923); and Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, 2 volumes (Tübingen 1930/1933).Google Scholar

⁵ Two encyclopedias, nearly contemporaneous, came to direct contradiction on this point. According to H. Mann (‘Leo III’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia IX [1914] 158): ‘The assembled bishops declared that they had no right to judge the pope, but Leo of his own free will… declared on oath that he was wholly guiltless of the charges which had been brought against him.’ Against this C. H. Hayes asserted (‘Leo III’ in Encyclopaedia Brittannica, 11th ed., XVI [1911] 432): ‘Charles… lost no time in assuming the office of judge, and the result of his investigation was the acquittal of the pope.’ (The unsigned article, ‘Leo III’, in the 14th ed., XIII [1945] 925–6, has an abridgment of this statement without a change in the legal interpretation.) The opinion given by Hayes has not been customary since Heldmann's study, Das Kaisertum, demonstrated the limitations in Roman law to such action by Charlemagne. In older studies, however, the thesis of a judgment by Charlemagne was fairly common. Cf. Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (3rd and 4th ed. Leipzig 1912) II 100 ff., and Lilienfein, H., Die Anschauungen von Staat und Kirche im Reich der Karolinger, in Heidelberger Abhandlungen I (1902) 39.Google Scholar

⁶ To those historians who maintain that papal initiative gave Charlemagne the crown, interest in the real nature of the oath has been more a determination of what it was not rather than what it was. For example, see Heldmann, , op. cit. 104 ff., whose view of the oath as a form of penitential purgation is unnecessary to his main argument that it was not judicial purgation. On the other hand, those theories that reject the coronation as part of papal policy because the oath marked a humiliation of Leo, emphasize the character, not the essence of the oath. Ganshof, , op. cit. 21 n. 1 and 3.Google Scholar

⁷ For what follows a good account is in Heldmann, , op. cit. 71 ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Alcuin to Arno of Salzburg: ‘Epistola vero prior… quaerimonias quasdem habens de moribus apostolici et de periculo tuo apud eum propter Romanos…’, MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 184. As to date, see ibid. IV 308 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁹ Ann. Lauresh. 38.Google Scholar

¹⁰ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 212 (written in late 800 or early 801).Google Scholar

¹¹ Liber Pont. II 7: ‘Qui universi archiepiscopi seu episcopi et abbates unanimiter audientes dixerunt: « Nos sedem apostolicam, quae est capud omnium Dei eclisiarum [sic!] iudicare non audemus… ipsa autem a nemine iudicatur ».’ Google Scholar

¹² Ann. Lauresh, loc. cit. 38.Google Scholar

¹³ Ann. regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, , 112–3.Google Scholar

¹⁴ This discovery was made in a seminar given by Professor Theodor E. Mommsen at Princeton University. It was the starting point that led to a new analysis of the whole problem. The interpretations, of course, are strictly the responsibility of the authors.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The text of the oath follows a text of Bede, , De ratione temporum, and some computing tables which are in the codex: Pertz, , MGH, Legum 11, 15. The oath is in an early 9th century hand: Idem, and Bresslau, H., Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 12, note 3. In the catalogue of the Cathedral Chapter of Würzburg there is a short notice of this manuscript: Serapeum, Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswissenschaft usw. III, No. 24 (1842) 379, 81. The provenance and date of this manuscript are of some importance and will be discussed at a later point in this paper. The authors wish to express their appreciation for the aid of Dr. Hofmann, Josef, Staatsoberbibliothekar of the Handschriftenabteilung of the Library of the University of Würzburg, who described the manuscript and suggested the greater part of the bibliography relating to it in a letter to the authors.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Collectio canonum multorum conciliorum from the church at Freising: Neues Archiv IX, 600.‘It is mentioned by Paul Fournier, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident I 270. Other references may be found in the footnotes to Fournier. Google Scholar

¹⁷ It was formerly of the church of St. Maria and St. Corbinianus of Freising according to a notation of fol. 1; Neues Archiv XXXVII, 576. Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 270, comments upon this manuscript. (The portion of the manuscript containing this oath is not derived from Cod. Monac. lat. 6245: Neues Archiv XVII 294). The codex contains a Collectio canonum which was catalogued originally as Fris. 41: Neues Archiv IX 434. Cf. Ibid. XXIX 277.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The manuscript was written during the pontificate of Paschal II (1099–1118) and was in the Florentine monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli. It can be dated by a list of Popes at the end of the codex, which list is in the same hand as the rest of the codex, and ends with the unfinished pontificate of Paschal II. The title of the work is Liber excerptus ex sententiis canonum sanctorum patrum. It is divided into five books and is a unique manuscript; Fournier, , Collections canoniques II 131. The oath of Leo III is in Bk. II, c. XI, can. 2; von Glanvell, Victor Wolf Edler, ‘Die Canonessammlung des Cod. Vatican, lat. 1348,’ Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Cl. CXXXVI, Abt. II 20. The manuscript has been catalogued in Archiv XII 226. It has been described at length in Migne, , Patrologiae Latinae LXXXI 792.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 363 ff. The work of Burchard dates from 1008–1012; ibid. I 366. There are many manuscripts, but they have never been properly collated; ibid. I 373. For a partial list of manuscripts see Meyer, O., ‘Ueberlieferung und Verbreitung des Dekrets des Bischofs Burchard von Worms,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan.-Abt. XXIV 148 n. 2, and 149 n. 1. Meyer has also worked out the text tradition; ibid. 180 ff. Migne, , Pat. Lat. CXL 609, reproduces the Paris text of 1549 with the two errors of charissimi and dilatare. Koeniger, A. M., Burchard I von Worms und die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit (1000–1025) 6 n. 1, in the Veröffentlichungen aus dem kirchenhistorischen Seminar München, denies the existence of an incunabular text of 1490. Meyer, O., op. cit. 144 n. 2, gives a list of editions and agrees with Koeniger. In any event, a completely new edition was put forth in Cologne in 1560. M^11e Pellechet, , Le Catalogue des Incunables des Bibliothèques publiques de France, does not record any incunabular text of the Decretum; Fournier I 373 n. 3.Google Scholar

²⁰ This text was noted by Fournier II 86. The edition was prepared for printing by Sebastian Brant. It is here treated in this relation for the first time. A copy is to be found in the Princeton University Library. It is actually a text of the Panormia, and we mention it only because of its variants.Google Scholar

²¹ Manuscripts of this are rare. They are: 1. Victorinus (Paris: Bibl. Nat. lat. 14315, provenance St. Victor); 2. Vaticanus 1357 of the 12th century (cf. Archiv XII 227); 3. British Museum Royal 2.D.vii (provenance Canterbury; cf. Brooke, Z. N., The English Church and the Papacy from the Conquest to the Reign of John, Cambridge 1931, 244) which is of the 12th century; 4. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 19 (provenance Lincoln; cf. Google Scholar

Brooke, , loc. cit) which is of the 12th century. Partial texts are in the Colbertinus (Paris: Bibl. Nat. lat. 3874) and the Vatic. Palat. 587. Both of these last include the portion containing the oath of Leo III. There are two editions of this text. One by Jean Dumoulin at Louvain in 1541, and Fronteau's edition, which was prepared by Souchet, a canon of the cathedral of Chartres, on the basis of the Victorinus. This text of Souchet is reproduced in Migne, , Pat. Lat. CLXI 421. In the 18th century a Benedictine of St. Germain-desPrés, Dom Gellé, undertook to re-edit the works of Ivo. Bibl. Nat. lat. 12317 of Paris contains a mass of information which he assembled. Bibl. Nat. lat. 12318 is an annotated copy of the Dumoulin edition of the Decretum which was prepared by this same Benedictine. He has many notes concerning borrowings from Burchard of Worms; Fournier, , op. cit. II 67–8.Google Scholar

²² Manuscripts of this are common, since there are 20 in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and at least 7 in the Vatican Library; Fournier, , Collections canoniques II 85. Brooke, , English Church and Papacy 244 noted 9 manuscripts of the Panormia of the 12th century in England. This points to the great popularity of the work; ibid. 41. The edition of 1557 was by Melchior Vosmedianus, but he knew of only the edition of 1499 (text 6 [13]) and one manuscript of London; Fournier, , op. cit. II 86. The Louvain text is reproduced in Migne, , Pat. Lat. CLXI 1213.Google Scholar

²³ The reference is to De investigatione Antichristi I 57. The oath occurs in the same form in Gerhoh, , Opusculum ad Cardinales, but in the MGH, Libelli de Lite III 410 it is not reproduced on this occasion.Google Scholar

²⁴ The text of Pflugk-Harttung is not in full agreement with that of Werminghoff, but the variants does not seem to be important.Google Scholar

²⁵ The text is not in full agreement with that of Werminghoff, but the variants do not seem to be important.Google Scholar

²⁶ Fournier, , Collections canoniques II 134.Google Scholar

²⁷ Glanvell, , ‘Die Canonessammlung,’ loc. cit. 20 n. 6.Google Scholar

²⁸ See supra, note 22.Google Scholar

²⁹ Fournier, , Collections canoniques II 91 ff.Google Scholar

^* The significant variants are underscored in italics in both versions.Google Scholar

³⁰ This information was contained in a letter from Dr. Josef Hofmann of the Würzburg University Library. See note 15.Google Scholar

³¹ Bresslau, , Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 12.Google Scholar

³² Chroust, A., Monumenta palaeographica, Denkmäler der Schreibkunst des Mittelalters (Munich 1901) Abt. I, Ser. I, Lieferung 5, Taf. 5. This contains a photograph of fols. 88 and 89^r with a paleographic description. Also Jones, C. W., Bedae: Opera de Temporibus (Cambridge, Mass. 1943) 159.Google Scholar

³³ Jones 159.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bresslau, , Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 11–2, 14. Also Chroust, , Monumenta palaeog., loc. cit., the source for Bresslau.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bresslau, , op. cit. 15.Google Scholar

³⁶ According to Dr. Josef Hofmann. See supra, note 30.Google Scholar

³⁷ Bresslau, , Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 12, and, in greater detail, Chroust, , Monumenta palaeog., loc. cit. Google Scholar

³⁸ Chroust, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

³⁹ This is Chroust's hypothesis, and it has achieved almost universal acceptance; H. Bresslau, (Einleitung zu) Annales ex Annalibus luvavensibus Antiquis in MGH, Scriptores XXX, part II, fasc. I 729.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Bresslau, , Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 14–5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Zeissberg, H., ‘Arno, erster Erzbischof von Salzburg,’ Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Cl. XLIII (1863) 309. See, also, Bresslau, , op. cit. 12 and 13 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁴² Hessel, A., ‘Zur Entstehung der karolingischen Minuskel,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung VIII (1923) 212.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bresslau, , Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik 12 n. 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Chroust, , Monumenta palaeog., loc. cit. Cf. Bresslau, op. cit. 15 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bresslau, , op. cit. 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Pertz, , MGH, Legum II 15. Also see Bresslau, , op. cit. 12 n. 3, for a more recent confirmation.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum unter fränk. Herrschaft,’ Zeit, für KG LIV (1935) 229.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ann. regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, 112: ‘… iureiurando ab objectis se criminibus purgavit.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. 113. Cf. Baronius, , Ann. Eccl., ad annum 800, where a form of the oath ex quodam ordine Romane is quoted. It contains the word purgo. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ MGH, Scrip tores I 352 has the same phrase quoted in note 48.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. I 304 where the phrase is again repeated.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. I 38: ‘Sed spontanea voluntate se purificare debuisset.’ Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. I 120: ‘Coram rege et populo Francorum dato sacramento purificatur.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. I 305: ‘Se purificare debuisset.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Liber Pont. ed. Duchesne II 7: ‘… me purificare paratus sum.’ This was said by Leo III prior to taking the oath.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Interestingly enough the phrase, ‘ab his se purgaret criminibus,’ occurs in Alcuin, (MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 179), but the letter, while referring to the problem, antedates the oath itself.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On the nature of the work of Pseudo-Benedictus Levita see Carlyle, R. and A., A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West III (Edinburg 1916) 239–40, and Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 150 ff. The most authoritative work on Benedictus Levita is Seckel, E., ‘Studien zu Benedictus Levita,’ Neues Archiv XXVI 37–72; XXIX 275–331; XXXI 59–139, 238–9; XXXIV 319–81; XXXV 104–91, 433–539; XXXIX 327–431; XL, 15–130) XLI 157–263; and in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. XXIII 269–377; XXIV 1–112. Benedictus Levita I 36 was accepted as authentic by Eckhart, , Commentarii de Rebus Franciae Orientalis (1729) II 3, and it is quoted on p. 13. Cf. Hinschius, , System des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin 1895) V 340 n. 2, and Seckel, , N. Arch. XXXI 70, where it is clearly pointed out that this capitulary is false. The text is quoted in Gratian, , Decretum, Pt. II, C. II, q. 5 can. 19. The phrase, exemplo Leonis papae, qui duodecim episcopos in sua purgatione habuit, is the relevant portion of the capitulary and is included in Gratian. The text of Benedictus Levita I 36 is to be found in Migne, , Pat. Lat. XCVII 708–9. Here, however, the important clause, qui … habuit, is omitted, although included in the notes as a variant. It is found in the excerpt quoted by Baluzius, , Capitularia Regnum Francorum in Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. XVIIbis 1277. MGH, Legum II 48 includes it as a variant reading found in several manuscripts. The rare inclusion of this passage was also noted by Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques,’ Ann. de l'Univ. de Grenoble VIII (1896) 502 n. 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Kirsch, J. P. in Catholic Encyclopedia (New York 1907), art. ‘Benedictus Levita.’ Cf. Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 150 ff., for a study of the capitularies as well as important references.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Fournier, I 380.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. 384–5.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. 381–2.Google Scholar

⁶² Idem. But cf. Holtzmann, R., in Wattenbach, , Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Berlin 1938) Bd. I, Heft I, 150, where it is maintained that Burchard was not influenced by Olbert and the movement in the Rhineland. It is true that Sackur, E., Die Cluniacenser in ihrer kirchlichen und allgemeingeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit bis zur Mitte des elften Jahrhunderts (Halle 1894) II 310 was wrong in believing that Burchard has been educated in Liège (or as others believe in Lobbes), but Boutemy, A., ‘En lisant Sigebert de Gembloux,’ Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire XV (1936) 987 ff. proved only that Burchard was not educated in the Rhineland, nothing more. Boutemy actually attributed the Lotharingian influences in the Decretum to the close relations between Burchard and Olbert. ‘En conclusion, je crois qu'on doit considérer comme faux tout ce qui a été écrit sur les rapports de Burchard avec la Lotharingie, et que les influences lotharingiennes que l'on retrouve dans son œuvre ne doivent s'expliquer que par ses relations étroites avec Olbert, futur abbé de Gembloux.’ Fournier had noticed these influences earlier. ‘Je ne puis m'empêcher de penser que si le Décret décèle, sur certains points, une tendence plutôt reservée à l'égard du pouvoir civil, c'est dans l'influence d'Olbert, inspiré par Wazon, et plus ou moins acceptée par Burchard qu'il faut en chercher la cause.’ Fournier, P., ‘Le Décret de Burchard de Worms,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique XII (1911) 462. Cf. Meyer, , ‘Ueberlieferung und Verbreitung des Dekrets des Bischofs Burchard von Worms,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. XXIV 141 ff. That Olbert aided in the preparation of the Decretum is clear from de Gembloux, Sigebert, Gesta Abbatum Gemblacensium, c. 27 (MGH, Scriptores VIII, [1848] 536) and Idem, Chronographia, a. 1008 (MGH, Scriptores VI [1844] 354). Sigebert studied under Olbert and spent most of his life at Gembloux. He must have been familiar with the life of his teacher. Balau, S., Étude critique des sources de l'histoire du pays de Liège au moyen age, in Mémoires couronnés et mémoires de savants étrangers publiés par l'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique LXI (Bruxelles 1902–1905) 266–7.Google Scholar

⁶³ Gratian, , Decretum, Pt. II, C. II, q. 5, can. 18 (ed. Friedberg, ) under the rubric, ‘De Leone, qualiter semet ipsum purgavit,’ we find the abridged form: ‘Auditum est, fratres karissimi, qualiter mali homines gravia crimina in me confinxerunt. Quamobrem ego Leo, pontifex sanctae Romanae ecclesiae, purifico me in conspectu vestro coram Deo et angelis eius, quia criminosas istas et sceleratas res, quas illi mihi obiciunt, nec perpetravi nec perpetrare iussi. Hoc autem faciens, non legem prescribo ceteris, qua id facere cogantur.’ Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 489–90. St. Augustine, , ep. 78, in CSEL XXIV (1895) 336: ‘Numquid non et Africa sanctorum martyrum corporibus plena est? Et tamen nusquam hic scimus talia fieri… nec in omnibus memoriis ista fieri voluit Ille, qui dividit propria unicuique prout vult.’ According to Gregory of Tours, Gloria martyrum, c. 102 (MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum I [1885] 555 ff.; all works of Gregory of Tours are cited from this edition) the tomb of St. Polyeuctos at Constantinople also had this power. Beaudouin, , op. cit. 469 n. 1 gives further references from Gregory of Tours to other tombs, etc., which had this power.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ MGH, Epistolae I (1891) 127, 461; II (1899) 172, 173, 371.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ MGH, Epistolae selectae I (ed. Tangl, M., Berlin 1916) 45: ‘De presbitero vero vel quilibet sacerdos a populo accusatus, si certi non fuerint testes qui crimini inlato approbent veritatem, jurejurando erit in medio. Et illum testem proferat de innocentiae suae puritate cui nuda et aperta sunt omnia; sicque maneat in proprio gradu.’ This is reproduced with minor changes in Gratian, , Decretum, Pt. II, C. II, q. 5, can. 5.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Gregory I, Registrum II 30 (MGH, Epistolae I 127): ‘Sed, ne quid videretur omissum, aut nostro potuisset cordi dubium remanere, ad beati Petri sacratissimum corpus districta eum ex abundanti fecimus sacramenta praebere.’ Cf. Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 494.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum VIII c. 40 (loc. cit. 352–3). Cf. Vita Eligii 57 (Migne, , Pat. Lat. LXXXVII 580).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. V c. 49 (loc. cit. 241): ‘Et licet canonibus contraria pro causa tamen regis impleta sunt.’ Cf. Gratian, , Decretum, Pt. II, C. II, q. 5, can. 12.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Gratian, , op. cit. Pt. II, C. II, q. 5, can. 19. Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 499 n. 1 and 2, refers to this,Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ann. qui dicuntur Einhardi, ed. Kurze, 161–2. Cf. Mann, H. K., The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages II (London, 1925) 137–8, and Simson, B., Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches unter Ludwig dem Frommen (Leipzig 1874) I 205–6.Google Scholar

⁷² Liutprand of Cremona, Liber de Rebus Gestis Ottonis Magni Imperatoris, cc. 10 ff. (Scriptores rerum Germanicarum [Hanover 1877]). Carlyle, , Medieval Political Theory IV 13 has some commentary on this event.Google Scholar

⁷³ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 500 n. 3. The oath of purgation itself was an ordeal of God. Ibid. 420. Cf. St. Augustine, ep. 78 (loc. cit.) and Gregory of Tours, Gloria martyrum, c. 102 (loc. cit. 555 ff.). By pagan custom the warrior swore upon his weapons. Beaudouin, , op. cit. 412 n. 1. Further examples are to be found in Brunner, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (Leipzig 1892) II 427 ff. In the Christian period it was sworn upon sacred relics or the Bible in or near a church. Beaudoin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 412. The Lex Frisionum XIV 1 (MGH, Legum III 667) details this mode of procedure.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Beaudouin, , op. cit. 500 n. 1 gives several other references which establish this point.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Synodus Altheimensis, c. 16 (MGH, Legum II 557): ‘De purgatione episcoporum. Statuimus propter Dei et proxime et fidelium honorem catholicorum et precipue ob multa scandala eruenda et funditus extirpanda, et perturbationes quae noviter exortae sunt et oriuntur nec non ut omnes sciant, nos episcopos tales Dei misericordia nequaquam esse quales dicimur, exemplum sancti Leonis papae, qui supra evangelia iurans coram populo se purgavit, sequi et imitari salva tamen auctoritate canonica.’ On this see Dümmler, E., Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches (Leipzig 1888) ΙII 606.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen, 104 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ D. 3.3.25; 3.5.30.3; 21.1.15; 43.11.1.pr-1; 43.21.1.pr.; 43.21.1.6–8; 43.22.1.6–8; 45.1.73.2; 46.2.8.pr.; 46.2.14.pr.; 47.10.1.6; 48.1.1.5; 49.14.22.pr.; Inst. Iust. II 6, 8; C. Iust., De Emend.; De Emend. 4; 5; C. Iust. 1.17.1.5; 2.12.6; 8.50.14; 9.16.5; 9.40.1; 9.40.2; 9.42.3.4; 9.49.9.3; 9.60.1; 1.12.1. These passages were obtained by perusal of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. More passages will be available when the appropriate volume of the Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae is published.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 407. D. 22.3.2, Paulus: ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.’ Inst. Iust. II 20 4: ‘quia semper necessitas probandi illi qui agat.’ Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum, 105 n. 1, citing Mommsen, T., Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 436 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Mommsen, , op. cit. 436. The principal source of information regarding this procedure is D. 12, 2. For a summary of the law on this point cf. DS III 772.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In a letter of Alcuin (MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 179): ‘… crimina adulterii vel periurii illi inponere quaerentes…’ Cf. ep. 184: ‘Quaerimonias quasdam habens de moribus apostolicis…’ Google Scholar

⁸² Ohr, W., ‘Zwei Fragen zur päpstlichen Geschichte,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchergeschichte, XXIV (1903) 327 ff. Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum,’ Zeit, für KG. LIV (1935) 256–7 (following Ohr with greater detail), 222 n. 29. Cf. infra, p. 70 and n. 146.Google Scholar

⁸³ Codex Carolinus 94 in MGH, Epistolae III (1892) 634. This is cited in Caspar, , op. cit 256.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Gregory I, Reg. IX 177 in MGH, Epistolae II 172. Also cited in Caspar, , op. cit. 256. Gregory I, Reg. IX 178 (II 173) is another letter giving the same solution to the problem, but it is not cited by Caspar.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Gregory I, Reg. XIV 17 (II 436), cited by Caspar 256.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Caspar 257: ‘… denn auf adulterium und periurium, die Vorwürfe in Paderborn, passen die Schlussworte des Eides « nec perpetrare iussi » nicht.’ Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Gregory I, Reg. II 30; VII 18; XIII 7 (I 127, 461; II 371).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Gregory of Tours, Gloria confessorum, c. 91 (I 806–7).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Gregory I, Reg. II 30 (I 127).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 494. The 11th canon of the Council of Worms (Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. Concil. XV 872), which dates from 868, permits priests and deacons to use an oath of purgation in answer to charges of fornication which could not be proven.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Miller, J., Handbook of Criminal Law, Hornbook Series (St. Paul, Minn. 1934) 472. Cf. Dig. 48. 10.Google Scholar

⁹² Novellae Iust. 123.8 = Julian, , Epitome CXV (CXVI) 10, ed. Haenel, (Lipsiae 1873) 150. Julian's Epitome was composed in the latter half of the 6th century. Vinogradoff, P., Roman Law in Medieval Europe (London & New York 1909) 36. It is mentioned in a letter dating from the pontificate of Eugenius II (824–827). Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. XIV 414. This was noted by M. Conrat (Cohn), Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des römischen Rechts im früheren Mittelalter (Leipzig 1891) I 15–6. It is noteworthy that in the Exceptiones Petri of the 11th century the Novellae of Justinian are cited from Julian's Epitome . Vinogradoff, , loc. cit. For an opposing view which is in error see Duchesne, L., Les premiers temps de l'état pontifical, 3rd ed. (Paris 1911), 174 ff., where it is stated: ‘Des crimes de droit commun, homicide, adultère, lèse-majesté, les tribunaux ordinaires connaissent, quel que fût le rang de l'accusé; tant qu'avait duré le régime impérial, le pape n'avait joui à cet égard d'aucune exemption.’ Duchesne, , loc. cit., goes on to claim that Leo III was not judged because he was a sovereign in the modern sense, and thus he introduces an anachronism.Google Scholar

Actually the belief in the immunity of bishops from secular jurisdiction goes back to a tradition that at Nicaea, on the occasion of a dispute among the clerics, they came to Constantine, and he set a day for a hearing. On that day he took all of the libelli and said: ‘Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, et potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi, et ideo nos a vobis recte iudicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari.’ He then burned the libelli. This tradition was recorded in Rufinus, , Ecclesiastica Historia, X 2 and in shortened form in Socrates I 8 and Sozomen I 17. The version current in the West was obviously the Latin one of Rufinus. Whether the tradition is true or not, it was believed to be true during the Middle Ages. The incident in Rufinus was known to Gregory the Great, , Reg. V 36 (loc. cit. I 318). For an independent statement to the same effect see Lucifer of Caligari (Migne, , PL XIII 826). This last is quoted in Carlyle, , A History of Medieval Political Theory I 178 n. 1.Google Scholar

It is certain that in 355 the Emperors Constantine and Constans gave all bishops immunity from trial before secular judges. Cod. Theod. XVI 2 12 = Brev. XVI 12. Cf. Ferrari Dalle Spade, G., ‘Immunità ecclesiastiche nel diritto romano imperiale,’ Atti de Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Cl. di Scienze morali e lett. XCIX (1939–1940, Pt. II, 234 ff. Also see Gothofredus, J., Codex Theodosianus cum perpetuis commentariis, rev. ed. by Ritter, J. D. (Lipsiae 1736–45) VI 42, 54, 78, where still further passages are cited. Cod. Theod. XVI 2 23 = Brev. XVI 1 3 (May 17, 376) contains an exception to the immunity granted in 355. This passage as well as the Novel of Justinian is ignored by Ferrari Dalle Spade. It is likely that St. Ambrose, ep. XXI 2 (Migne, , PL XVI 1045) was referring to Cod. Theod. XVI 2 23.Google Scholar

⁹³ Capitula de causis cum espiscopis et abbatibus tractandis in MGH, Leges, sect. II, I, ed. Boretius, (1883) 162. Cf. MGH, Epistolae V 607 in which Leo IV requests an investigation of his actions by Lewis Il in 853. For futher examples see Carlyle, , Medieval Political Theory II 262 ff. Cf. the text of Pseudo-Benedictus Levita I 36, which was long considered to be authentic, and which deals with the purgation of clerics. Also see the Vita Eligii 57 (Migne, , PL LXXXVII 580), and Tardif, E. J., Monuments historiques, Cartons des rois (Paris 1866) § 30.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ann. Laureshamenses, loc. cit. I 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ Ann. de l’ Univ. de Grenoble, VIII (1896) 478. See the diplomas cited in Tardif, E. J., Institutions politiques et administratives (Paris 1881) 181. de Coulanges, Cf. Fustel, La monarchie franque (Paris 1888), 339–40. Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. IX c. 32 (loc. cit. 386–7) gives an instance of clerics at a royal tribunal. Also see de Rozière, E., Recueil général des formules usitées dans l'Empire des Francs du V ^e au X ^e siècle (Paris 1859) Pt. II, no. 442 = Marculf I 25. This last is a prologue to such an action and tells who was present.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ann. Lauresh., loc. cit.: ‘… non per eorum iudicium…’ Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 475 n. 2. The formulae of Tours are of the 8th century. Ibid. 461.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Lex Burgundionum, Liber Constitutionum VIII 1 (MGH, Leges, sect. I, v. II, pt. I 49). Cf. Beaudouin, , op. cit. 438 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Gregory of Tours, Vitae Patrum, c. viii, sect. 9 (loc. cit. 699). In this case Beaudouin, , op. cit. 475 n. 2 points out that although the defendant was a Burgundian there is no mention of Burgundian law.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Agobard, , Adversus legem Gundobadi, c. 4 (MGH, Legum III 504) mentions the fact that five men could sit in one room and no two of them would have the same law. McIlwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York 1932) 168 ff. considers the Carolingian period the moment of transition from the personality to the territoriality of law. ‘By the ninth century the change [i.e., to territorial law] is all but complete.’ Ibid. 170.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum,’ 226.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Liber Pont. II 7.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ann. regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, 112–3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ann. Laureshamenses, loc. cit. 38.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ann. regni Francorum 114–5. The passages deal with the trial of Paschalis and Campulus, the leaders in the attack on the pope, on charges of ‘lèse-majesté’. They were convicted, since the purification oath sworn by Leo put them immediately in the wrong. Ohr, , ‘Zwei Fragen,’ loc. cit. 332. They were exiled to Francia, but were freed in 816 when Pope Stephen IV went to the Frankish court to obtain their release. Liber Pont. II 49.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Liber Pont. II 7. The pertinent passages in the oath ('… homines mali… miserunt super me gravia crimina… istas criminosas et sceleratas res, quas illi mihi obiciunt,… hoc propter suspitiones tollendas… facio.’) do not suggest statements about formal charges.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ann. regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, 112. Cf. Ibid. 113.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ann. Lauresh. I 38: ‘Ibi venerunt in praesentia qui ipsum apostolicum condemnare voluerunt, et cum cognovisset rex, quia non propter aliam iustitiam sed per invidiam eum condemnare volebant, tunc visum est… ut… non tamen per eorum iudicium sed spontanea voluntate se purificare debuisset.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum 104 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ What has been urged above is that ‘no one wished to be a corroborator of the crimes’ which, for example, were probably aired fully at Paderborn and during the preliminary inquiries of Charlemagne's missi. Heldmann's objection (op. cit. 104 n. 2) based on the Ann. Lauresh. has been earlier refuted by Caspar (‘Das Papsttum,’ loc. cit. 256), who reaches the same conclusion as in the above text. Cf. Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ 497: ‘… aucune accusation proprement dite, aucun procès en forme ne furent, dans cette circonstance, intentés contre le pape…’ To Beaudouin's query (i'id. 497 n. 1) of the possibility of judgment by a lay tribunal under Charlemagne, since a synodal trial had been ruled out, the negative response has been ably supplied by Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum 112–85, 229–231 (and cf. supra pp. 59–60). Heldmann does not, however, attempt to evaluate the influence of the doctrine, papa a nemine iudicatur. Ibid. 171 ff., esp. 180–5.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Such an oath occurs by agreement of the two parties concerned even in Roman law. Lenel, O., Das Edictum perpetuum (3rd ed.) 150. It also appears in the Germanic systems. Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. IX, c. 32 (loc. cit. 386–7). This reference concerns an assemblage of bishops before whom Brunhilde appeared. It was neither a mallus publicus nor a royal tribunal. Beaudouin 478 n. 2. Gregory of Tours, Gloria martyrum, c. 57, and De virtutibus S. Juliani, c. 19 (527–8, 572) are used by Beaudouin, , op. cit. 468 n. 1, to demonstrate this same fact. The examples of oaths by clerics to dispel rumors are numerous. Ibid. 488.Google Scholar

¹¹² A recent brief sketch of this development in terms of Roman law is by Le Bras, G., ‘Le droit romain au service de la domination pontificale,’ Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 4^e série XXVI (1949) 377 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹³ This has been discussed by Caspar, E., ‘Primatus Petri,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte XLVII, Kan. Abt. XVI (1927) 253 ff. Cf. Jalland, T., St. Leo the Great (London 1941) 64–77, 303 ff.; Caspar, , Geschichte I, esp. 423 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁴ Most trenchantly in his letter to the bishops of Dardania. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum I 664 c. 5. Cf. Caspar II 61 ff.; Jalland, , The Church and Papacy (London 1944) 323 ff. Many of Caspar's views (and thus those of Jalland who follows Caspar) concerning Gelasius have been sharply criticized by Stein, E., ‘La Période Byzantine de la Papauté,’ Catholic Historical Review XXI (1935–36) 132–5. M. Stein has no quarrel, however, with the view which is cited in the text.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Episcopal jurisdiction was, of course, incorporated into Roman law at an early date. C. Th. XVI 2 12,23,41. The limitation of papal and episcopal immunity according to Roman law has already been discussed above, 59 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ A full discussion of the Symmachian trial and the ensuing forgeries is in Caspar, , Geschichte des Papsttums II 87 ff. For criticism see again Stein's article (supra), 136–7.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ The forged precedents which concern popes refer to the pontificates of Marcellinus (296–304), Sylvester I (314–335), Liberius (352–366), and Xystus III (432–440). Cf. Liber Pontificalis I cxxx–cxli.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ The collections which included these forgeries are cited in Maassen, F., Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande (Gratz 1870) I 411–4, 419.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ The propagation north of the Alps in the late 8th century of Italian collections which carried these forgeries has been noted by Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 96.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 179: ‘Memini me legisse quondam, si rite recordor, in canonibus beati Silvestri non minus septuaginta duobus testibus pontificem accusandum esse et iudicio praesentari… Insuper et in aliis legebam canonibus apostolicam sedem iudicariam esse, non iudicandam.’ Google Scholar

¹²¹ Liber Pont. II 7: ‘… ipsa sedes apostolica autem a nemine iudicatur.’ Google Scholar

¹²² A philological and historical study of the development of this concept is Koeniger, A., ‘Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur,’ in Beiträge zur Geschichte… Festgabe für Albert Ehrhard (Bonn & Leipzig 1922) 273–300.Google Scholar

¹²³ This broader interpretation is made plain by Alcuin. Writing to Arno, Alcuin mourned: ‘… ecclesia Christi multis modis inpugnatur non solum a paganis, sed etiam a falsis fratribus… Timendum est non solum hoc impiissimae pravitatis scelus, sed etiam maioris mali prodigium. Dum in capite talia aguntur, quid in corpore fieri possit formidandum est.’ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 173. Cf. ibid., epp. 174, 178, 179, 212.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Liber Pont. II 7: ‘Venerabilis vero praesul inquit: « Praedecessorum meorum pontificum vestigia sequor et de talibus falsis criminationibus, quae super me nequiter exarserunt, me purificare paratus sum ».’ On criminationibus see supra p. 62.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ So suggests Caspar II 315. Cf. Duchesne, L., Étude sur le Liber Pontificalis 209.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ MGH, Gesta Pontificum I, ed. Mommsen, (1898) cv–vii. Cf. the earlier study by Duchesne, , Étude sur le Lib. Pont. 214 ff.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ In 798 in a letter to Alcuin Charlemagne wrote: ‘Melchiades vero natione Afer… hic constituit, ut nulla ratione in prima vel in quinta feria ieiunium quisquis de fidelibus agere praesumeret…’ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 144. This statement noticeably parallels the citation in the Liber (I 168): ‘Miltiades, natione Afer… hic constituit, nulla ratione dominico aut quinta feria ieiunium quis de fidelibus ageret…’ The name Miltiades appeared in some manuscripts of the Liber as Melchiades. Ibid. I 168. Cf. MGH, Gesta Pontificum I 250. Mommsen does not cite this possibility of direct knowledge by Charlemagne. Ibid. I cvi-cvii.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Liber Pontificalis I 303.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. IX 717: ‘ut suspicio removeatur.’ Cf. Beaudouin, E., ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ 491 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ What Duchesne (Les premiers temps de l'état pontifical 175) meant by ‘de précédents plus ou moins légendaires’ were presumably the forgeries of the Symmachus period. He could have scarcely included the Pelagius incident, which he accepted as valid in his other works, specifically in his L'Église au VI ^e siècle (Paris 1926) 227–8. Beaudouin 498 n. 1 is unwilling to admit this precedent since ‘cette histoire était douteuse.’ It is doubtful that an age which accepted the ‘canonicity’ of the Symmachian apocrypha would have possessed such critical acuity concerning this incident. Neither Duchesne's nor Beaudouin's contentions are strong enough to reject the propriety of investigating this as a plausible precedent. The arguments of L. Halphen (Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien 127) and E. Amann (L'Époque carolingienne 159) of the nearly unprecedented nature of Leo's action are based on Duchesne.Google Scholar

¹³¹ See supra note 129.Google Scholar

¹³² Lib. Pont. I 303: ‘… monasteria et multitudo religiosorum sapientium et nobilium subduxerunt se a communione eius, dicentes quia in morte Vigilii papae se inmiscuit ut tantis poenis adfligeretur. Eodem tempore…’ Google Scholar

¹³³ Cf. supra 61 f.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Abel-Simson, , Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches II 231 gave it as the precedent in 1883. In 1935 Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum…’ 227, cited it, but only for its possible importance as an influence, not on its possibilities as the single most important precedent.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 179: ‘Intellego quoque multos esse aemulatores eiusdem praedicti domni apostolici deponere eum quaerentes subdola suggestione, crimina adulterii vel periurii illi inponere quaerentes, et tunc sacramento gravissimi iurisiurandi ab his se purgaret criminibus ordinantes, sic consilio secreto suadentes, ut deponeret sine iuramento pontificatum… Quod omnino fieri non debet, nec ille ipse consentire se quolibet sacramento constringere aut sedem suam amittere… Insuper… legebam… apostolicam sedem iudiciariam esse, non iudicandam…’ Google Scholar

¹³⁶ The weight given to this one letter of Alcuin, possible because of the absence of much other positive testimony, has been striking. While Halphen's assertion (Charlemagne 127) of a ‘supreme humiliation’ of Leo is the most literal translation of Alcuin's testimony there is still a general tendency to conclude on this same basis that the oath of December, 800, represented a return to the earlier plans being conceived at Paderborn. Cf. Caspar 229; Kleinclausz, A., Alcuin (Paris 1948) 258; Amann, , L’Époque carolingienne 158–60; Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands II 100–4. Presumably from this view taken by Alcuin stems the insistence on judicial or penitential purgation. Cf. Calmette, , Charlemagne, sa vie et son oeuvre 126; Jalland, , Church and Papacy 375–6; Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum 104–5. Ganshof, , The Imperial Coronation 21 n. 1 is in complete agreement with Halphen, who presented this thesis of humiliation earlier in his Études critiques 221–3.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Ann. Lauresh., loc. cit. 38: ‘… ut si eius voluntas fuisset et ipse petisset, non tamen per eorum iudicium sed spontanea voluntate se purificare debuisset…’ Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The theory of pressure put upon Leo by Charles is built on sheer hypothesis. For example, see Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum 105 and n. 2, and Ganshof, , The Imperial Coronation 8, 20–1.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 179 (297, ll. 9–12) ep. 181. Heldmann, , op. cit. 91 ff., 98–9. Against this see Kleinclausz, , Charlemagne (Paris 1934) 300 ff., a position which he has since modified in his Alcuin 251 ff, esp. 254–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ His letter written about the end of 800 shows no knowledge of the plan to be followed. MGH, Epist. IV, ep. 212. We have no quarrel with Ganshof's argument that Alcuin planned for the Empire, but we stand unconvinced that he also gave the final papal plan. Ganshof, , ‘La révision de la Bible par Alcuin,’ Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance IX (1947) 18–9. Kleinclausz has argued that Alcuin's silence about the matter in his letters to Charlemagne after August of 799 stemmed from a fear of taking too rashly the part of Leo and so ‘Alcuin ne lui dévoila pas toute sa pensée’ (Alcuin 251). We disagree with this assumption of Charles’ displeasure towards Leo, and we can even counter that Alcuin did unveil the most important features of his thoughts on the papal matter (MGH, Epistolae IV, epp. 174, 178) before he ceased referring to it to Charlemagne in those letters that have survived (epp. 197, 198, 202, 203, 211). Whether Alcuin disseminated his views to Charlemagne through his representative, Candidus (see esp. ep. 211, and cf. epp. 193, 204, 207, 216), or through his colleagues at Rome (cf. epp. 177, 179, 184, 186, 193, 212), or directly to Charlemagne, while the latter was at Tours or when Alcuin went to Aachen in the late spring of 799 (Ganshof, , loc. cit.), does not matter. What does matter is that in his letter of late 800 or early 801 (ep. 212) the abbot shows definitely that he has no other plan save simple restoration. The facts are against any interpretation that would see Alcuin as important in giving the final form to the settlement of Leo's difficulties. Alcuin urged Charles to go immediately to Leo's aid (ep. 174); instead, Charles took so long about going that Alcuin feared that he would not cross the Alps at all (ep. 181). Alcuin wanted summary treatment that would punish the papal attackers and restore the pope (ep. 178); Charlemagne took three weeks to decide the proper course of action, while Alcuin was in an agony of doubt just what sort of action that would be (ep. 212). It comes to this with regard to Alcuin: for the general flavor of the period Alcuin's letters are invaluable; as the source or inspiration for the type of settlement which included a papal oath, he is negligible. We are in thorough agreement that the general desires expressed by Alcuin were attained: the restoration of Leo and thus a strengthening of the Church. All factors point, however, to the conclusion that the mode of solution was decided by Charlemagne,’ who was probably far more aware of the complexity of the problem than his ‘teacher.’ It should not be forgotten that Alcuin always insisted that the affair was for Charles to solve (epp. 174, 177, 178). That this was the way Charles would view it is unquestionable. Charlemagne knew his tasks, royal or imperial, as his letter to Leo III in 796 showed (MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 93). His sharp reprimand of Alcuin less than two years after the coronation (ep. 247) for meddling in an affair that was none of Alcuin's concern was also a reminder that Charlemagne knew the business of being emperor better than the abbot. It seems just as certain that he knew his business of being Defensor Ecclesiae better than his ‘teacher’ in solving the papal problem in December of 800.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Ibid. IV, ep. 218.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Alcuin's own use of ‘purgation’ consistently means to cleanse out existing sin or to drive out evil already present. MGH, Epistolae IV, epp. 131, 171, 213, 243; MGH, Poetae latini, I 160, 252, 258. His use of purifico has the same penitential concept. MGH, Epistolae, IV ep. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ ‘Memini me legisse quondam, si rite recordor, in canonibus beati Silvestri non minus Septuaginta duobus testibus pontificem accusandum esse et iudicio praesentari…’ Ibid. IV, ep , 179.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum…’ 223 n. 30.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ The only letter suggesting that perhaps Alcuin was dissatisfied with the final outcome is one written to Arno after April 4, 801. Although Alcuin knows about the coronation, he chides Arno for omitting certain information ‘de domno apostolico, patre nostro, qualiter longa certatio pastoris et populi terminata esset.’ Later he adds: ‘Simul etiam sollicitus sum audire, quid in tanto tamque praeclaro conventu de statu sanctae ecclesiae ordinaretur et catholicae fidei firmitate.’ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 218. With knowledge of the coronation, and thus of the oath, it is hard to see how either of these statements are oblique cavils against the procedure that Leo followed. Certainly Alcuin, on the other hand, could have been in ignorance of the trial of the principal offenders against the papal See, occurring as it did a few days after the coronation (Ann. regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, , 114), the event which terminated the long contest.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Primarily through identifying Leo's process with a synodal trial. To give validity to such an attempt Alcuin's statement of ‘adultery’ has been equated to ‘simony.’ Justification for such an equation is difficult to find. Caspar's reasoning is inadmissible, 222 n. 29: ‘adulterium, hier wohl nicht im Sinn von Ehebruch, der unter die ordentliche Kriminaljustiz gefallen wäre.’ It simply begs the question without making clear who would have judged the pope even under the new conditions. Certainly it was not Charles. Cf. supra 57 ff. The safest answer to Leo's ‘real’ crimes is still Duchesne's (Les premiers temps 176): ‘Malheureusement nous ne sommes point au clair sur cette question.’ Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Besides the Liber Pontificalis, these documents are the Acta synodorum , ed. Mommsen, in MGH, Auctores Antiq. XII 393–455, and the Fragmentum Laurentianum (Liber Pont. I 43–6).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ For example, the Acta were in the Dionysio-Hadriana, the collection drawn up in 774, while the apocrypha were not. Maassen, , Geschichte der Quellen I 440.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ As suggested obliquely by Caspar, , ‘Das Papsttum…’ 223–4.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ The argument that it was the trial of Symmachus himself is not specifically advanced by Caspar, who points out quite clearly that he finds the relationship in the fact that ‘Über den römischen Verhandlungen schwebte ferner die Erinnerung an den Symmachusprozess in der Spiegelung der symmachianischen Fälschungen…’ ibid. 228–9. The insinuation that it was the trial itself, however, is rather strong. Ibid. 228 (‘Es kam also… wie einst gegen Symmachus…’ ‘Der Ausweg… war gleichwohl erheblich ungünstiger für den Papst als in jenem Prozess von 501’), 255 (‘Die Aufklärung, welche die prozessualen Vorgänge… von den aktenmässig genau zu verfolgenden Verhandlungen des Symmachusprozesses von 501 her erfahren können, ist bisher in der Literatur niemals nutzbar gemacht worden’), 256. Concerning the citation from p. 255, see Duchesne, , Les premiers temps 175–6. In any event, although Caspar avoids immediate identity, it is apparently on his reasoning that this identification has been based in Jalland, , Church and Papacy 376: ‘it was decided on the Symmachian precedent…’ Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ ‘Das Papsstum…’ 226 ff., 256.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Acta, ed. Mommsen, , 429: ‘dominum regem habere potestatem quod vellet faciendi; se interim iustitiae renitentem statutis canonicis non posse conpelli.’ Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Acta 431: ‘Quibus allegatis cum dei nostri obtestatione adstricti et caelesti, perpensis Omnibus quae in causa erant, inspiratione secreti: Symmachus papa sedis apostolicae praesul ab huiusmodi propositionibus inpetitus quantum ad homines respicit, quia totum causis obsistentibus superius designatis constat arbitrio divino fuisse dimissum, sit immunis et liber…’ Authorization for the synod had been given by Symmachus, since that of Theodoric alone was insufficient. Duchesne, , L’Église au VI ^e siècle , 117. But when Symmachus balked, the bishops’ own words to Theodoric were testimony of their difficulties. Acta 423: ‘… maxima quia causa est nova et pontificem sedis istius apud nos audiri nullo constat exemplo.’ Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Duchesne, , Les premiers temps 175–6: ‘L'histoire du procès de Symmaque, en 501, avait montré, trois siècles auparavant, à quels embarras on s'exposait en portant devant un concile une accusation contre le primat de la chrétienté tout entière.’ Caspar 228 recognizes that ‘hier auch nicht, wie einst den Synodalen von 501, ein Gerichtsherr zur Verfügung stand,’ but only makes more puzzling his earlier substitution of simony for adultery if the impasse remained the same. The problem of finding a Gerichtsherr was not solved, whether the trial was by synod or ordinary criminal court.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Both Caspar (ibid. 256–7) and Heldmann (Das Kaisertum 104–5) have found precedents, but they overlooked the essential kernel of Duchesne's argument. It was not a question of any cleric but of a pope, who was not primus inter pares but capud omnium Dei eclisiarum (Lib. Pont. II 7).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Haller, J., Das Papsttum II, 1st part 17–8: ‘neben andern Fälschungen zwei Geschickten erfunden wurden, wo angeklagte römische Bischöfe sich selbst das Urteil… gesprochen haben sollten.’ Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. I 1249–57; V 1070–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Jalland, , Church and Papacy 333.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Marcellinus’ reputation in the early Middle Ages would hardly allow any other line for the forger. Caspar, , Geschichte des Papsttums I 98–9, and Duchesne, , Lib. Pont. I lxxiv. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. I 1257: ‘Nemo enim unquam judicavit pontificem, nec praesul sacerdotem suum, quoniam prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam…’ Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Three other cases of popes accused of criminal deeds, who ‘are purged’ (purgatur), are recounted in the Liber Pontificalis I 212, 232, 260, all of them dating before Leo's pontificate. There is no question here of oaths since all of these cases have a usage of purgo meaning only ‘to exculpate.’ A full discussion is in Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ loc. cit. 491 n. 2. This general meaning of purgo is discussed supra, 56 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶² For example, see the Admonitio Generalis, esp. cc. 58, 60, 78, 82 (MGH, Leges, sect. II, I 52–62). Cf. Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 91–6, esp. 93, and Tellenbach, G., Römischer und christlicher Reichsgedanke in der Liturgie, in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. XXV (1934–35) esp. 24–5.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ He defended it in the Libri Carolini (MGH, Leges, sect. III, II suppl. 20–21) although this book itself was a good example that Charles could also quarrel with an occupant of the Roman See on points of doctrine. Martin, E., A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London 1930) 222–51. For other statements of this primacy, cf. Admonitio Generalis, loc. cit. c. 61, and the Synod of Frankfort (MGH, Leges, sect. II, I 73–7) 73 (‘Coniugentibus, Deo favente, apostolica auctoritate atque piissimi domni nostri Karoli regis iussione… ’), and ibid. c. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ See particularly Charles’ letter to Leo on the respective duties of the divinely instituted king and pope. MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 93. Cf. Heldmann, , Das Kaisertum 48 ff., 231232, and Tellenbach, , Röm. und christ. Reichsgedanke 42–3.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Alcuin to Charles: ‘Hoc mirabile et speciale in te pietatis Dei donum praedicamus, quod tanta devotione ecclesias Christi a perfidorum doctrinis intrinsecus purgare tuerique niteris quanta forinsecus a vastatione paganorum defendere vel propagare conaris. His duobus gladiis vestram venerandam excellentiam dextra levaque divina armavit potestas.’ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 171. Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 250 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Nor did Alcuin, anxious as he was about the danger menacing the Church, expect Charles to apply such curbs to his royal action. Alcuin's answer concerning what Charles ought to do shows this. Ibid. IV, ep. 174: ‘Ex his omnibus plena tibi scientia data est a Deo, ut per te sancta Dei ecclesia in populo christiano regatur, exaltetur, et conservetur.’ Cf. epp. 177–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Ep. 212 (end of 800 or beginning of 801). Alcuin cites from Romans, xiii 1, implying that Leo, instituted by God, cannot but be upheld by men. ‘Miratusque sum quomodo quidam sapientes surda pectoris aure apostolicum legissent proemium: « Non est potestas, nisi a Deo… ».’ Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Ibid.: ‘… vix convenienti sanctorum ex diversis mundi partibus magistrorum turba impie dissensionis scissura piae caritatis resarciri potuit filis. Insuper, sicut audivi, quod sine dolore cordis non dicam, ipsos male inter se dissentire magistros.’ Cf. supra, note 123 for other references.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Duchesne, , L’Église au VI ^e siècle 228: ‘Les Romains furent satisfaits [after Pelagius swore his oath], le clergé se rallia et le nouveau pape put gouverner son église comme si rien ne se fût passé.’ So, Ann. Lauresh., loc. cit. 38: ‘Et ipso sacramento expleto, incipiebant illi sancti episcopi cum universo clero seu ipso principe Carolo cum devoto christiano populo ymnum: « Te Deum laudamus, te Deum confitemur »; quo perexpleto, et ipse rex et universus populus fidelis cum eo dabant laudem Deo, quia ipsum apostolicum Leonem et sanum in corpore et in anima custoditum meruerunt habere.’ Cf. Liber Pont. II 7. Alcuin to Charles: ‘Quae optime novit… quomodo ille pius pastor, divina ab inimicorum manibus liberatus protectione, securus in sua sede deo Christo deservire valeat.’ MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 178.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ We find ourselves more in agreement with Hoechstetter's view (Karl der Grosse, König, Patrizius und Kaiser als ‘Rector Ecclesiae’ 52) that Charles ‘handelte als Defensor Ecclesiae und wurde als solcher gesehen’ than with the opinion that Leo ‘was but a toy in the hands of the Frankish king and of his counsellors’ (Ganshof, , The Imperial Coronation 21). We have earlier given our objections to the use of Alcuin's letter of August of 799 to Arno of Salzburg as proof of this second interpretation (supra, 67 ff.), the basis on which Halphen (Études critiques 251–3; Charlemagne 127), who is followed by Ganshof and others, built his thesis. To other assumptions that Charlemagne took a harsh view with regard to Leo we remain unconvinced. Hauck's assertion that Charlemagne ‘auf die sittliche Integrität des Papstes nicht unbedingt baute’ (Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands II 100 and n. 4; cf. Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 250–1) seeks its support in the letter sent by Charlemagne to Leo after the latter's accession in 796 (MGH, Epistolae IV, ep. 93). To argue that Charlemagne's exhortations to Leo that he live fittingly and thus be a shining light to all men is information concerning Charles’ attitude in 799 and 800, namely that ‘sein Urteil über Leo von Anfang an weniger günstig [war] als das Alkuins; er vertraute der Unschuld des Papstes nicht’ (Hauck, , op. cit. II 102), is thoroughly improbable. Ignoring any question of what Charlemagne actually knew of this man Leo in 796, it is sufficient to point out that any sampling of the letters of this period shows that no one ‘had any fears to give a lesson to anyone… on religious duties’ (Kleinclausz, , loc. cit.). In the letters of Alcuin admonishings of this nature are common whether Alcuin is writing to brother clerics or to royalty. See MGH, Epistolae IV, epp. 173, 178, 182, 184, passim. In that didactic age such injunctions to do God's work can hardly have been meant as more than salubrious counsel, not as implied criticism.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ That is to say that the wording of the oath itself and the act of purgation implied one thing to the Franks and were understood quite differently by the Romans. But even this seems difficult to maintain with the diversity in the Frankish annals themselves whether to use purgo or purifico to describe the oath. Cf. supra, 59 f.Google Scholar

¹⁷² See supra, note 77.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ C. Iust. I 61 = C. Th. XVI 6 1–2 (a. 377) conflated: ‘Antistitem, qui sanctitatem baptismatis illicita usurpatione geminaverit, sacerdotio indignum esse censemus; eorum enim condemnamus errorem, qui apostolorum praecepta calcantes Christiani nominis sacramenta sortitos alio rursus baptismate non purificant sed incestant, lavacri nomine polluentes.’ C. Iust. I 3 30 (a. 469): ‘Cesset altaribus imminere profanus ardor avaritiae et a sacris adytis repellatur piaculare flagitium. Ita castus et humilis nostris temporibus eligatur episcopus, ut, locorum quocumque pervenerit omnia vitae propriae integritate purificet.’ Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Tibullus II 1 17; Lucian I 593. Cf. Lucian VIII 518 for the use of purgo in the sense, ‘to exculpate.’ Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ St. Augustine, Civ. Dei 6 2 (vota purgatiora); Doct. Christ. 6 2 (purgatissima ecclesia).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Corp. Gloss. IV 153 5 (Glossae Codicis Vaticani 3321). For the date cf. Corp Gloss. I 118.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Ibid. IV 382 50 (Glossae Abavus). A manuscript of the 9th century of the Glossae Abavus is extant.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Corp. Gloss. IV 558 19 (Codex Affatim). It was collected after the 8th century. Ibid. I 440. We possess a 9th century text. Also ibid. IV 153 37 (Glossae Codicis Vaticani 3321), 7th cent.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ 1. Lex Frisionum XIV 1 (MGH, Legum III 667). 2. Lex Langobardorum, Liber Papiensis, act. 6 (MGH, Legum IV 481). 3. Ibid., Edictas Rothari 196 (loc. cit. 47). 4. Lex Langobardorum I 91 = Rothari 12 (loc. cit. 14). This same text occurs in the Liber Papiensis (loc. cit. 295). 5. Lex Langobardorum 20 = Luitprand 21 (MGH, Legum IV 117). In the Liber Papiensis (loc. cit. 417) this same text is to be found. It dates from 721. The phrase used is purijicet se ad legem Dei. 6. Leges Saxonum 52 (MGH, Legum V 76). And cf. (7.-9.) Lex Visigothorum VI 12, IX 14, 19 (MGH, Leges sect. I, I 249, 354, 356) where the word purgo appears in place of purifico .Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Lex Frisionum XIV 1 (MGH, Legum III 667).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ MGH, Leges, sect. III, II 804 from the year 840. Ibid. 722 from the year 836. Ibid. 283 from the year 813.Google Scholar

¹⁸² MGH, Leges, sect. II, I 313 of the period 814–827 (purificans corpus animamque suam). Ibid., sect. III, II 213, a. 800 (purgat se secundum legem). Ibid. 280, a. 813 (purgat peccata), (purgentur peccata). Ibid. 282, a. 813 (a peccato purgari). Idem (purgare se peccatis). MGH, Leges, sect. II, II 217, a. 895 (ut purificationis mereatur culmen). Council of Worms of 868 in Mansi, , Amplis. Coll, concil. XV 872 (iuramento se voluerint purificare).Google Scholar

¹⁸³ MGH, Leges, sect. II, II 415, a. 845. Ibid. 350, of ecclesiastics, we see the phrase, ad famam suam purgandam. Cf. ibid. 351; ibid. 182, a. 847; ibid. 189, a. 852. The last citation deals with adultery and we should expect purifico from the context, but purgo is used. Ibid. 264 of the year 853; ibid. 344, a. 873 (where we should expect purifico); ibid. 45, a. 845 (erga ecclesiam suae opinionis malam famam legaliter purgare cogantur). That the general meaning of the word, purgo, persisted is shown by ibid. 316, where purgo is used in the sense of refining silver.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ MGH, Leges, sect. I, I 4, a capitulary of Henry I of the year 932 with the words, iuramento se expurgando innocentem se esse demonstret. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ John XIX to Odilo of Cluny in Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. XIX 418; Silvester II to Azolinus, Bishop, ibid. XIX 241: ‘Sed testes mittendi sunt, qui et tuum languorem confirment, accusatoribus tuis respondeant et legibus te expurgent.’ Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ See supra, note 182.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Gregory VII, Registrum I 78 (MGH, Ep. sel. II, 111): “… quaedam vero denegavit et in hunc modum se purgando removit.’ Cf. the next two notes.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Gregory VII, Reg. II 56 (loc. cit.83); Reg. 1 16 (loc cit. 26); Reg. VII 16 (loc. cit. 490).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Gregory VII, Reg. I 48 (loc cit. 74).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Gregory VII, Reg. I 29bis (loc. cit. 49); Reg. I 74 (loc.cit. 106); Reg. I 34 (loc. cit. 55). Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ In cases involving the laity the purgator was always assisted by compurgators. The number of compurgators varies, but it was normally twelve. Beaudouin, , ‘Remarques sur la preuve,’ 413. One can find as many as 72 compurgators. Lex Ribuaria 11, 12, 16 (MGH, Legum V 216–8). This may be the explanation for the phrase, libra occidua, found in the report of the forged Synod of Sinuessa. Mansi, , Amplis. Coll. concil. I 1253–4. That this phrase meant 72 is evident, but that this number may have been been chosen because it was the greatest number of compurgators in Germanic law has not been recognized. At Sinuessa 72 witnesses for the prosecution against the pope were required. Also see Gothofredus, J., Codex Theodosianus cum perpetuis commentariis, rev. ed by Ritter, J. D. (Lipsiae 1736–45) IV 265, where a number of early synods are cited in which 72 or 70 bishops were present for the trial of their confreres. [Cf. Traditio 3 (1945) 200 f. Ed.] Google Scholar

¹⁹² Gerhoh, , Liber de investigatione Antichristi I 57 (MGH, Libelli de lite III 369 f.): ‘Leo quoque iniuste infamatus, ne super eo scandalum pateretur ecclesia Dei, cui tamquam rationali celo debebat innocentiam, publice conscenso ambone coram rege ac princibus omnique frequentia populi cum XII astipulatoribus episcopis famam suam iuramento purgavit.’ Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Lex Frisonium XIV 1 (MGH, Legum III 667).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Fournier, , Collections canoniques I 381–2.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ MGH, Leges I 41; MGH, Diplomata II, pt. 2 401.Google Scholar